Misplaced Pages

Conclusion: In a policy vs guideline debate, the latter is defeated, particulary for naming convnentions, otherwise my argument on the viewpoint of Eastern Ukrainians would fully justify a crusade of changing Ukrainian names into Russian...however I, contrary to your misleading belief did come here to do something constructive, (which explains my barnstar count vs yours) and such details are not my priority. However, off the record, I do like to make a positive contribution to wikipedia by giving the correct name, by following the naming conventions policy;)--Kuban Cossack 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP

I invite t'committee to scrutinise the following:

• Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AlanBarnett (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)

Also

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (see enforcement log)
• Comaze (talk · contribs)
• HeadleyDown (talk · contribs)

I am wondering if we have some socks here, but in any case it looks like the mediators have either left or been sidelined. I don't know what, if anything, to do about this. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Committee? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's faux-Yorkshire t' is an abbreviation for the; hence "t'committee has decided". Ah'm English, tha knows :-) Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

T'in't int' tin. Proto::► 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Department Store Article Vandal

A user who keeps switching between the two IPs 72.82.212.127 (Talk) and 141.150.233.178 (Talk) has been committing persistent sneaky vandalism on the Lord & Taylor article and to a lesser extent against other department store articles. From their edit histories, the two IPs appear to be static ones since the same edits keep coming from them. They've both gotten up to level 4 vandalism warnings in the past few days. The substance of the vandalism is difficult to detect if you, as I, are not familiar with the subject. If, however, you compare the citations that he/she has falsified to the actual citations in the article, you'll see that the information he/she is posting is incorrect. This person has never complained about our constant reverting of him/her either in edit summaries or the talk page, so I have no idea what his/her agenda might be. I've asked for semi-protection of the article and was denied. I posted 72.82.212.127 on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was again denied. So here I am, asking for help. Thank you very much.--Elipongo 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stand by, looking into it... Sandstein 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's really quite clear-cut: two IPs regularly vandalising this article even after final warnings. I'd give the more recent IP a short block and temporarily semiprotect the article, but as some other admins have apparently declined to ... what do you others think? Sandstein 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to semi-protect if there are only two IPs vandalising, I would just block the IPs for a day if they continue. Prodego 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also block both IPs, starting with a 24 hour block. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm blocking the recently active 72.82.212.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24h, just message me if the vandalism continues. Sandstein 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will.--Elipongo 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages used for password swapping??

I just deleted the talk page of LilSWIMMY lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:LilSWIMMY_lol), which only consisted of notes like "My friend just got on her username is Cindy1234 and her password is 123456abc". The user has no other contributions. This is obviously not what talk pages are for, but is there anything else we can or need to do here other than delete this page? Kusma (討論) 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming you haven't already, you could block all of the accounts listed under the "Public accounts" section of the blocking policy. —bbatsell ¿? 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I could only log in to one of the claimed accounts and have blocked it. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You logged into someone else's account? I know you did it to test whether the password was real, but still, that feels wrong somehow... Carcharoth 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive username

• DevilsSin666X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per WP:USER policy. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

just for future reference - what's offensive about it? --Charlesknight 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably unnecessarily inflammatory towards religious folk who really have nothing better to do than get offended by certain numbers. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree... I'm not religious, but I just blocked a "jesus", "DevilsSin666" is little better. Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Jesus is a common hispanic name. Trollderella 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Baby jesus" isn't, Trollderella. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has the right explanation, but I'm not impressed by his personal attack: "... who really have nothing better to do than get offended ...". Misplaced Pages should have a NPOV, right? As of 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC), Devils' block log doesn't show that he's been blocked yet. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been, I fixed the block log. NPOV applies to articles, though WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA could be relevant. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. BTW, I was referring to the username as being not-WP:NPOV, not the user's behavior, which was under WP:NPA. And please, I'm getting a little sick of coming here, reporting a username which is POV, and having to answer 3 questions before it is finally blocked. Thanks for blocking it, anyway. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't think a little oversight and discussion is a good idea? We are talking about indefinitely blocking an account, after all. That shouldn't just be automatic; you should expect discussion. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't personally attacking anyone (my comments certainly weren't addressed to anyone in this thread). I'm just pissed off at hyper-religious folk in general who go insane over a simple number. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personbally, I wouldn't have blocked that user name indefinitely. Unless it is flagrantly offensive (such as User:Fuckbeans or User:Jimbo eats poop out of dead men's bums), or an obvious sneaky impersenation of an existing user, WP:USERNAME suggests maybe trying to talk to the person first and suggesting the change their username. That is clearly not happening enough. There are too many admins blocking for usernames when they should try actually communicating. Proto::► 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the tendancy to issue indefinate blocks as a first resort, even when policy advises against it, is disturbing. Trollderella 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef Block

I just blocked 70.48.205.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for making legal threats on quite a few user pages, see Special:Contributions/70.48.205.239. Posting this notice for review. --Trödel 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP posted on the talkpages of almost all of the active ArbCom members, and I suspect it might be Canuckster himself (or at best, a meatpuppet). Any thoughts? --physicq (c) 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IPs should not be blocked indefinitely, unless they're open proxies. I suggest Trödel shortens the block to a week, or something similarly effective but temporary - otherwise somebody else probably will. --Sam Blanning 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic—a different person is going to have this IP tomorrow. Where can we put this information in big, glowing letters for the several admins who appear to have little understanding of Internet technology or Misplaced Pages blocking policy? —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the policy re IP's figured I could always reduce it - and will - just want to get some more feedback first. I know my IP is leased for 6 months, so a 1-3 mo block does not seem to be out of line, IMHO. --Trödel 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Id say a 1 m block would be more than enough to seee if this user is a serios conributor to WP or not--Light current 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a waste of effort on your part and liable to failure. It would make more sense to just block it right the first time. Use whois; most IPs on Misplaced Pages are dynamic. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, actually, it's pretty basic that a significant number of IPs are statically assigned, or only semi-dynamically (that is, they stay the same for months on end). I've had the same IP address now for months, so if I was anonymously posting all sorts of threats and harassment and you only blocked me for a week, I could easily continue it again the next week. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Ottawaman/Canuckster/etc. However, he uses dynamic Bell Sympatico IPs and comes straight back with a new IP soon after being blocked. For this reason, I've always tried to use short blocks. I think even a week long block will have collateral damage. Sarah Ewart 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He can just disconnect his modem and get a new IP, possibly right away. You would need to block 70.48.204.0/22 to be effective. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he just used a completely different IP address, so we may have a problem here, or he may be utilizing open proxies now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me more like false accusations and uncivil behavior by Ewart followed by abusive cover-up activities by her supporters. Why were her false accusations archived and protected? Even she herself could not provide evidence to support them? TomBlackstonez 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,here's the personal attack comments that were archived.

"I must say that I agree with Guinnog that the downside completely outweighs any minor positive contributions Ottawaman might make. If he was going to become a productive editor, I think he would have done so by now. He has shown here and on Wikinews that he has no interest in following policies and simply has an anti-American, anti-Ignatieff agenda to push. An interesting block log and edits from the same ISP . Sarah Ewart 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - - I'd like to note that the vicious attack above was entirely unprovoked. Sarah said she would gladly unprotect my user space. She did not. She said above "And I'm warning him now that this is his last chance"; now she says she does not want to give another chance; she accuses me of having an "anti-american agenda" which is a blatant lie and she makes all kinds of other crazy accusations. The anti-american slur is particularly libelous and, these days, a potentially harmful accusation to make. I did say that Ignatieff's allegiance to the US should have been in his article but at most I am anti-Bush foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah thinks Cindy Sheehan is also anti-american. It is shameful that here on Misplaced Pages I am having to defend my political opinions in this way. I came to this noticeboard to ask for help with the userspace protection issue. That has been settled by an admin. who unprotected the space. I then tried to remove this incident report that I placed here but was told I could not. If Sarah (or anyone else) wishes to be making ongoing and false accusations I am willing to engage in dispute resolution but I do not think this is the place. In the meantime I hope her supporters here will encourage her not to continue with the libelous namecalling. Canuckster 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I didn't unprotect your pages because you didn't actually ask me until after I had gone offline and when I came back and received your message, it had already been done. I never said I would "gladly unprotect user space". What I said was I would have if you'd bothered to ask me. Please stop twisting my words. As for whether you get a second chance, I'm leaving that in the hands of the community. As for you being anti-American, the evidence is in your edits. Sarah Ewart 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - Please show us my "anti-american" edits. I'll call that bluff. Canuckster 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - I've no interest whatsoever in what you want and I'm not going to be trawling through the contribs of your various accounts for diffs. You've wasted more than enough time over the last six months and I'm not wasting anymore on you. The edits made by your various sock puppets have indicated a deliberate intent to smear Michael Ignatieff and a decided anti-American slant, something which contributed to you being community banned from Wikinews. Sarah Ewart 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" TomBlackstonez 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from putting "new user" on his userpage and talkpage, these are User:TomBlackstonez's first edits. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, pointed that out above. Bloody socks. – Chacor 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem deflections aren't helpful to the discussion guys. 65.95.150.180 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the recent edits from this account, User:Roman Dog Bird qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. Despite the extensive vandalism from this account, and despite the fact that Kevin Federline is now fully protected primarily to prevent further vandalism by this particular account, Husond removed the report regarding this account from WP:AIV with the summary "rm Roman Dog Bird, inactive". However, since vandalism by this account isn't reported in a timely manner, it will never be blocked unless it is blocked when it is inactive. Furthermore, it seems far preferable to block the accounts responsible for vandalism than to fully protect articles, such as Kevin Federline, due to vandalism. John254 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a vandal-only account, there are some valid contributions despite all the vandalism. Warnings are fair enough, and in fact the user hasn't vandalized since the last warning. --Húsönd 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Roman Dog Bird hasn't vandalized since his last warning -- but only because he keeps receiving more and more warnings instead of being blocked. He received a test2 on the 15th , a bv on the 15th , at test3 on the on the 16 , and yet another test3 on the 17th . Whatever constructive edits Roman Dog Bird has made, they are far outweighed by his extensive vandalism. Since his account is older than 4 days, Roman Dog Bird can vandalize semi-protected pages. It would be advisable to block Roman Dog Bird, to prevent him from engaging in even more vandalism. John254 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, sorry) I would agree with a block in this case. His edits are too far apart for any short term block to affect him in any way. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, and this far outweigh contributions like this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The user is clearly causing more damage than benefit, I agree. But still, he abid by the last warning, that makes a block rather unfair and unnecessary atm. I think it's preferable to closely monitor him and block immediately if he vandalizes again.--Húsönd 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird might not be blocked immediately after his next act of vandalism. If an editor gives Roman Dog Bird yet another test3 after his next act of vandalism, and I request that Roman Dog Bird be blocked, say, sixteen hours later, we're going to be back here debating whether Roman Dog Bird should actually be blocked, because, after all, he did stop after his last warning, and the account is presently inactive. This sort of nonsense could continue for weeks, unless Roman Dog Bird is actually blocked, irrespective whether he presently appears to be active, and whether he has vandalized after his "last" warning. John254 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If this user's misdemeanors are not detected in 16 hours then he probably isn't causing damage enough to have someone on RCP notice him. Once again, I reiterate that the user is respecting a last warning that was given to him and therefore a block is unnecessary at this time. Just keep an eye on him, watchlist his talk page and report swiftly further actions. --Húsönd 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird's edits are being noticed and reverted, long before 16 hours. The problem is that editors are simply issuing additional warnings each time he vandalizes, instead of immediately reporting him on WP:AIV. Roman Dog Bird has been slipping through the cracks for far too long, and should really be blocked indefinitely. John254 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have put him on the RC channel's blacklist, just so we can see if he continues to edit maliciously. Any first sign, I will contact someone to block him indefinitely for persistant vandalism (if it is necessary).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Húsönd 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block?

One anon user 24.5.111.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dropped an indefinite block message on another (apparently moderately useful) anon, 172.150.25.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as its second edit. Now it is just possible that this is an admin who forgot to log in (or block). But if not, it should be dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be no, not an admin. 1st edit vandalism and 3rd edit a modification of the resulting vandalism warning .--Húsönd 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock

I have kept these linked sections under separate headings to preserve direct links. --bainer (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After Thebainer blocked Husnock for a month, Husnock unblocked himself six minutes later, and clained that Thebainer was abusing his admin powers. I don't know who's right or wrong here, since I'm not involved, but I definitely think this needs to be reviewed. Scobell302 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A month? For what? Regardless, Husnock should not have unblocked himself. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Thebainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for those who are interested. I'm doing more investigation. --Cyde Weys 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I've been a little slow in drafting my message - see the section immediately below this one. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A short time ago I blocked User:Husnock for a period of one month for disruption. The block arises out of a comment made last week by Husnock, that was misinterpreted by User:Morwen as threatening. A lengthy discussion ensued on the Administrator's noticeboard. Several editors and administrators, including myself, made an effort to reach an amicable end to a situation which clearly began with a string of misunderstandings and had snowballed from there. Husnock was resistant to efforts to peacefully resolve the dispute, but ultimately a resolution was reached and the community moved on, regarding the dispute as closed.

Recently Husnock has been further pursuing the matter by posting an message on his userpage in which he continued to maintain that the situation was something else than a misunderstanding, which is what the community had recognised the incident as. Even allowing Husnock some latitude to post a reasonable message stating his reasons for taking a wikibreak, this edit signalled to me an intention to pursue the dispute and retreat from the peaceful conclusion reached several days ago. After warning Husnock several times that I and several other members of the community consider this pursuit of the issue to constitute disruption within the meaning of the blocking policy, Husnock once and then twice replaced the message. As a result, I blocked Husnock as outlined above.

Husnock has now unblocked himself. I seek the advice of the community on this matter. --bainer (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an emergency desysopping is in order. Husnock has already left Misplaced Pages "under a cloud" (as they say), and I see no possible good, and great harm, if he is left with the bit. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hunsock apparently uploaded dozens, possibly hundreds, of copyvio images, giving them fake "public domain" tags. --Cyde Weys 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are these images you speak of? -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The image list was made by User:Durin, I am one of the mediators trying to figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of military insignia from a number of different countries marked {{PD-USGov}} that need re-tagging, and a handful of imaginary {{NoRightsReserved}} claims that need cleanup. Jkelly 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I suppose it has something to do with User:Husnock/Durinconcerns (redirected from User:Husnock/Durinharass). -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not about to take Husnock's side on unblocking himself, I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.

1. If User A claims that User B made a death threat against them when they didn't, and the only response User B gets is that he should apologize (for something he did not do), do admins see it disruptive that someone takes a vast amount of offense at this?
2. The block on Husnock was for disruption. "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages." Can someone tell me what exactly he did to make it difficult to contribute to Misplaced Pages with a message on his user page?
3. If several people consider something to be disruptive, yet others do not, is the fact that someone finds it disruptive enough to block them for a month? --Elaragirl 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get question #1. Could you please clarify? --physicq (c) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking what the parameter is for a death threat accusation. If someone accuses me of making a death threat when I didn't, I see that as disruptive. I see that as basically a very vicious form of attack and rules-gaming. If I get upset over this, and people are telling me I'm in the wrong for getting upset, I want to know if the act of being upset is disruptive, because this is what this is all about. Husnock didn't feel he had made a death threat and was vastly aggravated that no one appeared to care about his side of the story. His being upset lead to the message on his userpage that people appearantly feel is disruptive. --Elaragirl

I'm kinda new to this husnock stuff, only running into him after nearly deciding not to upload a number of military badge images, before I realized the copyrights on the images we had was questionable... he's uploaded huge numbers of images with vague PD tags and from reading the history he's responded with a mixture of evasion, hostility, and implausibility to every question about the origins of the images. The images I asked him about have been available from a collectors website since the mid 90s.. After reviewing the recent history, I'm shocked that he hasn't been permbanned over the copyright issues alone, much less the other problems with hostile behavior. Regardless, self unblocking except in the case of obvious error or testing should simply not be performed. --Gmaxwell 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, desysop him. Unblocking yourself in a dispute is basically slaying your own bit. I'm just wanting a clarification on WHY he was blocked in the first place, because the reasoning above basically reads "I blocked him because I didn't like the message on his userpage".--Elaragirl 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if the block was warranted, but unblocking oneself is no good. He should have posted on the unblock mailing list or e-mail another admin if the block was not valid. HighInBC 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats my thought.. the more incorrect a block the easier to get it undone. So there is simply no reason to self-unblock... as a result a self-unblock is disturbing evidence of a lack of self-control which we shouldn't accept from any admin. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, but is anyone going to answer my questions on the block or this disruption? --Elaragirl 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.

Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along (). This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at WP:RFAr. Proto::► 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Proto for what it is worth. It's sad this whole situation got to this point over what was a simple misunderstanding that could have been diffused early on with a simple apology. It's even sadder that this is still being discussed when the last AN/I thread was left at a place where everyone could have just chalked it up to a misunderstanding and moved on. I will also say the Dan Rappaport message/Husnock login is a rather curious postscript to this whole thing and unfortunate because it didn't have to get to this point.--Isotope23 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Husnock

Gang, what just happened on my user page is absolutely outrageous. Three to four days ago I left editing Misplaced Pages articles due to some serious issues with the site. I have stayed around only to answer talk page messages and participated in an AfD by invite. The issues which caused me to leave the site were a real world Wiki-staking incident where someone sent e-mails out into the real world trying to find out who I was and then sent a semi-threatening e-mal to my wife. The second incident involved a user stating I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That was resolved but still disturbed me greatly. So, I departed editing Misplaced Pages articles and posting a statement as to the reasons. Bainer then arrives and removes these statements from my user page, in effect censoring what I ahd to say. I explained to him these were not personal attacks, but simply my stating why I had left. I also was confused why he removed the Wiki-stalking statement since that didn’t even reference an actual user, just an event that had taken place in the real world. I restore my user page, Bainer removes the material again and then proceeds to block me for an entire month. At this point, not only has he removed material from someone else’s user page but he has blocked another user which he was currently involved in a dispute with, clearly something no one should ever do. My user page is not making personal attacks, it is stating why I am leaving this site. For a user to remove this material and then block me when I had a problem with that is against everything we stand for here. And, P.S.- what is this business about uploading “fake” images? I’ve done no such thing and that is a baseless accusation. Someone who states such a thing without evidence should be doing an investigation as it won’t be impartial. P.s.- to Gaxwell, I answered your query as to where the images came from and gave you a name and phone number to verify this Whats the problem? -Husnock 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But why did you unblock yourself? HighInBC 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know not under what circumstances, atrocious or no, you were blocked, but this I do know: you are not to unblock yourself under any circumstances. It's not that hard to grasp. --physicq (c) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the GMaxwell answer . I have no idea why he would say such a mean thing, I answered his question with all civility. Yes, I probably shouldnt have unblocked myself but bainer should not have blocked me in the irst place as he was the other party in a dispute. The proper thing would have been to post here and let others deciede. I apolgize to the Misplaced Pages community for unblocking myself, I saw it as a self defense measure against someone who abused thier powers. -Husnock 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the assertion that I was involved in a dispute with Husnock, people should be aware that I first encountered this matter on WP:AN and attempted, as a neutral intervening party, to achieve a peaceful resolution to the issue. Please see my extensive attempts to mediate the issue last week both directly with Husnock and on WP:AN. --bainer (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my rudeness, but if your noble (no sarcasm intended) attempts at mediation have failed, then we must bring this issue back to the community (aka this board) to discuss alternate solutions. --physicq (c) 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Once thebainer engaged in revert warring on Husnock's user page, it was time to bring the issue to the community, because however noble his intent, he no longer had the veneer of a completely neutral third party. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. If Husnock had reaosnable grounds to dispute the block, there are several ways of challenging it or requestign unblocking. Self-unblocking is not a good response. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume your comment here was mislocated. This part of the thread was about whether one should have support of the community or not before blocking. It was not about Husnock's reaction or his trend of bad behavior, which I think we all agree was improper. NoSeptember 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... blocks aside, looking through his uploads, there are a lot that are obviously tagged wrong or just out and out copyvios ... it's the "if it's on the internet, it must be free" thing. Image:Wesley.gif, Image:SavanFlag.gif, Image:GermanKnight.JPG --BigDT 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those examples is from 2005, before I even knew what I was doing and that is outside the issue we are discussing. if my image uploads are wrong, please fix them. Durin and I have alread buried the hatchet. -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If administrators really weren't to unblock themselves under any circumstances whatsoever, the MediaWiki software would be configured to prevent them from doing so. A blocked administrator could unblock an IP address to remove an autoblock, but he/she would not be permitted to unblock his/her own username. That being said, it would seem that self-unblocking would be properly limited to truly extreme circumstances -- i.e. if one administrator uses a bot to frivolously block a large number of administrators, preventing unblocked administrators from responding to the situation, the blocked administrators may unblock themselves. Such a justification for self-unblocking does not seem to be present here. John254 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, let's not harp upon Husnock's unblocking of himself. He has already apologized. While I do not condone such a move, the unblocking is peripheral compared to other concerns. --physicq (c) 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the policy and, yes, everyone is right. I should not have unblocked myself. I formally apologize for this, I should have posted "unblock" to my page. If someone wants to reblock me, I will follow this course. However, in the policy it also syas that when you are in a dispute with someone you shouldnt block them to keep them quiet or to stablize your own version of a pge, etc. Prior to my reviewing the policy, I thought my self-unblock was justified as a response to an unfair block in the first place Apologies all around. Lets get back to the issue. Am I allowed to have my departure statement on the talk page? And, if not, why? -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if it disrupts the community and the building of the encyclopaedia, fails to assume good faith, or doesn't meet any other Misplaced Pages policy. No comment whether that is the case in this instance... Daniel.Bryant 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-unblock is a nice trap door to detect people who are for whatever reason insufficiently qualified to continue holding adminship. As far as the good-by message.. there is a reason it's called a "right to vanish" and not a "right to salt the earth". --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, Your hostility with respect to copyright wasn't towards me, but rather it was towards Durin who asked you questions about the same images and you treated him with large amounts of hostility. I've looked into your claims more, but I'm simply having a hard to believing you: you somehow managed to upload the images in the same order/groupings that is used today on the website which claims to hold the copyright, while the archive.org history of the site makes it clear that the images were added over time and that the grouping evolved. Your claim that even if they images are the work of Mr. Ploessl that he has no copyright in them is incorrect (he can hold the copyright on the sketch of the images even if the underlying artwork is the PD work of the US Government). Furthermore, the number you provided me with is simply a generic number to a HR department. They don't know anything about CDs of images of emblems, nor are they authorized to give me any useful contact information for the name you mentioned.

I hadn't responded to you any further because you'd told me your version of events, so I had nothing more to say to you... and after reading the history of your interactions with Durin, I must say that I was afraid to say anything else. I'd like to assume good faith but a view of your recent history and your decision to unblock yourself (even after 'leaving') is making that rather difficult. --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Durin and I have made peace (I think), and the core of my upsetness was that during that dispute there was some real, very scary, wiki-stalking going on where my wife was getting strange e-mails threatening her. Its been resolved, but it would upset anyone. As far as these images to which you refer, I've already said I got them from our image database at NPRC which has links to IOH and Randolph AFB among dozens of others. The CD I spoke of I got from Pat Ratzel. 314-801-0800 isn’t a Human resource number, its a customer service number. Did you call it and actually speak to someone? Depending on who it was, they should to at least have been able to tell you images of military medals and badges are free to use by anyone, and they should have been able to give you the number for either Randolph or the Air Force Liaison Office. If I was there, I could investigate what you were told and by who but am deployed. And, yes, I should just leave this site but this is all a bit unsettling. It seems the original problem with a block by another user in a dispute who censored my talk page has now mutated into discussions about being truthful about where these images came from. I can only state what I know. -Husnock 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that things are indeed more calm than recent history had caused me to believe. I don't want to think you are dishonest, and as you said.. you can only tell me what you know. It's also the case that most of the Federal Government does a terrible job with respect to keeping track of copyrights internally(recent conference on this subject). So it's not super helpful that when the guy at the website complained that you just reverted him :) . It's possible that someone grabbed all those images off the fellows website and stuck them on a CD. I'll get to the bottom of it, and indeed I did call the number and confused them completely. I'll try again during the week and see if I have better luck. --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As Greg says, self-unblock is a nice trap door to snare admins who don't know better than to not unblock themselves. I'm sure a surprising number of admins would fall for it. It would have been better to bring the discussion about days old disruption here first, allowing Husnock and anyone else to discuss it before the block was made. Husnock has acted poorly for weeks, and thebainer did the community no favor by blocking first, talking later. NoSeptember 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He did talk first, which has caused Husnock to claim that he shouldn't have blocked as a 'party to a dispute'. Which way should it be? --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I mean talk it out with the community, there was no cause for bainer to take the community's burden upon himself when there was no immediate urgency. They already engaged each other in a revert war on Husnock's user page. It was time for bainer to pass it on to others to avoid the appearance of a one on one dispute. Blocking an admin for a month without any open community discussion should raise a red flag almost every time. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want some insane person or admin-bot to block everyone, requiring developer intervention with madness in the meantime; automation means that the one becomes as strong as the many. You also do want a person who accidentally blocks himself to be able to undo it. —Centrx→talk • 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, if self-unblocking was really totally unacceptable, change Mediawiki to make it impossible. If it isn't, then don't start complaining about the principle, look into the circumstances. Personally I have tried several times to make an absolute declaration that WP:IAR does not apply to self-unblocking for blocks placed by other users, and it gets reverted. That means that the community believes it can be acceptable, in certain circumstances. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pray enlighten me as to what was really special about this occasion? The community trusts few of the users as administrators for a reason; that is they are expected to exercise good discretion and show understanding of the policies and the process. There is a very good reason why the policies and the guidelines exist. Husnock has demonstrated in a very exemplery way how admin accounts can be abused. This warrants an immediate de-sysop; unfortunately many of the stewards are either offline or idle. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about this particular occasion. Just commenting on the principle of self unblocking. The password sharing is another issue and it's pretty much unique in my experience for an admin account to have a password released. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing that gets me about all those conversation is that Husnock is claiming his right to leave a message explaining why he departed - thing is - he never departed and it seems to be using that position as a bit of a shield for leaving his message up. --Charlesknight 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read his talk page, although he has 'left Misplaced Pages', he reserves the right to 'continue to answer questions on the talk page, vote in certain high profile AfDs, and revert vandalism against articles'. Proto::► 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was added after I challenged him about the message but his responses are still coached in "I left because" which frames the debate in an entirely different manner to "and that's why I'm just semi-active". --Charlesknight 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Misplaced Pages

Dear Misplaced Pages-

My name is Dan Rappaport, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel attached to CENTCOM currently serving in the Middle East. In real life, I know who Husnock is and he is a pretty great guy. I’ve been on Misplaced Pages off and on over three years and I saw this conversation after hearing about it from Husnock. I had at first sent a strong worded letter to “Morwen” who started this thing by saying Husnock wanted to kill her. It was pretty sad that this was removed from your website as an “attack” when my point was to show to Morwen how ridiculous it was to state that a United States Naval officer, stationed in the Middle East, would want to kill her. Also, it was a slap against Husnock. The man is married and has a kid on the way. Why the fuck would he go to England to hurt some girl because she posted some crap about Star Trek? Right after all this, Husnock decides to leave this site but gets beat up even for that. His webpage is messed with, blocked from the site, and it seems the same people are showing up over and over again to run him down and say he’s wrong. Now, lets take a look at what’s happened in the last few weeks. My understanding is limited to what I can find, but here goes: 1) Husnock gets told by a guy named Durin that he’s been uploading bad images for months and he will be investigated and then he is asked to hand over addresses and phone numbers of everyone he’s talked too, including his dead grandmother or something like that. That same day, he learns that someone’s sending e-mails trying to find out who he is and then a week later his pregnant wife gets threatened when’s he overseas. Yeah, that would piss me off, too. 2) Okay, so the Durin affair ends and then he gets drawn into these articles about Star Trek. I took a look and it seems he came around about those. I don’t know your policies that well, but the whole point with that nonsense appeared to be references being called false and then, yeah, people got pretty mean with Husnock. I saw a couple of edits where he’s called names and one where he’s called crap. So, point 2, yeah that might piss me off too. 3)Now, here we are with this whole death threat bullshit. Husnock threatened no one. He told a punk kid in the UK that she had no right telling a United States armed forces member that he couldn’t edit this site. Good for him. The girl then posts for anyone to see that Husnock threatened her life and she now fears him. News flash since folks don’t know, that drew real world attention and Husnock was talked to by some authorities, including NCIS. After all, a citizen of the United Kingdom posted on a public website that a U.S. Naval Officer had threatened to kill her. Maybe you all don’t see how serious that is but I do and, you bet, that would ROYALLY piss me if it happened to me. 4) Last we come to Husnock leaving. He says he’s leaving, he tries, but again gets beat up since he came back to vote on one of your pages and then someone screws with his webpage. He tries to stop them, gets blocked, and then here we are all, beating him about it, going back to the death threat issue, and saying things about those stupid images, half of which I think Husnock deleted from your site. So, where do we stand? I think you guys have treated this fine man like total shit. But, hey this is a website, not real life, and I talked to Husnock at lunchtime he was cool with everything. He knows this is not real, do most of you? He is gone now, he really is not coming back. I just wanted to stop in and share my thoughts. I hope everyone is proud of themselves because you really have run him off for good. That’s my two cents. God Bless the USA. -Dan

P.S.: Husnock gave me his account password so I could post this letter since half the ip addresses in Dubai are blocked by this site. You guys should really do something about that. No one can log on or create a new account. -Dan

I haven't followed Husnock issue but something should be done re Dubai IPs. I don't know about Dubai ranges so if there are people who know about that, please take some action. -- Szvest - 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If the above is true, this is outrageous. Husnock, you and only you were given access to admin privileges, because it was believed that you could be trusted with the privileges. You were sysopped, your friends were not. You should know that as an admin, you should be very careful with giving others access to your account. Even if you believe they can be trusted, you are still giving them access to an admin account. Aecis 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the above is true. The account isnt compromised since I can change the password and I am leaving anyway. Please consider this as part of the conversation on the issue. It isn't vandalism and it isnt trolling. Its just someone wanting to post; I was kind of shocked to see the letter reverted in less than a minute. Also, the Dubai ip thing really needs to be looked at. Noone can create an account from an American computer system right now as there are so many ip blocksthat it makes it impossible. Thank you everyone. -Husnock 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you can change the password. You have given another person access to your sysop-privileged account. That is very serious. You are constantly doing something wrong and then covering up with some lamehearted excuse. You apologized for Morwen's feelings about your statement, but you only begrudgingly expressed something of an apology for the statement itself. You unblocked yourself, which is a grave abuse of admin privilege, and again gave something of an apology for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, and which you should have known not to do. Now this. What's next? Aecis 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I complained about the intimidating tone of User:Husnock's statement, on Talk:Starfleet Security at 10:30. He complained about me feeling threatened by his intimidating statement to WP:AN at 10:45. NCIS must be really efficient, or perhaps you are distorting the order of events as well as leaving personal abuse against me?

By the way, yes, we have a serious issue here if an the password to a (supposedly) inactive admin account is known by another person. Morwen - Talk 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving away your password to a supposedly inactive admin account, which for an account that left a week ago, has made a heck of a lot of edits and blanking of the warnings on the account's talk page, is the final straw. This account needs to be desysopped immediately. Proto::► 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The account is compromised at the user level (leaving aside, the story as presented makes makes no sense at all. Why has Husnock given his friend Dan the password as he seems to be either sitting beside him or is in direct contact with him and could have posted the material himself) and should be desyopped straight away. We wouldn't want any "accidents". --Charlesknight 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm already asking on IRC. No active stewards though, it seems... – Chacor 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him on the grounds that his account is compromised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still useless right now because he could easily do what he did to get in trouble the first time. – Chacor 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on WP:BN asking if a bureaucrat can step in. Proto::► 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the kind of way most Lt. Colonels I have met ever talked...something just seems a tad bit off here, folks.--MONGO 12:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have ever met is an Australian Naval Captain and an Australian Naval Commander, but I would have to agree with you. Viridae 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock has requested unblocking. As I am involved, I won't handle the request, so could an uninvolved admin please do so? I think it is Very Bad Faith Indeed to insinuate any remote possibility that this Lt Col is an imaginary character Husnock has made up to say what he likes with yet another excuse - 'he' didn't say these things. Proto::► 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's ample precedent for blocking a compromised sysop account (see, for example, HolyRomanEmperor). It is because there could be two people using the account that it has been blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HRE was not a sysop. NoSeptember 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah, you're right. My point stands though--we've blocked compromised accounts before. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite. Also, it is interesting that User:Husnock said about this chap on December 13, that "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", and now they are good friends? Morwen - Talk 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an easy way to find this out: a check of the IP Husnock edits from. He claims to be editing from Dubai, so his IP should be consistent with that. If they resolve to e.g. New Zealand or Greece (to name two examples), something is fishy. Aecis 12:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that a checkuser won't out his IP address. If the Arbitration Committee or a steward needs the information it can be supplied to them (of course, most arbs have checkuser themselves). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we definitely did have some abuse left on my talk page by a .ae address, so I don't know what that is supposed to demonstrate. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this all looks bent to me. --Charlesknight 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You fear sockpuppetry? Aecis 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if Sockpupperty is the right word but even with AGF hanging over my head - I find the constant changes in story ("never seen this IP before" to "we have no idea who that IP could be" to "actually it's my good friend Dan") , the swift changes between Husnock, "dan" and then back to Husnock and all the other bits of the story odd to say the least. Would it be straining AGF too much to say that I would not find it a surprising turn of events to find out that "Dan" does not and has ever existed? --Charlesknight 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP address that left the message on Morwen's talk page is a very active one, as most of the traffic from Americans in Dubai routes through that IP address (nb, I just undid my block a few days early), and so probably most Americans editing in Dubai would resolve to that address, as it is a shared IP address. That won't, unfortunately, prove anything. Proto::► 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to us on the #wikimedia-stewards channel. We won't desysop anyone unless the admin permissions will be abused. I don't know the previous accidents with the user Husnock, and my personal feelings on this are that nothing bad happened, since his admin powers haven't been abused. Since Dubai is blocked, this was (not the only one, but it was) a way to overcome the ban. In any case - please move this request to your local Arbitration Committee. Once again - if Husnock or his friend will abuse their admin privilages, please contact us - we'll desysop him for precaution right away. Datrio 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we begin a formal ArbCom request now? That may be best. – Chacor 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to wait. -- Szvest - 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been a series of issues and lack of successful dispute resolution to justify a case starting whenever someone wants to start one. NoSeptember 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, the procedures that the Stewards follow here are correct and appropriate. There is no immediate emergency that calls for bypassing ArbCom. ArbCom can act fast if they needed to (with an injunction if necessary). NoSeptember 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone even read my letter? Does this website have any kind of understanding? Yes, I am a real person and yes Husnock gave me his password so I could post my letter. If anyone wants my e-mail address Ill try and find some way of getting it you so you can see I'm flesh and blood. I was trying to help Husnock. He is now kicked off your webpage forever? What kind of a website is this. -D. Rappaport, CENTCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)

Note that the above IP, which resolves to the UAE, was also used by General Tojo. Aecis 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP is used by just about every American in the UAE, so that proves nothing, I'm afriad. Proto::► 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it proves that they apparently have nothing better to do at CENTCOM ;) Aecis 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this is low Wikidrama and needs to be curtailed before it gets any more absurd. Husnock's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to be a sysop any more, so he should just make the usual statement on his Talk so we can get the sysop bit disabled, it's then up to him whether he leaves or stays around. It's be a shame ot lose him but clearly RL is too much right now so a Wikivacation looks like a great idea; he can reapply on return to normality (whatever that is). I don't feel we're doing Husnock or ourselves any favours right now. I don't think we should burn his boats for him, he's obviously been a good contributor in the past, let's just quetly walk away shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  I would agree, but where did Husnock say this? I haven't seen him volunteering to give up his sysop status. Also, he already went on a Wiki-vacation five days ago when you last suggested it. This is Husnock on his vacation. Proto::► 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to have been a lack of proportion/judgement from a number of those involved in these events, particularly given the self-identification of one as a senior company grade and one as a field grade officer. A holiday and/or a new start seems like a good idea to clear the air. David Underdown 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Much of this reads like a comedy of errors, but there is also consistently a deeper issue. I can see Husnock being offended at the idea that he meant to harm someone... but consider his failure to understand how his threat (and it WAS a threat, of something) could be taken that way short-sighted. I can see Husnock's desire to 'clear his name'... but think that continuing to grouse about it on his user page, after everyone had agreed he didn't intend a death threat, was petty and vindictive. I can see Husnock feeling that edit warring on his user page and a one month block were inappropriate (indeed, I agree)... but can only see it as a failure of good sense to then unblock himself. I can imagine that Husnock claimed to 'not know' Dan Rappaport to avoid accusations of meat-puppetry... but giving out his password even to this 'close RL friend' was incomprehensibly unwise. I understand Husnock not knowing all the intricacies of copyright... but not his failure to drop everything and review/resolve any potential violations when the first were pointed out. I can come up with reasonable / non-malicious motivations for all these things... but a solid and trustworthy admin this is not. --CBD 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what is going on now? These is talk of taking it to WP:RFAr, and User:Husnock's unblock request has been declined on the basis the question will be answered there. Morwen - Talk 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if someone thinks Husnock needs to be desysopped, they will start an ArbCom case request. Otherwise, once any account compromise issues are resolved, Husnock will be unblocked and be free to proceed as normal. NoSeptember 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving out your admins password is really bad judgement, it does not matter if you trust the person, the community decides who is trusted with admin powers. Out of line. HighInBC 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The community decides who is trusted with admin powers, but the community (including admins) cannot desysop. That has to be done by stewards, who generally only act in an emergency or on instruction from a wikipedia's ArbCom. Sadly, it looks like this whole case will now have to go to ArbCom, even if Husnock voluntarily gives up his admin bit. There are several important issues here that I, for one, would like to see ArbCom rule on. Also, I think that Husnock, even if he doesn't seem to be listening to the concerns of the community, might react better if ArbCom ended up saying that he was wrong to do many of the things that he did. So the only question now is whether anyone is going to file an ArbCom case? Can uninvolved, third-party observers file an ArbCom case because they want the issues resolved at that level, or does it have to be the partioes involved that file the case? Carcharoth 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally it would be one of the people involved. I'm pondering raising it myself, although that I wasn't directly involved in any of this recent actual blocking/unblocking drama/wheel-warring drama. Should I do this or should I leave it to one of the users who tried to talk to him? It really is a shame it got to this stage. Morwen - Talk 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would probably be for Husnock to request de-sysoping, be unblocked, leave as he intended, and then come back when/if he wishes to. Failing that an ArbCom case seems the only option and thus I have been drafting one - even though I am a largely uninvolved party. --CBD 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to finish that off and then pass to me and we can submit it jointly, perhaps? I find your characterizations of the sitatuion above, and on Wednesday, close enough to the situation as I see it that this seems sensible. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can file a case. If someone else doesn't do it, I probably will. (edit conflcit, CBD is working on one) The shear number of disruptive discussions he has been involved with recently, over image deletions, Star Trek articles and his attacks on Durin for "outing" his personal info (when Durin merely pointed out that his name tag was legible on his self-portrait) have convinced me he does not have the temperment to be an admin. Giving out his password (or sockpuppetry, whichever is the case) is just the last straw. Thatcher131 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

16:27, 18 December 2006 Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Husnock@enwiki from sysop to (none)

Desysopping performed. — Werdna talk 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that Husnock has been de-sysoped I am going to unblock so that he may take part in the arbitration case... though that actually may not be needed unless he wishes to contest the de-sysoping. --CBD 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He does not need to be unblocked to participate in arbitration. A blocked user may email statements, etc. to the arbitration committee's mailing list, to any arbitrator, or to any arbitration clerk, and they will be added to the case history. Unblocking him should be decided upon based on an estimation of his likelihood to cause further disruption, and not to defend any purported right he has to participate in arbitration (as he has none: nobody has a guaranteed right to participate in an arbitration case). Kelly Martin (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A valid argument but... already did it. Further, I was not invoking some 'right' or rule in citing 'so he can participate in the ArbCom case', but rather noting my own motivation. The 'rule' for unblocking is simply the fact that the preventative purpose of the block no longer exists... Husnock's admin abilities are gone and therefor the danger of them being used by someone who has not been authorized to have them is now nil. He was earlier blocked for 'disruption', but that was IMO a questionable case and notably not restored by any admin even though Husnock had removed the block himself. As to hypothetical future disruption... I go with 'assume good faith' and deal with it IF it happens. --CBD 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether this Colonel is a real person or not, the entire issue boils down to the fact that an admin account's password has been compromised. That account must be indefinitely blocked and the admin bit removed immediately. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CamelCommodore

CamelCommodore (talk · contribs)

Anyone like to look into the possibility that User:CamelCommodore is a sockpuppet of User:Husnock; see: --Moby 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Judging by that edit, that is. Perhaps a checkuser? Or is that really required now?. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be hard/impossible to prove conclusively just read the above discussions most of the US personnel in the region have access through a common IP address Gnangarra 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he is a "retired US air force officer", then he won't be coming from .ae. this is a rather odd third edit, though. Morwen - Talk 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the same type of personallity. HighInBC 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer this dif for consideration , the user does seem to be hinting at some improper covert purpose. - WJBscribe  16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but there are alot of people with hidden agenda's, different personalities from my perspective. HighInBC 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be someone who is trying to get someone else in trouble, mind. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever this guy is, he just posted a talk page message on my talk page after I made my Arb Com statement. I dont know who this is and I told him to stay the hell out of this. -Husnock 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hum he must have just been hanging around all day. I've excluded most of the points - most occur in a certain time period - guess when that is... --Charlesknight 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend CheckUser. Moreschi 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked CamelCommodore as a trolling-only account. After doing so, I saw this checkuser report from Dmcdevit. Thatcher131 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to indef block CC, but Thatcher131 beat me to it. This if taken as 'truthful' would make the account a disruptive sockpuppet of Husnock... and if taken as falsehood would make the account a disruptive impersonator of Husnock. This situation has gotten so bizarre that I won't even try to guess and just leave determination of which to any checkuser... but either way someone needing to be blocked. --CBD 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE Case

Recently a user was indef blocked due to a problem with his name. I feel that it was completely uncalled for and a violation of WP:BITE. Quite clearly the user had no clue what a talk page was all about, he only once made an attempt to use one, nor did he know what the edit summary was; but was a very good contributor in a specialised topic. The actual allegations that his username is offencive should be reexamined as it was clearly the fruit of over cautiousness. Please unblock and find some way to apologise so he knows about it. Thanks frummer 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's last edit was 2 Dec, and many editors talked to him/her about changing the username before the block occurred. Email is not enabled, and there hasn't been a message on the talk page in over two weeks. In all probability, the editor moved on to a new account. It's unfortunate that a great contributor was blocked, but I don't see anything to indictate the editor was bitten.--Kchase T 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, the above editor has persuaded me to leave this offer to unblock on Jewish's talk page, conditioned, of course, on him going to WP:CHU with me to get this all settled.--Kchase T 09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why this username is deemed offensive though? It simply denotes that the user is jewish...? Viridae 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. I mentioned ANI thread to the blocking admin. I have no opinion and no problem w/ anyone unblocking User:Jewish, though please look further down this tread, first.--Kchase T 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:U prohibits usernames dealing with "religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". I would assume that it was blocked under this section. -Hit bull, win steak 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That prohibition is because wearing such a username might be taken as claiming to be "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which would be blasphemous to their believers. Claiming to be "Jewish", "Muslim", "Christian", or "Buddhist" does not commit such an offense, and should not be prohibited for that reason. – SAJordan _contribs 02:54, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Please note that some other usernames beginning with "Jewish" — JewishKaveman, Jewishgenius, Jewisharific — have been used and remain unblocked. Other such names have existed, some offensive (due to the rest of the name), some not. Why is the single unattached word "Jewish" now so controversial? Are all these "Christian" usernames blocked, or all these "Muslim" usernames, or all these "Buddhist" usernames? There's no username block on User:Christian or User:Muslim or User:Buddhist. So what's wrong with being User:Jewish? – SAJordan _contribs 20:27, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This brings up an issue which I believe needs addressing. Blocking users with usernames that could be deemed offensive (excluding trolls) happens very frequently and at the judgement of of the blocking administrator only. I believe (and I have been guilty of this myself) that far too often, a potentially useful user with a username that is deemed mildy offensive is blocked without warning within seconds or miutes of registering. Indeed, with some of the obscurely offensive usernames that get reported to WP:AIV sometimes, it seems like some of those trawling the user creation log are playing a giant game of whac-a-mole. I propose that except in the case of usernames that are deemed wildly offensive (including but not limited to swearing etc), the user with the offending name has a politely worded template added to their talk page with a request to change their username (or just get a new account) and newbie friendly directions on how to do so. This template should also have a category in it or some way for a bot to organise them so any usernames that have not been changed after a set period (say a week) get dumped to another page where they can be blocked by admins and the {{usernameblock}} template be added. If this proposal gains some momentum/support, I ask that someone with skills mock up an appropriate template to fit the above. It would also be good to approach one or more of the bot owners with bots that currently complete tasks similar to that which I have outlined and ask them if they would be willing to add this task to their bot. (once again - none come to mind, but I am sure someone will think of some)

To expand on the "whats deemed offensive" issue. We need to establish some sort of consensus as to how far we take the potentially offensive boundaries. Misplaced Pages is not censored, so it could be argued that outside of the troll accounts like Christians are fags (talk · contribs), no good faith account that doesnt violate the other WP:USERNAME rules like non-commercial or non-latin characters (for example) should be blocked for having an offensive username, even if they are encouraged to change it and don't. However as current policy precludes "Inflammatory usernames" we need to work out some sort of system to determine what exactly is inflamatroy and what is being over-sensitive or rigidly enforcing the rules for no good purpose. Viridae 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The indef-blocks with no prior warning have a bite-like effect and are unnecessary in most cases. I'd also extend that to other criteria such as the non-Latin characters one (that rule will need to be reviewed soon anyway, once we have wikimedia-wide single usernames). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any figures on the "very frequently"? Last time I did any looking into this the number of blocks based on username over a 24 hour period was less then 1% of all accounts created. I didn't look further to exclude the very obviously offensive, but I would guess that the borderline cases were a small fraction of that. --pgk 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the BITE issue; WP:USERNAME already says but should be emphasized: Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Misplaced Pages:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith. —Quarl 2006-12-18 10:11Z

Not sure I entirely agree, without reference to this precise case: Immediately reverting a new users edits may scare someone off, a bite like effect, if that edit is unsourced rumour in a BLP situation it is exactly the right thing to do, similarly a truly inappropriate (offensive, confusing etc. etc.) is still inappropriate no matter who owns it or how long it has been created gor. As with WP:AGF, WP:BITE isn't a call to look the other way. To my mind immedidate (i.e. point of creation) blocking in many cases is preferable to blocking after an edit or two, provided the situation is explained and creation of a new username simple, then it isn't the rather emotive "Biting", but good housekeeping. --pgk 10:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think immediate blocking to be in order, because I think it quite probable that a user so encumbered upon his initial attempt to contribute (under an account) to the project will not readily appreciate why his account has been blocked and will be unlikely to return. Except in such cases as a username is plainly inflammatory and disruptive (e.g., User:Jewish people suck ass, as against User:Jewish), it is, I imagine, as Viridae and Quarl seem to suggest, appropriate that we instead welcome the user and suggest concomitantly that his editing might go more smoothy were he to change his username. If an editor whose username is troublesome is indeed here to disrupt or in any event to contribute other-than-constructively, such tendency will be borne out in his reply to such a suggestion or in his editing, and we ought not to risk the loss a prospectively good contributor because we apprehend some nebulous tendency to disrupt in his name and (as sometimes seems to happen) impute to him malign motive. If an editor contributes constructively but is particularly unwilling to change his username and if such username has seemed to be disruptive or inflammatory, surely an WP:RfC#NAME should be in order, and surely a constructive editor will straightaway change his username upon the community's expressing a preference for such change. Joe 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a User:Christian, which doesn't seem to have caused any controversy. (Of course, in that case "Christian" actually does seem to be the guy's real first name.) If "Christian" is acceptable as a username, why not "Jewish"? I don't really like the whole "offensive usernames" business where admins take it on themselves to decide the inherently subjective issue of which usernames might possibly offend somebody. *Dan T.* 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Jewish and Christian is that Christian is a first name, and that this user Christian probably had no religious connotations with his name. What I wonder though is what will happen to a User:Osama, which is a common Arab name. Aecis 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for blocking users based on usernames that are offensive (e.g., User:Nigger, even though it might be a self-identified black, User:God, or even User:Osama), perhaps we ought to give a rehash on whether we want to block any user with a religious part of their username unless the editor is patently editing against that perceived bias. For example, I believe User:Allah was around to push anti-Muslim propaganda. But if User:Jewish is indeed Jewish, then he/she should not be blocked. Patstuart 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Pat here. -- Szvest - 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I did not comment on this particular block of this particular account, but merely on the semantical perspective of a point raised by Dtobias. I have no opinion on this particular issue. Aecis 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I did a brief survey once and found some interesting history behind some well-known names: User:Carcharoth#Test. Carcharoth 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is place the "Your username must not contain" section of the signup page above the form for entering username/password and add a message saying that accounts with inappropriate usernames will be blocked indefinitely without warning. (Looks like that's one for the devs). As it stands, it barely shows up on the 1024 * 768 screen without scrolling. MER-C 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone's interested, the user has since gotten a new account, Kahanechai (talk · contribs). I am guessing that they're the same person based on the contributions. Khoikhoi 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)n

Srebrenica massacre sockpuppetry and edit warring

Two things here. CheckUser shows that KarlXII (talk · contribs) is the same as Osli73 (talk · contribs), who is already on Probation and revert parole from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo. This means he has been in violation of the revert parole multiple times, aside from and 3RR evasion or tag teaming with the sock. I'd like some admins to figure out the enforcement on this. Also, can we please get some eyes on the incessant edit warring at Srebrenica massacre? It looks like both sides are out of hand, so some admin attention would be useful. Dmcdevit•t 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by admin User:Srikeit. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet and blocked Osli73 for a week for direct violation of the arbcom ruling. I think a month's ban from editing the Srebrenica massacre would also be in order. Would like to hear what others think about that. --Srikeit 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A week's ban, at least, for Osli is appropriate. Given the crapstorm going on at Srebenica massacre at the moment, I would suggest someone being prepared to protect it if they can't calm down, and come to some kind of consensus before unprotecting. Proto::► 10:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets indef blocked

Following the first incident and the RCU evidence i've blocked indef the 2 socks User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman and User:Englishpound. Those accounts were created to be used at Ireland/Northern Ireland/England topics. I've also given a 24h block for main account of the puppeteer User:Sion glyn. Please extend if you feel it is the right action. Please note that apart from sockpuppeting, Aperfectmanisaenglishman's userpage contained provocative comments against a few nationalities which i had removed earlier after discussing that w/ him. -- Szvest - 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starblindy

I was a user with a history of great edits that I thought were helping and constructing wikipedia. A short message to starblind saying I thought a block of a previous user might of been a bit harsh and he decides block me without reason. I then post a message on his talk page and he refuses to respond. I want my good history and credibility back. I won't ever edit wikipedia again unless I get my user back. I can't have whenever I make progress being blocked as a sockpuppet. It just is counter productive. If I didn't know better I would think starblind is trying to stop anyone with apposing views gain a reputation to become administrator. User:Starblindy. Please respond with your comments.--12.16.126.98 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you only have twenty edits. Your block was in accordance with our username policy. Aecis 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 of those were creating articles. I hold to the point that no one has ever confused we with anyone else. Am I expected to go through every user and try and come up with an original username. Also he sights me being a sockpuppet of Enknowed or something. Is asking him for an explanation of why he blocked a user all of a sudden proof of being a sockpuppet with no other evidence.--12.16.126.98 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat that you were quite rightly blocked. Your username is way too similar to that of User:Starblind. Could you please explain your relation to Enknowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is mentioned in your block log. Aecis 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All i see is that the block was unjust. There is no proof of sockpuppeting and no prior notice at User:Starblindy re his username. Has anyone informed this user about all that? It is the blocking admin User:Starblind who should answer those questions. -- Szvest - 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A notice on Starblindy's talk page about the username might indeed have been appropriate, but that does not make the block unjust. Aecis 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A new user with a name confusingly similar to an admin shows up out of the blue at the admin's talk page to complain about the block of a sock puppeteer. I may be missing something here, but why is that an unjust block? Starblindy, if you are reading this and honestly want to contribute in a positive way, just make a new name and get on with life. BigDT 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and having a look at this user contribs nothing tells us that he hasn't been contributing in a positive way. Again, nobody told him anything about his username. So how come the blocking admin got to the conclusion that this user is a sock of User:Enknowed (compare those w/ Enknowed's contribs)? -- Szvest - 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So if User:FayssalFy or User:Szvesty, who has 20 contributions posts on your page a complaint about the block of a known sockpuppet, you wouldn't block him? BigDT 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although ... on further review, the Enknowed socks from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton were all from Australia IPs. User:12.16.126.98 is from Massachusetts. So I don't know ... politely informing the user along with the block that he should choose a new name would have probably been a good idea ... but it's distinctly possible given the different contributions and locations, he is not a sock. BigDT 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a position to tell, but I assume that this message might have something to do with the block. Aecis 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see guys. This edit is the only one that tells alot. I didn't see it actually. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Szvest - 14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look I just wanted to say that it is painfully obvious to all that have looked into it that I am not a sockpuppet of Enknowed. It isn't fair to damage my reputation by making random claims. I asked a question (I'm sorry I didn't make this clear above) about a certain user and I was fairly pleased with starblind's response. However that in no way should make me a sockpuppet that get's no explanation. A nice a message somewhere saying that it was because my username and had nothing to do with my edits, would of been nice and much well recieved. It seems to me that my reputation has been damaged. Is this what administrators do?? You ask a question about one of their blocks give a nice answer then block you almost immediatly as a sockpuppet of the user you were asking about?? It points out my comment to starblind in the first place, he blocked Enknowed for being a sockpuppet too. It seems if you don't love a user it is easy enough to claim he is a sockpuppet. I remember reading about the case, and starblind or another user saying that though the edits were close together after Silentbob got blocked and thus his ip that he could of run down to the library and started vandelising wikipedia around 30 mins after his block (this dosn't seem probable too me). It just seems to me that it has become way too easy for admins to say someone is a sockpuppet of another user without any evidence, except weak links. This was my complaint in the first place. Block a user for reasons not for weak sockpuppet links!!! Instead of starblind getting this point, instead he blocks me for (in part) being a sockpuppet. Well I am sorry for trying to make a constructive point about wikipedia. BTW look at his response to my comment he then gives a nice response without any indication of the impending block on me. It just dosn't seem fair, and those 20 edits were fairly big (including 2 article creations) and I don't really feel like wasting more of my time creating a reputation. This may be the end of the line for this user.--151.204.56.2 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have calmed down a bit though I still believe I was wrongly done by, but I have a new humorus username TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy I hope this doesn't upset anyone and I will recieve no more problems from administrators. If I am blocked again for being a sockpuppet of Enknowed as I will be making very obvious that I am the same user as starblindy, who according to starblind is the same user as Enknowed, well lets just saying stuff will happen. If there is a problem with this username POST A COMMENT WHILE BLOCKING OR BEFORE SAYING WHY!!!--TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for the User name. Choose one which doesn't include another User's ID. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion on User:Miracleimpulse

After inserting images that have continually been removed per consensus and having them removed yet again, User:Miracleimpulse posted this little gem on his talk page. Beyond the fact that this appears to be a thinly veiled personal attack against everyone who has reverted or argued against him (he thinks we are all "industry spin doctors"), it also appears the continually escallating blocks he's accrued for disruption and personal attacks have had no effect. per WP:AGF I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point it appears he is pretty committed to continuting to be disruptive and attempt to insert his own original research into articles. So my question is, does this merit an Arbcom or is there another avenue that should be pursued? Based on his attitude I'm not sure a User RfC would have any effect at all.--Isotope23 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, Miracleimpulse is trolling, I removed the comment as being utterly unhelpful to anyone (least of all Miracleimpulse). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll wait and see if your comment has any effect on him at all. If this continues I'm going to open an Arbcom.--Isotope23 14:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• And I will be right there with you. Enough is enough. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have ocassionally seen the arbitrators decline to review "righteous community bans" (I think "righteous" is Fred's terminology.) Do we really need to bother them about this? (Or maybe we want to toss a softball so the newbies can get some batting practice.) Thatcher131 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested may also look at Talk:American Greetings and Talk:Hallmark Cards for issues involving this user, as well as several prior threads on this board. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression from the IfD circus was that Miracleimpulse already had an ArbCom case that was being re-opened. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a RfM I had originally requested on the Sweetest Day article (after a couple failed RfCs) that was going to be reopened by the mediator, but was closed when User:Miracleimpulse was blocked for the IfD disruption. The original mediation ended in what appeared to be a consensus; just not a consensus that User:Miracleimpulse agreed with. Re-opening the MfD at this point wouldn't be helpful because this has gone well beyond a content dispute.--Isotope23 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support an indef block. This Single Purpose Account has been nothing but disruptive. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for some time with interest. I want to point out some things I've noticed.

1. I've noticed multiple "NPOV" disputes on this article. I need someone to explain to me how factual information, photographs, and related newspaper articles going as far back as 1921 can have a "point of view" attached to them. If the facts about a specific issue are condemning, then they are condemning. It IS NOT a point of view issue just because someone pointed it out. Point of view as it relates to photos and newspaper articles from eighty years ago is not relative, as the photographers and journalists responsible for the photos and articles are not currently editing Misplaced Pages.

2. There were multiple complaints about the quality of some of the uploaded images. I noticed that the images were replaced with higher resolution scans as requested by multiple users, and subsequently deleted without a trace or a debate. Can someone explain?

3. Certain users on here have entirely too much time on their hands. Edits get reverted sometimes within MINUTES of their occurance. It does, in fact, makes someone wonder if there are people on wikipedia who do this for a living. Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who.

4. User: Miracleimpulse's information seems completely factual. I don't understand why factual and highly relevant information would be removed from the supported topic in an encyclopedia article. Is it really possible to have "too much" information about something? He seems to be the only supporter of facts editing this article. I haven't yet witnessed a single person disputing his content, only his format. I see multiple users supporting the removal of content, and only one supporting the addition of content. Why? There is absolutely no reason to delete the content unless you have something to suppress. Suppression of information is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. A small group of editors is talking about arbcom-ing someone for posting facts. It's not right, and its not the spirit of free information upon which Misplaced Pages is based. Stop focusing on the syntax and format and start focusing on the information in question.

What is going on here?

68.60.17.31 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this exact same message was posted to Talk: Sweetest Day by Meisterchef (talk · contribs) . This was Meister's only edit. The IP who posted here only has one other edit from in September , which was to correct a spelling error by Eyetomhas (talk · contribs), who's only edit was also in support of Miracleimpulse. Not sure if these are socks, but Miracleimpulse does have a known history of using multiple account on other online forums (see unanswered concern expressed at User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?. Not a dog 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

James Stacy

Anonymous users keep deleting well sourced information and link I have posted. I have posted a talk page but the anonymous user/users ignore it. I request that new/anonymous users be barred from editing this page. Tommypowell 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, please do not capslockedly accuse others of censorship. The edits on the article do not rise to the level to warrant semi-protection. Aecis 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted on User_talk:Tommypowell ->

Firstly, this source you are adding here, is actually a mirror of Misplaced Pages, so is useless as a source. The usenet post is also not a very good source. It may nor may not have reproduced the People magazine accurately, we have no way of knowing this. I think, if this is being challenged, then it would be better to leave it out, until such time as someone can track down that issue of People, or find this in some other reliable source.

This is especially so as he is a living person and our policy about biographies of living people applies.

Morwen - Talk 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An established User keep vandalizing

User:Chesdovi is keep vandalizing the Holiest sites in Islam article. He has done that mutliple times today. I think he might also have violated WP:3RR too but that punishment might be too less for him. For example look at following edits.

1. A sufi poet Moinuddin Chishti as holiest site
2. That castle in Germany Neuschwanstein Castle as Islam holiest spot
3. Many funny like comments "Jewish soldiers at the Buraq Wall, the third holiest Islamic site in Jerusalem, itself the third holiest city in Islam, being on the third planet in the solar system"
4. Another edit says "Less than 100 meters from the holiest site in Islam, opposite the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is a surprising culinary offering: a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant"
5. Another edit says "Hindi couplets"/poetry as holiest site in Islam . It also say a poet Amir Khusro as holiest site in Islam.
6. Pseudoperipteral as Islam holiest site

And above are not all but he keeping going on and on. He had multiple non-sense edit today (see the history of the article ). I do not think that he need to be warned being a new user but we have already warned him . Please stop him. Thanks --- ALM 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the paragraph about KFC was copied word-for-word from the CNN article it cites, so regardless of whether this constitutes vandalism, someone needs to have a word with this person about copyright. Morwen - Talk 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just left a last warning notice at his talkpage. -- Szvest - 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --- ALM 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

KFC is back again . I am now looking to report him on WP:3RR too. --- ALM 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pagania discussion board is constantly being deleted

The Pagania discussion board is constatntly being deleted by users who don't like the content.
194.152.217.129 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Try rephrasing your comments in a less confrontational way, and do read the archives as it is clear that merely repeatig previously advanced arguments does not help to resolve the long-running disputes on that article. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Would somebody mind asking User:ATren to stop following me around, please? With no previous comments on User talk:MONGO () it is beyond the bounds of coincidence that he popped up there shortly after I made a comment to MONGO. It's getting a bit tiresome. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the controversy around him, it's not entirely impossible. I have his talk page on my watchlist for some reason. -Amarkov _edits 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has never, as far as I can see, interacted with ATren, anywhere. As far as I can see this passes the duck test :-) Guy (Help!) 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You did allude to your dispute with ATren, and he responded about it. I don't see where the stalking comes in there. Frankly, Guy, you've really no grounds of complaint. WP:STALK is about systematic targeting of someone's edits to revert or undermine them. It doesn't ban someone using 'User contributions' and responding to an analysis they disagree with. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that you have any beef with me here, of course... Perhaps I should just make a new thread and ask that all my little friends post their trolls in a separate section, that might be simpler all round. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go again - if you want people to go away and shut up and leave you in peace, the best way is to apologise for your mistake, not to repeatedly call them trolls. Have you read anything on the social psychology of roles? PS: I note you didn't actually contradict me that this is not a case of Wikistalking. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since numerous admins pointed out independently that the mistake was yours, I await your apology with baited breath. Oh, wait, I forgot - Fys is never wrong, even when in a minority of one. How foolish of me to forget. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When he alludes that I am a "POV pushing troll" on another admin's talk page (even though he didn't reference me by name, anyone who saw his vote page knew who he was talking about) I am going to defend myself. Is that stalking? JzG continues to go around complaining to other admins about this "POV pushing troll" who is "stalking him", but he's the one who continues to tell blatant lies about our long-standing dispute. Why is he bringing me up here in a completely unrelated discussion?

See, it's like this: if I don't defend myself against JzG's accusations, then it looks like I'm guilty. Then, fast forward a month when JzG asks MONGO or some other admin for help with the dispute: of course, that admin might remember JzG's unchallenged version of events, and (s)he comes on the scene with a preconceived notion that I'm still "POV pushing" or "stalking JzG". The fact that a respected admin (and friend) has called me a POV pushing troll (and now a stalker) will inevitably color their interactions with me from the start.

For a casual editor like myself, I have no choice but to defend my reputation in the face of groundless accusations from a respected admin.

Now, I've tirelessly documented my reasoning in voting against JzG - I've provided at least a dozen diffs to support my case. JzG has not only repeatedly insisted on his version of events which is entirely contradicted by my evidence, but he has also not provided one single diff to prove his assertions about me. Am I to keep my mouth shut and allow him to spread lies about me (yes, lies - look at my evidence) to all his admin friends? ATren 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think my point is proven, thanks. Oh - over there is a small spot which I think might be a blood spatter from the horse, you might go and beat that just in case. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What point? That I watch your edits to make sure you don't spread lies about me? Guilty as charged! ATren 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you did refer to ATren (unnecessarily) on Mongo's talk page before ATren showed up there. But ATren could have stayed out of it, and is taking his attempts to contact/irritate/influence you to fairly drastic levels (I note that over half of his last 200 edits are about you in some way). However, Guy, it might be better not to provide any further temptation, and just ignore his provocation, if you view it as that. If he is a troll, don't feed him. If he is not a troll, then ignore it or file an RFC. Proto::► 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proto, I am defending my reputation. He continues to insinuate that I am a POV pushing troll, and I have to defend myself against that completely groundless accusation. What do I do here? Do I ignore it and watch my reputation get tarnished in the admin community, or address it and risk being called a stalker? I choose the latter, but for a casual user like myself trying to defend himself against an admin spreading lies, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You will note that most of my so-called "trolling" and "stalking" is me defending myself when JzG misrepresented the dispute on AN/I or elsewhere. ATren 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, serves me right for conducting a breaching experiment :-) Still and all, there is no doubt but that he is following me around, and it's somewhat trying. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that you were trying to bait me? If you want me to stop "following you around", then stop spreading lies about me. ATren 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot that you are allowed to "lie" about me (i.e. present your version of events, which I dispute and have told you so numerous times) but not vice-versa. I'll try to remember that. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "my version" happens to be the truth, backed by diffs. For example, you continue to deny it was a "mediation", despite the fact that you yourself called it a "mediation process" at the time. This is a blatant, provable lie by you, and it implies that I am lying, which I am not as the diff clearly shows. This is the type of thing I am fighting against - casual remarks by a respected admin that completely misrepresent the dispute and serve to taint my reputation by implying that I'm a POV-pushing, lying troll.

And now, we find out that you've apparently been intentionally baiting me in an attempt to get a stalking charge against me. So not only have you lied to others about this dispute, not only have you called me a POV pusher without a shred of evidence, not only have you accused me of lying when I tried set the record straight, you are now (apparently) intentionally starting threads like this one solely for the purpose of proving that I am a troll or stalker. Now, given all that, I find it very ironic that you are now requesting that I leave you alone. ATren 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you both try and leave each other alone? Do it for me, and for Christmas, and, darn it, for the children. Just give it a try, go and do something constructive. Guy, you particularly should know better than to get drawn in. Proto::► 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Love to - just ask him to stop following me around, will you? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

... and yet, his very next edit is this bucket of lies - I guess he's still conducting his "breaching experiment"? ATren 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, will both of you just stop pointing fingers at each other? This dispute is both ridiculous and childish. Continue on, and you guys won't be "protecting your reputation." You will have none left to protect. --physicq (c) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have indicated, I have no choice. As long as JzG continues to call me a POV pushing troll to all his admin friends, I'm forced to defend myself. What can I do? What would you do? This is not a random, nobody editor spouting off on his talk page; this is a well-known and well-liked admin broadcasting "ATren is a POV pushing troll" on AN/I and other admins' talk pages. I can't just ignore it. ATren 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attempts to protect your honor are only serving to lose it. If I were you, I would just shut up (really). Believe me, I've been spat on enough to know what you are talking about. If you aren't a POV-pushing troll as JzG alleges (and I don't condone said accusations unless they are true), then your record will speak for itself. Your continuous attempts to protect yourself using more and more hysterical (pardon the word) means are only embarrassing yourself. --physicq (c) 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, if I don't answer the charges, others will just take JzG's word for it. See, I'm in a no-win situation: if I ignore his charges, others take his word at face value and I'm labelled a POV pushing troll; if I don't ignore it, I'm a stalker. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well go down defending myself. ATren 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you two seem to be doing now is engaging into a fight to have the last word, a game you two should have stopped playing in kindergarten. Please, for the sake of God and sanity, STOP. I don't care who called whom names, this "yeah, I did it, but he started it first" farcical exchange stops here. ATren, I don't care whether JzG called you a "POV-pushing troll" or not. Misplaced Pages editors are smart enough not to buy accusations unless they are proven. --physicq (c) 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, may I suggest an RfC or other means of dispute resolution? This isn't something that administrators have to deal with, since it is so minor (if not fallacious already). --physicq (c) 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue

Big problem here

I had the following pasted on my talk page. If we believe this user or not is up to you guys; perhaps we want to be more cautious, or, instead outright block the user if the sockpuppetry is dead obvious. -Patstuart 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart has blocked 4 or more people who work or live at this hospital calling us all sokpuppets? So some of us can't use our user names anymore. Please look at the topics I just tried to contribute to; it looks like my associate, Canuckster, has been railroaded. 67.71.123.25 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat: WP:DFTT. Quite simple imo, let's just ignore them. – Chacor 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't privvy to the previous discussion. Like I said, if it's obvious, WP:DFTT. -Patstuart 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster issue is over

He decided that the conflict had,as Chacor said, gone too far with range blocks being employed. He never was banned as a vandal you know; because he never did vandalize..he just wanted to clear his name. But anyway; that's it. There'll be no more contact from him but I really do think you should remove those accusations Sarah made about him having an anti-american agenda. That was really a false statement that should not be in the permanent record. Good bye. Leaf06 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube link deletion

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has been removing all links to YouTube (and Google Video) from a large number of sites, despite the utter lack of consensus on WT:EL regarding the validity of YouTube links. In at least the case on Barrington Hall, the link he has removed is claimed, with no contrary evidence, to be on YouTube with the copyright holder's permission.

There needs to be significantly more clarity in the policy, or this sort of thing will continue to happen ad nauseam. As it is, I am tempted to obtain a copy of AWB so I can go reverting all the unjustified deletions. Argyriou (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would resist that temptation. Just my opinion but the gross copyright violations on Youtube render all such links invalid. As I understand it, that policy does have consensus support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Links normally to be avoided i understand that YouTube is to be avoided and that Sir Nicholas was being bold in removing it:

• Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. -- Szvest - 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the multiple screensful of argument on ], I see no consensus that YouTube links are automatically invalid. I won't rehash the particulars of the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough legal content on YouTube that anything other than case-by-case examination of each video for copyright and relevancy is an action which does not have support of a community consensus.

YouTube links are not Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content. The guildeline states: It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media. That is exactly what one gets with a YouTube link. Argyriou (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Direct link" point is not relevant here. We still have the much more relevant copyright problem, of course. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which, in the case of the Barrington Hall video, Talk:Barrington_Hall#you tube, is not relevant, either. We have an assertion from the copyright holder that the YouTube link is not in violation of copyright, and no evidence from anyone else that the statement is not true. As the content is not hosted on any Wikimedia project, we don't need the ironclad proof we would need for content hosted here, merely enough to create the presumption that we are not contributing to copyright infringement by linking to the YouTube page.

However, there is still a larger policy problem, because there is quite a lot of content on YouTube released by independent filmmakers who would rather have the exposure than the royalties, and we have deletionists and wikilawyers like Sir Nicholas who continue to remove content without checking the links for copyright issues or relevancy. Argyriou (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following has been copied from my talk page. This user has not only assumed bad faith with me by putting a vandalism warning on my talk page; and then goes on to ruleslawyer about WP:EL, when it is clearly stating the obvious. It is obvious that he does not understand the policies and guidelines provided on Misplaced Pages.

Relevant links –

• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube
• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and ]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Misplaced Pages. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Misplaced Pages. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.

If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Misplaced Pages. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fys above (and didn't want to miss the chance to say so). I think virtually all of these links should be removed. Any that are to be kept should have their inclusion justified individually. Tom Harrison 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular link in the Barrington Hall webpage has been repeatedly justified on Talk:Barrington Hall, but because of User:Dmcdevit's misguided YouTube deletion project, users like Sir Nicholas will continue to blithely delete every single YouTube link, irregardless of whether it has been justified previously or not. As I stated at the top, the issue is larger than the specific case - having looked at Dmcdevit's page, I think his project ought to be stopped until he can put in some protection against deleting previously justified YouTube links. As it is, he provides the information necessary to allow AWB users to find and delete YouTube links without any protection against removing valid content. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MOST links on wikipedia to YouTube should be removed. (Yeah, not all... but most). It is not ok to copy a music video, upload it to YouTube and add a link to it from an article. That’s copyright infringement and that’s basically what 9 out of 10 YouTube links on wikipedia are. I haven't seen the Barrington Hall video yet but, I will when I get home so I can respond about that link directly... however, reverting all YouTube link-removals would be disruptive and against numerous policies. ---J.S 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I took a look and don't see the problem with the link. I commented on the talk page of the article; shouldn't we be discussing this there? --NE2 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as reverting all YouTube link removals would be disruptive and against policy, so is mechanically removing all YouTube links without examining the articles or talk pages to check if the link has been justified. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has stated on his talk page

Addendum: Or if the user has uploaded it as free-licensed. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do we entertain unreliable and unverified sources on Misplaced Pages nor copyrighted videos uploaded by general users of the internet on to that website; which is clearly facilitating copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply to WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have two problems, first we cannot be sure that whoever uploaded the video is actually the person who shot the video, making it so we cannot confirm copyright status. The goal is more then just not being liable, but on building an encyclopedia with content that anyone can use freely. The other problem is blanket rules being applied blindly. Considering some publishers and people have put work on YouTube, to state that everything on it is copyright and can be removed is also false and quite disruptive. Those who decide to take up the task to remove an item need to research it and find out who made it as best they can and if it was put on YouTube as an advertisement etc. If the person is not willing to do this correctly then they should not do it at all. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not appy to WP:EL? Is that so, dear sir? I request you to read the guideline carefully. Every guideline and policy is inter-related in one way or other. We are here to build an encyclopedia, which is free-for-all and has free-content. However, linking to copyright violations and unverified research sites like YouTube – damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and makes liable for a legal action by the real holder of the copyright. Neither do we violate copyrights on this website nor do we facilitate blatant copyright violations. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct it does not apply, saying everything is inter connected is like saying anything I post on my talk page has to be cited per WP:CITE. Most external links are not WP:RS if they were they would most likely be sources, wouldnt they? I mean think of all the home pages on BLP articles, fan sites on movie/artist sites etc. So perhaps you need to go read WP:EL, it does not say sites need to be WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Egad. At least conduct a little research before commenting here. From WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided –

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see a huge problem with the video - it contains a copyrighted music track with no evidence of permission to use it. Also, there is no verifiable information to show that the uploading user is in fact the copyright holder of the footage. This is about as clear cut as you can get - it is a more than probale copyright infringing clip on a site that is reknowned for its availability of such copyright violating clips.-Localzuk 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else involved in the YouTube cleanup project, but I review the link in the context of the article. If it looks obvious (like, 10 min clip from The A-Team) then I nuke it(WP:C). If it's redundant to other links, I nuke it(WP:EL). If it's irrelevant to the article(WP:NOT), I nuke it. If it doesn’t provide any new information for the article I nuke it(WP:NOT). If it's being inappropriately relied on as a source, I nuke it(WP:V). If it's not obviously inappropriate, I look closer. I've found very few that are truly legit. The best I can usually get is "likely legit." So I leave... 1/50 usually... and I'm the most liberal of the 4 of us.

Remember: this website is NOT a linkfarm. Our guiding philosophy is to make an encyclopedia. It is our job to make the articles great and include as much relevant information in the article as possible. Adding tons of semi-relevant links to questionable material does not advance our goal and it puts us in bad position legally. ---J.S 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated this in three places, and are wrongmy mistake - one of the two links has music, and the other does not; I changed the one with to the one without; there is no music or sound at all in the video. Let's take this discussion to the talk page so I don't have to debunk you in multiple places. --NE2 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Please can someone else comment on the fact that there is music? I have checked this on several computers now, so it does have apparantly copyright infringing music.-Localzuk 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe further discussions are to be continued at Misplaced Pages talk:External links. -- Szvest - 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department" ---J.S 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a talk message for User:Mahlenmahlen who supposedly made the Barrington video, suggesting s/he GFDL the video and upload it to Commons, but that user hasn't logged in for a while so might not see it soon. I think the video is of interest for the article. It documents the subject and it provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a featured article (WP:EL). There isn't a serious WP:RS concern since as someone explained, it's a video of the building itself, like a photo of the White House. I didn't notice anyone questioning anything about its content, just that it's hosted in a "ghetto".

I'm not a YT fan but I don't believe there should be any type of project to remove every YT link from Misplaced Pages blindly, since that's what the spam blacklist is for. There are occasional situations where they're appropriate and the deletion frenzy seems to be a bit much. We import suitably licensed pictures from Flickr etc. all the time without going berserk about verifying the licenses unless we have some reason to think something is amiss. We similarly allow totally anonymous contributors to insert potentially-copyvio text directly into the wiki. We should not link to known copyvios but we are also not in the business of finding every way we can to protect the interests of the MPAA. See: m:avoid copyright paranoia. 67.117.130.181 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This non-music version seems fine. I do remember this one... I looked at it weeks ago. The argument at the time was copy-vio.... and it was. The music in it was a problem. However, this one seems to satisfy all my main conserns. I'll let others argue for/against relevence... thats not realy my main issue. ---J.S 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no project to remove YouTube links blindly. A bot could be made to do that, but AWB is not a bot, it is a program designed for user oversight. Any editor removing links for it is responsible for what they remove. Having said that, the video in question still has no licensing information, so, while I'm not interested in arguing about it, and while I'm not going to make any reverts myself, I don't mind it being delinked. I'm not going to waste much time on this single link, though. The bigger problem is blatant copyvio like music, TV, and movie clips, of which there are probably still thousands on Misplaced Pages. Attacking the project to help that is counterproductive, especially for one borderline case. Giving vandalism warnings for it is offensive and uncivil, and will probably get you blocked if you continue. Part of the problem I've noticed is people who respond with an argument like "no one's going to sue us or we're not legally responsible for linking to copyright infringements"; no matter how true this is, it is absolutely opposed to the Wikimedia vision, to create reusable and free (as in speech, not beer) content. Dmcdevit•t 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent -- Check Today's FA Manila Metro Rail Transit System

Someone has posted an obscence photo on today's FA and its talk page, as mentioned before on other FA. KP Botany 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If includeonly didn't remove the template from image links, it would be a lot easier to find and fix these. Someone care to file a bug report? I'll vote it up. --NE2 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Still no technical way of preventing this except to protect all templates linked on FAs yet, then? – Chacor 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is - run a checkuser on the account and block the sockpuppets (which I have done). Image uploads don't work for newly registered accounts, so the best way to combat this is to get the accounts before they vandalize. Raul654 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One, that's not a technical solution, and two, that does nothing to stop sleeper socks. The template vandalism to the FA the other day was done by sleeper sock accounts old enough to upload images. So the answer Chacor, is no, not yet. pschemp | talk 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the infamous penis vandal that keeps continuing to add his obscenities around the wiki?? - and I assume, on rotating IPs.

He must be hard to block if he keeps finding new IP ranges to use. Perhaps people could comment out his image with: ]<!---]--> so they don't appear in the template. That way, we can at least stop him for now. --SunStar Net 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just fully protect all relevant templates for the duration of the featured article's presence on the main page? Does anyone have any data about how much legitimate template editing actually occurs then? JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion I don't think anyone would mind... the question is finding an admin with the initiative to do all the protection/unprotection this would entail. --W.marsh 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might oppose certain articles being on the main page if I knew I wouldn't be able to improve any of the templates they use while they are there. --NE2 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles review page has a listing of what article is going to be on the main page each day a couple of weeks in advance. If this is an area of interest for you, you can improve the templates for FA's a couple of days before they will be on the main page, which would not only be consistent with stopping the vandalism, but would make sure the most people saw them with the improvements you introduced. :) Newyorkbrad 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I would probably temporarily protect the templates as ] for the duration of the FA, and then unprotect them after it was off the main page. Seems a good enough solution, and would probably stem this 'user' from doing his obscene vandalism. --SunStar Net 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If a category was created and these templates placed into it, and the community agreed, I would work on it a bit in the mornings. HighInBC 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as a little rude about this, but this has been going on for, I think, over a month, and is happening almost daily, and I've seen it must be 7 long drawn out discussions on WP:AN. This is reminding me of the group from Life of Brian where their friend is in a fight to the death, and they decide to set up a committee to investigate. Would someone just protect the lousy templates and run a check user? Most of the templates are the same for every article (e.g., transcludes on transclusions). -Patstuart 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your right, this requires immediate discussion, table a motion! (kidding) HighInBC 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What was there today was beyond the average penis of the last few weeks. Hoping some kind admin will protect all the templates makes no sense: something has to be done. Sandy (Talk) 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't 'get' what the problem is. Sometimes it sounds like people are complaining about offensive images getting onto the main page itself through an overlooked template... which would seem like it should be easy to prevent by just going through the templates listed when you click 'edit' and protecting each / unprotecting the next day. There can't be too many templates used in those little 'article of the day' blurbs. Other times it sounds like the offensive images are on the featured article itself... which just sounds like normal vandalism that we have always had and handled by reverting, blocking, and protecting the page for short periods if needed. Presumably there has to be more to it, but I've read three of these 'something must be done' threads now and still haven't seen anyone spell out exactly what the problem is. Like... citing the template that was vandalized? The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff? If a vandal has access to DO it then every user on Misplaced Pages has access to UNdo it. Each time it seems like multiple people complain about seeing the image... why didn't the first person get rid of it so that the others wouldn't? In short... I don't 'get' it. --CBD 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CBD, in the amount of time you spent writing this post you could have done the research yourself and found out exactly what is going wrong. But since you didn't do it, I'll do it for you. For two weeks now we've had some image vandalism on our featured articles. They place images inside of noincludes in templates used on the articles. This takes awhile to figure out and remove from the article. In the meanwhile, hundreds of people are seeing disgusting and vile images and turning off a good proportion of them from Misplaced Pages. This is a huge problem, and it isn't nearly your "run-of-the-mill" vandalism. --Cyde Weys 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiEN-l thread. – Chacor 11:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I must type alot faster than you do Cyde... because I'd already spent considerably longer than it took to write that searching for details... as I'd have thought was clear in my original message. Thanks for the info and Chacor for the link. --CBD 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: on today's vandalism (thread below), I mentioned specific templates and users. I guess you didn't read the entire page. Why didn't I do something about it? I did. I notified administrators that vandalism had broken through, and a template had been missed. Sandy (Talk) 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• After some searching I found this edit (see, a specific example) which apparently created the vandalism complained about above. This would not have appeared on the Main page and thus must be different than other complaints about vandalism there in another section below. The vandalism to this template was reverted, restored by another username, and reverted again within minutes before the template was protected. Seems like normal 'article of the day' vandal fighting to me except that we actually protected the template and left it that way... which we normally wouldn't do if the vandalism were on the page directly. This page used seven templates, five of which have been protected for a long time, one of which was vandalized, and one of which was (and still is) only semi-protected... but the vandal apparently overlooked. It took me all of a minute to check the protection status of those templates. If people really don't understand how to track vandalism in templates (which doesn't seem the case here as it WAS reverted quickly) then we could easily have protected the handful of templates used on this page. However, there is nothing preventing the same images being placed directly on the page and restored by multiple accounts in the same way. The only 'twist' to this seems to be that it may be a little more difficult to locate the vandalism for people who aren't very familiar with how templates work. If the problem is really as bad as people say (though in this case the offensive image was present for a grand total of 12 minutes and 11 seconds) then temporary protection as 'SOP' seems like an easy enough solution. --CBD 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this, it is vandalism of templates within templates, and sometimes something involving vandalism involving redirects pointing at templates (I won't go into details in case copycat vandals are reading this thread). Tracking down templates within templates is a bit more time-consuming, and as for the length of time: 12 minutes and 11 seconds is far too long. Huge numbers of people will view the page in that time. I would like to see all vandalism of main page articles reverted within a minute or less. As for specific examples, I have one involving templates on the talk page of the main page: , , (note the deceptive edit summaries), which is discussed here. Previous discussions on the main page vandalism (there are lots of these discussion) include this and this. Carcharoth 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

13 minutes? That's hundreds of pageviews, hundreds of people who's first exposure to Misplaced Pages might have been an extremely offensive page. I kind of like to think we should project a better image to newcomers. The mainpage FA is vandalized on average for 2+ hours of its time on the main page, not even counting template vandalism, which does take a lot longer to fix. --W.marsh 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, "The username that did it? Also, why aren't people just reverting this stuff?" Like I wouldn't if I could have figured it out? It should be pretty obvious now that with vandal patrols and the like, the reason people aren't just reverting it, like most simply vandalism to the FA, which often gets RV in the same minute it is created, is that it's not simple vandalism. Over the course of this vandal, Misplaced Pages has probably exposed thousands of potential users to offensive pornography, and these users will warn their friends not to use Misplaced Pages, to keep their children off of Misplaced Pages, yet it's been going on for weeks. Misplaced Pages also needs to apologize on its Main Page for not taking this seriously from day one. KP Botany 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick Scott

I believe the page Kendrick Scott has been speedily deleted, perhaps by accident. I had in fact nominated this page for deletion several times, but the latest article involved a different Kendrick Scott, a jazz drummer, who seemed to have at least some claim to notability. It looks like someone tried to AFD the article (see edits to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kendrick Scott), and perhaps someone then speedied it without realizing that the article had changed. --Brianyoumans 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you talk to JzG (talk · contribs)? He's quite reasonable, and would probably be glad to help if there was a mistake made. If he upholds it, you can also try deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ALM scientist

User:ALM scientist keeps vandalizing the Holiest sites in Islam article. This user deletes sourced material without any good reason time AND TIME AGAIN! Please help!!!!

16 Dec: 18 Dec: 18 Dec: Chesdovi 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user about it yet? I see no such attempt on either of your talk pages or the article talk pages, please look at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. HighInBC 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. A sufi poet Moinuddin Chishti as holiest site
2. That castle in Germany Neuschwanstein Castle as Islam holiest spot
3. Many funny like comments "Jewish soldiers at the Buraq Wall, the third holiest Islamic site in Jerusalem, itself the third holiest city in Islam, being on the third planet in the solar system"
4. Another edit says "Less than 100 meters from the holiest site in Islam, opposite the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is a surprising culinary offering: a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant"
5. Another edit says "Hindi couplets"/poetry as holiest site in Islam . It also say a poet Amir Khusro as holiest site in Islam.
6. Pseudoperipteral as Islam holiest site

All of the above were your additions and i left you the last warning on your talkpage and now you are here trolling and lying? -- Szvest - 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all the sites listed above, except one, are legitimate. I added this material and ALM just deletes what he doesn't like. He also led the campaign for the pages deletion, totally unacceptable! I will take HighInBC's advice, and if he offends another time I will ask that he be blocked. Chesdovi 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please follow HighInBC's advice and stop this edit warring. Also, please refrain from adding nonsense next time as you are an established editor. -- Szvest - 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was my response the ALM's "trolling". At least Thestick found it humorous. Chesdovi 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! Do you understand what we mean by WP:TROLL? ALM was reverting your above trolling in fact. So please stop that and be carefull of what you are editing next time. -- Szvest - 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He's got a 48 hour break now. I would gladly have made it longer but it's a first offense. Durova 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. -- Szvest - 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

IPutAwayaTener (talk · contribs)

Can an admin please look at this new account and its contributions. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Too much trolling. -- Szvest - 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think everything that needs to be reverted and speedied has been now. Sandy (Talk) 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Troll or sockpuppet?

Could someone please review the short contribution history of I Am Muslim (talk · contribs)? It seems most or all of what s/he's done here is vandalize, attack, and make bogus accusations. Thanks. Kla'quot 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a note at his talkpage. -- Szvest - 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla'quot 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kings 32 blocked

I've blocked Kings 32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some pretty nasty person attacks here and here. I'm not involved with the articles in dispute, and I've had no interaction with this user prior to my warning him for the first case. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Can I ask other uninvolved admins to review his edits and alter his block length as y'all see fit. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Although, I really don't see a need to post such blatant violations of WP:NPA on the WP:ANI to get a block reviewed. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, but he still needs a block notice on his talk page, yes? Sandstein 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

75.1.19.112

Repeatedly vandalizing Lesbian. Geoffrey Spear 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism issues next time. Cheers -- Szvest - 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

LSLM - Evading Block

User:LSLM was blocked for personal attacks . Then User:70.156.143.221 makes similar arguments and claims to be User:LSLM while LSLM was blocked. I reported it . An admin warned 70.156.143.221 . Later, LSLM was blocked for violation of 3rr rule . And User:65.11.163.243 has made similar arguments to LSLM while LSLM's block hasnt expired. . Then, after the block has expired, LSLM has returned and signed 65.11.163.243 's comments. . I also whois'ed 70.156.143.221 and 65.11.163.243. They got same locations...Lukas19 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:65.12.123.110 which has same location with User:70.156.143.221 and User:65.11.163.243 has made this obvious vandalism. LSLM did vandalize before and was warned and reported . I should have added this to vandalism board but I think an admin should look to this user. He was blocked already two times before. And I reported him for personal attacks again Lukas19 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2: Also note his RFI report . Other suspected puppet ip addresses are listed there. Lukas19 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to this guy. He is always making false accusations. Just follow him a little bit in the white people's page. I and others are tired of his conduct. Follow also the quantity of problems he has already had with many users. He should be banned from this site. Veritas et Severitas 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No admin looking into this? Lukas19 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Roitr block enforcement requested

• Cariso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dfenu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All sockpuppets of Roitr (talk · contribs) and all adding false information to articles related to Russian military ranks — see Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Roitr. For proof, compare this edit by Cariso to this edit from an IP in the same range as Roitr's ISP. Demiurge 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say 99.5% chance of sockpuppetry, especially given comments like . Patstuart 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

news from the front

A edit war with sockpuppets and anons over Weffriddles it's on AFD now, parties creating templates to insert information back (see also {{weffriddles}} history) and users trying to find new ways to sneak in. Sprotected for now, may want to look there once in a while. That's the incident I?m reporting. Coming back to you fred. -- Drini 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

75.41.208.17 - Admin intervention against spam

75.41.208.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pretty spamtacular, we're having trouble keeping up. Can we get a short block? 192.75.48.150 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but as an anon editor, you can't report there. All the more reason to register...

Even though the editor wasn't properly warned, they're obviously only interested in adding links. 31 hour block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everyone is able to leave a message at WP:AIV, not just registered users. So in the future, you can leave your message there for a faster response. Prodego 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sure enough; the protection is just on page moves. I saw the "unprotect" tab and jumped to a confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked a troll account

I recently indefinite blocked Aughein (talk · contribs) for being a single purpose account used only for trolling. Note his edit to MONGO's user talk page and the pointless comment in an AFD about Misplaced Pages not keeping 'good stuff' like Brian Peppers. There were a few edits in the past many months ago that made me hesitate, but I think it's clear that no good will come out of this account. Just thought I'd leave a note here, though. Cowman109 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his opinion about what the 'good stuff' is is relevant to this. Trollderella 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I rejected his unblock request and another admin also agreed on his userpage. Looks like a simple sleeper troll. HighInBC 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you had any question if that user was really a troll... I have protected that users page. HighInBC 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunch of vandals

Here are some repeat vandals. could someone please block them? thank you.

User talk:72.78.153.9
User talk:63.206.176.66
User talk:62.6.163.129
User talk:74.111.53.236

Ilikefood 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of those vandalized after being given a final warning. Please report to WP:AIV in the future (also, for reference, please sign your comments, so that it's easier to see when they last got a warning). -Patstuart 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You want WP:AIV. HighInBC 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I simply could not find somewhere to report vandalism to an arcticle. I am not a user myself so I am not sure exactly what to do.

The article "Genetic Fingerprinting" http://en.wikipedia.org/DNA_testing

One line reads "The excess DNA probe is then washed off your dick. An X-ray film placed next to your mother detects the radioactive pattern"

I am pretty sure that is wrong

cheers -L

80.5.188.163 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go fix that. In the future, you can remove incorrect information yourself, just by editing the page. -Amarkov _edits 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Already got it :) Patstuart 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Nehpetskenawi

Nehpetskenawi (talk · contribs) has been vandalising numerous pages. - Parthi 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV in the future. -Patstuart 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

External links on Burlington, Vermont

On the Burlington, Vermont article, 75.69.65.217 believes I've treated them unfairly by twice removing an external link that they added, and the user went so far as to telephone me at home just now. Could another administrator or three please take a look and offer their opinion(s)?

Atlant 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here, but a lot of those links should be trimmed as per WP:EL. Personally, I would only keep "Official Site of the City of Burlington", the WikiVermont (though it is not loading), and the "Maps and aerial photos". -- moe.RON 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How did they get your phone number? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not edit Misplaced Pages anonymously, and my user page has more than enough information to make it possible for anyone to quickly be in direct contact with me. But in the interest of openness of the decision-making process, discussions about Misplaced Pages content should be conducted right here on Misplaced Pages, in full view of everyone, especially if they are regarding (or verging on) those things I'm doing in my capacity as an administrator.

Atlant 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User Atlant has been informed that this link is NOT chatspam and is includable under WP:EL Section 4., "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He has pointed out Section 10., "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." under "Links to Avoid". Since the link is none of these things, the rule does not apply. Since Atlant is aware of this, and has threatened me with a violation of for critizing his arbitrary decision, I have no other choice than to refer to this action as abuse and vandalism.

"Content disputes are never vandalism, and I'd suggest you not label them as such unless you want to risk running afoul of WP:NPA" -- Atlant

75.69.65.217 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of calling him at home, other than harrassment and confrontation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for harassment. That kind of shit we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here where I don't belong, but this calling someone at home is so inappropriate, I would think a 6 month block would be the best course of action, seeing as it's a direct allocation non-static IP. That's my opinion, and sorry if I'm wrong. -Patstuart 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry gang, but I've got a whole range of IP's to play with. If user Atlant does not wish to be called, he should not list his number. This started as an attempt to sincerely improve the wiki. Since Jzg (aka Guy) told me "fuck process" on his talk page, then we'll play that way. So, Mr. 6 month block, go for it, we'll play this game all week. Or, we can go back to being gentlemen. Your Choice. It's a shame wiki Admins ruin it for everyone by playing God, removing and blocking without discussion or concencus.—66.252.244.140 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to call him was yours and only yours, and the responsibility for it falls squarely on you. Whether he has listed it is immaterial. You grabbed an opportunity you should never have grabbed. Aecis 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:SNOW. There would unquestionably be consensus for blocking in these circumstances. You're only making it worse for yourself.... JChap2007 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decision to call was mine and mine alone, I was civil, he was nasty and Zoe, what I wanted to to by calling him, was avoid this whole discussion. There was no harrassment, he was called once.66.252.244.140 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That one time was one time too many. This qualifies as wikistalking, no matter how civil your intentions were. Aecis 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it harassment if the person in question makes their contact information available? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it takes someone else to search for that information and use it. It takes someone else to make the phone call. Aecis 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is harassment if an editor, especially one that is having a dispute with the receiving end of the call, actually calls the number. -physicq (c) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)-

... a number which is not listed on the user page (i.e., took an in depth search to find). -Patstuart 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy that. Thanks for the explainer. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, it's ok to block my IP for disputing an admin, and ok for another admin to tell me he "is a rouge and fuck process" (that's a quote) but not okay for me to call a publically listed telephone and submit a concern privately and civilly? Nah. We aren't even dicussing the merits of the inclusion of the link anymore. Now, this is about the egos of the Admins. I think you'll find me to be most tenacious.66.252.245.98 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in our fine article on irony. JChap2007 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the link be put on the spam blacklist? save us a lot of legwork. --Charlesknight 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure this incident rises to meet the criterion "widespread spamming by multiple users". Regardless, if folks think this is the right thing to do, I'll gladly propose that link for addition to the blacklist. -- Atlant 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses used by this user so far:

• 75.69.65.217 (Original)
• 66.252.242.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.140 (Evading block)
• 66.252.244.150 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.20 (Evading block)
• 66.252.245.98 (Evading block)
• 66.252.247.25 (Evading block)

Atlant 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict -- revert war

This is a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. It has been listed since December 13, 2006 and no admin has addressed it. During the time that it has been listed, I have had to engage in several page reverts to keep the image excluded until the copyright can be resolved. Please expedite this review or protect the image page so these conflicting editors cannot continue to remove the copyright notice. Alan.ca 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has been established already. It is currently in the realm of crown copyright, and therefore rightfully ours to use. Permission was given from the copyright holder already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission is not enough, it needs to be licensed freely per WP:FUC. This man is living and a free image could be reasonably created (FUC #1). Hbdragon88 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Stephen Harper, and my comment here about this particular image. Jkelly 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The House of the Commons is a government organization with permissions held by the public. The problem is that Alan.ca has been perpetrating this edit war over an outdated page because of the basis Herman is supposedly the only copyright holder although I can't find my way to that page from the Parliament's site.

This how I got to Stephen Harper's biography where it clearly states "© House of Commons"

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

Also there is an email from Stephen Harper's contact email approving of this distribution as well. But Alan.ca is going ahead with no confirmation that this is not acceptable when other people have confirmed that this is acceptable. ViriiK 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't be fair use. However, the PMO wrote that the image is their's and that it is freely-licensed, so it should still be usable unless someone has evidence that the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to us. --Arctic Gnome 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If this email is forwarded to the permissions list, it should clear any problems. – Chacor 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be pointed out for any that are unaware that the Canadian brand of Crown Copyright is not valid to release images under that copyright for use on Misplaced Pages. See Template_talk:CrownCopyright. Proto::► 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page vandal out of control

Come on, this is just over the top - we NEED a new policy. Is someone working on it? Sandy (Talk) 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to? Cbrown1023 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing as this higher up refers to, I'm guessing. – Chacor 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We don't actually need a policy here, just some admins willing to do template protection. It seems most everyone agrees it is needed. pschemp | talk 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) Where have you been for the last two weeks :-) The vandal attacking the templates and images associated with the main page featured article. The one that is there today is beyond description. Has no one yet found the source? All of the main page article templates are not protected. Is this the source of the problem? If so, it hasn't been protected yet. {{Harvard citation}} It was up for several minutes. Even I don't want to keep coming to the main page if I'm going to see that, and I'm not a newbie. This is going too far. I've seen what the main page template vandal has done for two weeks, this is going too far, no one should have to see that, and there should be a practice in place now of protecting EVERY template and image on the main page FA. Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to click on and read the main page FA any more after this morning's encounter. When I first read about it, I started avoiding the articles, then I assumed it had been cleaned up. At this point, I must assume the vandal is doing exactly what he/she hopes to accomplish: turning users off of Misplaced Pages by the hundreds. I would have never come back if that was my first encounter. KP Botany 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's image was far beyond anything I'd seen up 'til now - I won't be working to help revert vandalism on the main page anymore, because a global policy needs to be put in place. Sandy (Talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know; it was just disgusting and I have deleted it. Just disgusting. Anyway, we just need to be more certain that we protect templates on articles linked from the Main Page. However, there are other articles besides Today's Featured Article linked from the Main Page, and so this could get quite difficult (not that difficult is a barrier to doing what's necessary).-- tariqabjotu 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What was it? o__O --Masamage 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For admins doing the necessary protections, note {{mprotected2}} and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles. -- tariqabjotu 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariqabjotu - the kind, tireless protector of templates, but something more global needs to be done. I hope that was the one. -Sandy (Talk) 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be easier to subst: all templates on FAs before they get on the main page, and then re-transclude them after that? – Chacor 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add these images to the image blacklist? pschemp | talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that this has also been discussed here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and, finally, here. Just wanna point out that we need to do something and not just talk about it. Although I think I might have missed some. -Patstuart 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's been discussed just about every day since Dec 5 main page, Down syndrome. And yet, today, the most disgusting yet was up for at least several minutes that I saw. Sandy (Talk) 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the template history, it looks like it was up for seven minutes. Sandy (Talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat, and others, please... give us some credit here. Everyone has been trying their best to prevent this stuff from happening. No one notices when we prevent a vandal from introducing this type of vandalism to a page, but when it begins to happen, suddenly it's why aren't you all doing anything? Things have been done, but no one's perfect; things sometimes get overlooked. Note how several templates were protected by Pilotguy (talk · contribs) just prior to the 00:00 (UTC) switch. I double-checked later on to ensure all templates were protected. However, the common ones such as the ones vandalized today were overlooked by both me and him. But, no... that's not doing something; we're just sitting around letting people add shock images to pages because we find it funny. Seriously, discussing (and implementing) new ideas for trying to prevent this is in fact a worthwhile exercise. However, the stop talking and start doing something attitude with no indication as to what that do something is contributes nothing to the discussion and serves only as a slap in the face for all the people who are doing their best (which comes down to just about all of us). -- tariqabjotu 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question - why are new/unregistered users allowed to edit templates at all? I understand why they're allowed to edit articles, but templates? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not always new/unregistered users. Titoxd 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many have been sleeper socks with accounts old enough to skirt restrictions. pschemp | talk 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Sandy said above. I practically choked on my tea when I loaded up the FA this morning. This issue needs to be resolved before it escalates into even more ... unpleasant things like goatse or tubgirl. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to the mailing list about this, asking for suggestions. Maybe some of those who read the list but don't use ANI will throw in helpful comments. – Chacor 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a whole lot we can do beyond being more careful. If we need to put all the articles associated with the Main Page on lockdown completely, the terrorists have won. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Is there a list out there of the next FAs to be on the main page, in sequence? Grandmasterka 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 2006. – Chacor 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Only TOFAs up to December 24 have been chosen? Is Raul on vacation? -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he's around - he usually runs that tight. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest a new policy- any sufficiently drastic mainpage vandalism should result in automatic checkusering of whoever does it and notes should be sent to the ISPs. Let's make this cost the vandals some time and effort. JoshuaZ 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think protecting rather than substituting is the way to go here because {{mprotected2}} adds a category which lists all the affected templates and is helpful when its time to unprotect. Subst'ing doesn't create any central log and is more likely to get forgotten. While its nice to ask the mailing list for info, I think this is a serious enough problem that we need to start hashing out a solution now. pschemp | talk 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

can anyone protect Template:DYKbox and Template:ITNbox? There's also some others I'm not sure about: Template:Tl lists a bunch of templates transcluded onto it, but has almost no code (I'm very confused). And yes, PLEASE contact said ISP's. Patstuart 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See {{For}} - has THASF (talk · contribs) been taken care of? Sandy (Talk) 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

21:46, December 18, 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "THASF (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism only) - Pschemp got him. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the image list to blacklist: Images not work-safe; explicit. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After an admin has taken note of these images to blacklist, please delete my post above. Sandy (Talk) 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All this talk brings up two good points: templates should be more strictly semi-protected, and semi-protection should be edit-based not time-based. No one with less than 50 edits should be able to edit semi-protected articles. After all, even our semi-protection policy is fairly strict, so I don't see one negative to making it edit-based (or both). -- Renesis (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't mention how due to WP:BEANS, but it should be simple enough for vandals to get around a 50 edit semi-protection restriction. In fact, getting around it would probably be even faster than getting around the time-based semi-protection. Perhaps a protection mode could be made that would not only protect the article, but present a version of the article with templates included as they were at the time of protection to the reader. This way we wouldn't have to worry about forgetting one little template transcluded by another which is referred to be a redirect on an FA. --Philosophus 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"High risk" templates are fully protected. I think the requirements for a template being "high risk" need to be broadened. If it's used on the main page, it's high risk. If it's used on hundreds of pages, it's high risk. If it's been penis vandalised, or very similar in use and function to a template that has, it's high risk. WP:EPP is never that busy, and I'm sure a few more admins could watch it if the requests started to pile up. It's better than retroactively chasing this guy. Proto::► 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Go bug the WMF-paid devs. Where the hell are non-vandalized versions? That's the real solution to this problem. They were announced at Wikimania, but I really haven't seen any progress made on them since. --Cyde Weys 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another developer thingy we should have to make vandalism of this type easier to spot and to revert is Special:Recentchangestranscluded. Then we could quickly WP:RBI the vandal, checkuser and block his proxies, and hope he goes away. Kusma (討論) 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late to the conversation and there's a lot of it scattered around so forgive me if any of these have already been suggested:

1. A bot that produced a list of the the templates transcluded into the main page, the templates transcluded into those templates, etc., etc. would be a good idea. It seems that most of the problem now comes from humans trying to track down a heirachy of transclusions, something a bot could do faster and better. I'm not talking about a bot with admin rights, just something to produce a list that some dedicated admins can go round and protect.
2. Per Renesis - although it would be easy to evade a protection based on x number of edits, combining it with the time limit would increase the effort required to create a vandalism account. If as a vandal, I have to do 150 mainspace edits to get three vandal accounts for tomorrow, I'm at least going to have to spend some time thinking (and I might hit puberty in the meantime).
3. Create a fully subst'ed version of the current main page as soon as it gos up (or before), save it and then revert it. That gives us a safe copy to revert to while we track down any vandalised templates, rather than leaving the main page in a state until we can find out which template of a template of a template we missed. Yomangani 12:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a bot for the first item above. Go to the Main page. Click edit. Scroll down. A list of all transcluded pages is displayed. It doesn't break it into a tree structure, but it lists everything which goes into making the page. Cyde above claimed that the problem was on the featured articles, but you are now back to saying the Main page... if it is the latter then it would seem simplest to check the particular section the vandalism is in. If there is a penis in the 'picture of the day' you go to that page, click edit, and check the handful of transclusions which are listed. --CBD 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you see something I don't, that only shows one level of transclusions, which means protecting sublevels involves clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on the link of each template, hitting edit, clicking on ... until you reach the end of the tree. Repeat until all templates are protected and hope you haven't missed any (you can always check by repeating the process). Wait 24 hours, unprotect all the templates that don't feature on the new mainpage items...hmmm...probably best to get a list of all those on yesterday's list and then compare them one by one with today's, excluding those that were already protected beforehand. Doesn't look that simple to me, and the fact that templates have been missed every day would suggest it isn't. Yomangani 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite an example of a 'sub template' which is carried up to the Main page, but not listed when you click 'edit' there. I cannot find any. My recollection is that the list goes down several levels (to the point that you will rarely encounter transclusion so deep as to not be displayed). So far as I know the 15 transclusions listed are the ONLY ones used... and of those only four change on a daily basis and thus might introduce new sub-templates. Nor have I been able to locate any actual examples of vandalism to templates appearing on the Main page. Most of the complaints have centered around the 'article of the day', but I checked that and for the past week it has introduced no new sub-templates. Thus I'm not sure if there really is a 'vandalism on the main page' problem. There IS an issue with vandalism on the article of the day itself... but not that I can see on the blurb for such which is displayed on the main page. HAS vandalism been appearing on the Main page? Specifically where and when? --CBD 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall eat humble pie (although if the recursion of template listing is limited to x levels it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help, as you still need to check through all the links to make sure there is nothing transcluded beyond x levels). I still think the minimum mainspace edits coupled with the time limit would be a good idea though - the time limit only deters the spur of the moment vandal,whereas a minimum mainspace edit count would at least involve more effort on their part. You'd have to be a very sad individual to run up 50 edits a day just so you could put a nasty image on an article for a few minutes. Yomangani 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could do both... three days AND 50 edits. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Running up 50 edits by using a bot or AWB-type system would be trivial. With the current setup, it would be simple to do this in a way which would be completely undetectable as a bot. I could without too much difficulty write a proof of concept which would be able to register an account, make over 50 edits, and then automatically find unprotected important templates, upload images, and add them. This system could be embedded in a worm to create a botnet which would make it impossible to stop by IP-blocking. If all FA-transcluded templates were fully-protected, then the vandalism could be done to templates on other main-page-linked templates, or to articles linked to from main-page-linked articles. I think that WP:BEANS has a tendency to make people overly complacent about these issues. Of course, I might be overestimating the abilities and resources of the vandals. A 50-edit restriction would probably deter human-run attacks. --Philosophus 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Per a request above Template:DYKbox has been protected. Why? This is a box which displays a list of shortcuts to 'did you know' working pages. Obviously, that does not appear anywhere on the Main page. Presumably people are thinking that because this box appears on Template:DYK and THAT appears on the Main page that both must be protected... but that isn't the way it works. 'DYKbox' is displayed within 'noinclude' tags on DYK... which means that when DYK is displayed on the Main page the DYKbox is not 'sent along'. Ergo, Template:DYK needs to be protected to prevent it being used to vandalize the Main page, but Template:DYKbox does not. People need to understand how templates work, identify the actual problem (which I'm not even sure exists as nobody has cited a specific diff/example), and address that directly. --CBD 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting again. I reported two specific templates involved in today's vandalism, and gave a site showing the images inserted. If this isn't helpful, I should probably stop trying to contribute - but since today's vandalism was up for seven minutes unnoticed (click the link above if you want to see how vile it was), it certainly seemed to be worth raising the issue where admins would take action. Sandy (Talk) 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I looked at the 'harvard citation' and 'for' links you cited and can see that they were vandalized... but not that they were transcluded onto the main page. What are we trying to do here? Keep offensive images off the Main page? If so then protecting 'DYKbox', 'harvard citation', and 'for' does nothing to accomplish that. Thus, I am getting the sense that there really isn't a problem with the main page itself and we should really be talking about vandalism to the 'article of the day'. Correct? If so, that is an age old problem that could only be completely prevented by protecting the article itself and all content transcluded onto it. Which is against the longstanding tradition of that article being editable to draw in new users. As some people have more trouble locating vandalism in templates and the new users we are trying to draw aren't going to know about/understand templates it might be reasonable to protect all templates used on the article... but that isn't going to prevent offensive images being added. They can always do it directly on the page... or on a completely different template which they then add to the page. We'd have to lock down everything related to that page for the day (either by protection or 'stable versions' when those are implemented) to completely prevent this. --CBD 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think you are right that we are talking about the article of the day, not the main page itself. It is an old problem, and yes, they can always add it directly to the page, but when done directly, it's likely that will be reverted in a matter of seconds. In the past few weeks, the template vandalism has often lasted 5 minutes or more, causes many more users to attempt to contact Misplaced Pages about it, and turns away from Misplaced Pages however many other users that we don't even know about. Vandalism that lasts a matter of 10 times (or more) longer than typical article-of-the-day vandalism is indeed a problem we need to fix now. -- Renesis (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, what we are talking about is articles linked to from the main page, CBD, most often the main page FA. While it's easy to say "just revert it!", but it's obviously not that simple to anyone who actually works on the main page FAs. I know from experience it takes 4-10 minutes to actually find the vandalized template and revert the vandalism... since they do it in such a way that you have to look at each template's code. Discussion of protecting those templates in advance is ongoing. --W.marsh 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Some tips for tracking and reverting vandalism to templates more quickly:

1. Get the smallest applicable list of transcluded pages you can. If the vandalism is in a particular section of the page then edit just that section... below the edit window there will be a list of items transcluded for that section only. In most cases this will be only one or two. Note that you can also click on those links to go to the template... I use the popups script, popup the history from those links, get a preview of suspect edits in that history, and go from there... can usually find the problem in just a few seconds without ever leaving the original page (article of the day in this case).
2. Familiarize yourself with the permanently protected 'high risk' templates. In most cases these cover all but a very few of the templates transcluded onto a page. If you exclude those it's alot easier.
3. Look (or search) for '{{' to find the template which is located at the exact point in the text where the vandalism is appearing. That's the vandalized template. Sometimes difficult with infoboxes and the like if they are 'stacked' atop each other, but you can usually get in the ballpark.
4. Don't look at the template code - look at its page history. If there are no edits to the template that day then you have the wrong one. If there ARE edits you can quickly get diffs and see what was added... if it is an image inside 'includeonly' tags then that's likely it.

• • Obviously this would still take longer than just looking at the history and reverting back to a clean version, but it can still be done very quickly. --CBD 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a static version of the main page every day(nothing transluced, all raw wikicode)? HighInBC 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think CBD is right though. I haven't seen any vandalism on the main page itself, and I use that pretty much constantly throughout the day. The vandalism is occurring on the featured article. It is a static version of the featured article you are after, I suspect, but that would negate the "let anyone edit" thing. I think we just need more people watching the featured article and its templates. Carcharoth 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think HighInBC means a page that just uses no templates, i.e. everything is substituted in (subst:). It could be unprotected, and the templates could be too, but sneaky template vandalism would be impossible, unless someone added the template they vandalized, then it would be easilly reverted. Coincidentally I had just proposed something like this. --W.marsh 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively creating a static version, saving it and then reverting back to the dynamic version would allow anybody to edit but give a "safe" version to roll back to if any sneaky vandalism did occur. You could then hunt down the offending tranclusion without having it on the page while you did so. You wouldn't then need to reconvert the static page back to a dynamic page the next day (which you would have to do with a purely static version unless no useful edits were made during the day it was featured). Yomangani 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, this just all seems like a tremendous ammount of work to add for admins just so we can get the 5-10 beneficial edits from IPs on the main page FA each day... which only ammount to 10-11% of edits by IP editors (the others are all vandalism). --W.marsh 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, but again, it's not IP vandals - now it's sleeper accounts. Sandy (Talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy (and anyone else who cares). I know you've contributed at Misplaced Pages talk:Main Page featured article protection, but we need more respected people in one place to echo we need change. There's no more "waiting for data" to be done (not to mention that various evidence that might help make decisions, such as server logs/user browsing patterns, will never be available); Misplaced Pages's reputation continues to be at stake, and too many people who love Misplaced Pages take dogmatic positions that actually hurt the project. I keep telling myself to leave the issue alone—"most people don't care"—but I can't. Something must change regarding TFA editability. It's not "giving into vandals". It's a business decision to address a fact of life for a high-traffic web site and article. (Does one not buy home insurance because it's "giving into fires"?) –Outriggr § 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising, Main page Dec 20

It doesn't look like all the templates and images are protected; am I missing something? Sandy (Talk) 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which ones are not protected? -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About images... is there really an advantage to protecting images? Vandals could just as easily upload their own and add it to the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

{{mprotected2}} update

For those admins tackling this issue, they may want to note that {{mprotected2}} has been updated to allow the name of the article with which the template is associated to be added as a parameter (i.e. {{mprotected2|name of associated article}}). That would make it easier to find out the reason for the template's protection and when it is safe for the template to be unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need answers

OK. I just clicked random page, up came Dogfights. At the top of the article was a large, practically full screen picture of a guy from the waist down, lying in a bath naked, doing something very unpleasant to look at. I refreshed, checked the code, the history but there has never been an image on the page. Clicking on the image showed a long list of pages the file apparently links to (including Tianamen Square, Ada and Archaeology) but none of them showed the picture. I went back to Dogfights, refreshed and it was gone. The Dogfights page hasn't been edited since the 17th, the day it was created, and isn't showing any deleted edits. I'm trying to track down the filename of the pic, it was a string of about 8 random characters. But seriously, WTF? It was there but it never existed. Deizio talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I read the above topic but it made no specific reference to what the problem was before I posted. Yikes. Deizio talk 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted while you were trying to track it down; hence, the magic trick. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly me - I just realized this means that image was on every page, for seven minutes, that uses the Harvard citation template, which should be quite a few articles. Truly over the top. Sandy (Talk) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. Deizio talk 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only templates on Dogfights are {{for|close-range aerial combat|Dogfight}} and {{US-tv-prog-stub}}. Deizio talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it was {{For}}. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, diff . Google Deizio talk 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see 3QTFUN-5, I saw 3QTFUN-4 , which was a double whammy. Sandy (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When protecting high-risk templates, such as {{Harvard citation}}, don't forget to protect redirects that are commonly used (like {{harv}} for that one). -- Renesis (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to revert this vandalism. --NE2 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Cplot-related issue

Given the various circumstances known to readers of this board, this edit to User:MONGO's talkpage struck me as a highly inappropriate way to raise the issue presented. The edit summary, though conceivably written in good faith, struck me as being taunting in nature and intent. Should an administrator respond and suggest that the issue be pursued, if at all, by other means? Newyorkbrad 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Zoe, Tom Harrison and I have all left messages. Thatcher131 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we send this one to checkuser? MER-C 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• CyclePat is a member of Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates, so he is merely acting on behalf of Cplot.--MONGO 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pat certainly picks them! I might have a quiet word. He's definitely not a sock, though, I've known him for ages. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:80.195.226.94

I have blocked 80.195.226.94 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Rachel Weisz, but looking through his/her edits, it's clear that this account is on a rampage to make sure that no Jew could possibly be listed as English, as if there is some stigma with doing so. Very borderline anti-Semitic. After the 24 hours, this account bears watching. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked further into this user's edits, the term "borderline" does not need to be applied to his anti-Semitism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One look at their contributions, and its a dungload of anti-semitism. I would have preferred a longer block. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Racist username?

Hi, could someone please have a look at User:Nignogz? Not only are his edits racist, but I believe his name is as well, please see this for further clarification on the name. IronDuke 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, will the first admin to see this please block immediately. Generally these reports go to WP:AIV but this one shouldn't wait. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Handled. Deizio talk 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy work, Deizio. IronDuke 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba, which already had an ArbCom remedy, appears to have reignited, this time between SSS108 and Ekantik. Discussion has spilled over trom the article discussion page onto my talk. Accusation of sockpuppetry abound. I'm hoping that someone with either some background knowledge in the ArbCom case, or a heck of a lot of time, can untangle the mess. Thanks, BanyanTree 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected for now. I can investigate per the arbitration case tonight after work. There is also a pending complaint at WP:AE if anyone else wants to wade in before I'm free. Thatcher131 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The root cause of the pending complaint at WP:AE was a request for clarification that I submitted months ago that was ignored by the arbcom. I re-submitted it. Andries 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded extensively here, and placed the article on 1RR parole. Any editor who makes more than one content reversion per day (excepting obvious vandalism) may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. It seems like the best way to stop the edit war while allowing work on the article (which is a mess) to continue. Thatcher131 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris vandals

In the last two days, I've seen a number of vandals, mostly IP addresses, working on a Chuck Norris theme, e.g. Chuck Norris and the Kennedy assassination. Here are a few I logged -- 69.92.64.100 (talk · contribs) -- 67.42.163.59 (talk · contribs) -- 168.103.129.39 (talk · contribs) -- Theamigo (talk · contribs) - the IP's don't seem to fit a pattern, so maybe it's just co-incidence and not a new trend. I slightly wondered if Stephen Colbert was up to something --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whois on the ips says they're all from Idaho, so they do fit a pattern. It's probably some random kid who's a year and a half late on the Chuck Norris facts fad. I blocked the username as a vandal only account, not really much else to do here. - Bobet 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanicprincess e-mail

I have received the following e-mail from Titanicprincess (talk · contribs), a CheckUser confirmed sock of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've removed the e-mail addresses for privacy reasons.

from Titanicprincess <address removed>

to Aecis <address removed>
date Dec 18, 2006 11:29 PM
subject Misplaced Pages e-mail
mailed-by wikimedia.org

May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38. It is a school IP and it is shared by multiple users. Its a home school. Me and my seven brothers and sisters are home schooled, the rchasemore@alumnidirector.com email is my uncle, he very smart with computers!!! We are supposed to use Misplaced Pages and the internet for educational purposes.


We just want to start over and start a new leaf!! On the weekends we edit Misplaced Pages and surf the internet. That Bobabiba character is my older sister, I told my mom that she is causing trouble on the internet durning school time (8:30-5:00), my mom "banned" her from using the internet.



May you please unblock my IP 72.177.68.38.

Thank you,


and happy Holidays,

God Bless

Since I was not involved in the discussion about Bobabobabo, I'm deferring this to the Admins' Noticeboard. What should be done? Aecis 12:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)