Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Husnock (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 13 December 2006 (→Olive Branch: good-bye until 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

One second blocks

This topic was briefly (very briefly) discussed here, but there was no final opinion on the matter. I have a serious problem with admins beginning to issue one second blocks for something like removing warning templates. The templates can still be found in history, and admins should (and I believe do) check the history of a user before issuing a relevant block. A one second block, as implemented by Centrx here seems like more harassment/intimidation that any template warning ever did. I'd like to get some admin opinions on this before 1 second blocks begin to be implemented Wiki-wide, but was unsure of the proper place. If there's somewhere better...let me know. -- AuburnPilot 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one-second blocks are not a good idea. I frankly don't see much point in a one-second block. Logging "warning removal" seems unnecessary -- the user contribs will show that. --Ginkgo100 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a log of warning removal. It is a log of the behavior which has apparently been generally ignored after he was last blocked in July. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a log of "warnings". Since the user removes warnings, admins don't know how to block. This shows up in the log and gives them a note of past problems, it is much like a "dummy edit". Cbrown1023 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two valid uses of 1 second blocks- 1 sometimes they can be used to help clear out autoblocks. 2) Noting that a previous block in the block log was erroneous. Users sometimes prefer such notes who are senstive about their block logs. Either of these uses are fine. Using them as a form of warning doesn't serve any real purpose. If you need to warn a user about something use the user's talk page. JoshuaZ 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a warning. It is a log. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 1 second blocks clear autoblocks any more.Geni 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You can't put on a block if there is already one in place. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

His behavior is blockable in itself. Him threatening to block other users because he disagrees with article content is unacceptable; revert warring and removing others' comments from article talk pages is also unacceptable. Him removing a warning so that it is not easily searchable and likely ignoring it and previous warnings does not create a time-consuming obligation on my part to monitor his contributions endlessly, nor to require that I look through all his contributions to determine whether he has been entirely disruptive or whether there is some benefit to having him around and some hope of remediation; or to determine exactly how many warnings he has gotten previously and their validity; or to determine whether he is actually a sockpuppet of banned User:Cute 1 4 u. He has the opportunity to amend this behavior, but that does not equate to a misleading clean slate; he has been given that opportunity before. If another administrator encounters this disruptive behavior on his part in the future, they should recognize that he has already been told repeatedly to stop. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One second blocks tend to be used as punishments- "I did this and I'll do more if you carry on". Blocks aren't punishments. And moreover, the block log is a log of blocks, not a place to put little administrative notes. --Deskana talk 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana pretty much summed up my position on this subject. A block log is to be used as a log of a person's blocks. It is not a place for admins to make notes on a user's behavior and an editor should never be blocked, regardless of the duration, unless a block is warranted. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive; a one second block doesn't prevent anything. -- AuburnPilot 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The behavior if it is not stopped warrants banning. The one second block prevents him from continuing this behavior without it being noticed. This is not a punishment. —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The block does not stop him doing anything since it is for one second. If you want to warning him he'll get banned, tell him. --Deskana talk 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That was already done. The entry in the block log is a note to other administrators that he has already been repeatedly warned for this behavior, so that future disruptive behavior will receive an informed response, ending the ability to be disruptive if necessary. —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My feelings on the matter are summed up here, and Bishonen has indicated that she agrees with me. The history of Certified.Gangsta's talk page from Centrex's warning at 22:53 on 3 December right up to Bishonen's attempt to calm things down less than an hour later shows a very unseemly and unbecoming edit war in which three users descended on his talk page and began to repeatedly remove that silly practical joke banner, restore warnings, etc. Then Centrx, one of the three users, blocked him for one second, so that it would be in the block log.

I consider that block to be inappropriate, and potentially counterproductive. The idea of giving one-second blocks to users who remove warnings was discussed here. It was suggested by Centrx. I and another user opposed it, and then the thread was archived. Nobody had supported it. I do not suggest any impure motives on the part of the blocking admin, but such blocks seem designed to "show" the user that the blocking admin is more powerful. Additionally, the removal of warnings is discouraged, but not prohibited. And, idiotic though that practical joke banner is, it's not something that "must be removed at all costs", so why make an issue of it and cause bad feeling? There is absolutely no compelling reason to have a record in the block log, and there are very good reasons not to (potential for ill will, and impossibility of changing your mind later). The very troublesome users attract admin noticeboard attention regardless of block logs. If a user is slightly disruptive (and I have no idea if this is the case here), there's no urgency. If you feel a record is necessary, you can keep one (with diffs) on your hard disk without humiliating and frustrating a fellow editor until such time as you feel that his behaviour needs to be brought to the noticeboard. AnnH ♫ 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ann's summary puts it as succinctly as can be, and I fully agree. I would only add this: blocks are sometimes punitive. I know that people often claim they aren't but it seems to me I've seen more than a few cases where editors were blocked long after the incident that precipitated the blocking had passed. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I wish this status quo were either acknowledged or changed. It's a bit confusing otherwise. IronDuke 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth behind this punishment/preventative thing that you say, IronDuke. I guess one could say "If a punishment stops someone from vandalising due to fear of being blocked again, then the block was preventative" but that ground is perhaps a little weak. --Deskana talk 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you propose instead? Our options are:

• We watch all his contributions for several months (Are you going to do this or is this my burden?);
• Let his behavior continue to be under the radar as it has been, accruing endless warnings, perhaps hoping that he will go beyond the pale or that a more aggressive administator will simply block him when he threatens to ban the admin;
• Simply block him now as this is disruptive behavior for which he has previously been warned (Would anyone have objected if I had simply blocked him for 24 hours rather than 1 second?)

—Centrx→talk • 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just work out a way to record warnings properly? Only allow admins to issue these warnings, and still, obviously, allow the template sort of warnings to be used by any user. Bit like a yellow card and then red card in some sports. Carcharoth 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been pondering for some time the idea of having a "warning log", which would be similar to a block log. It would be a permanent record, so to speak, so that admins could see what other admins had done in terms of warnings given. But it wouldn't be as hurtful or apt to cause disruption as an entry on someone's block log. Don't know if that's feasible with the software, though. IronDuke 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A 1 second block is obviously merely a note analogous to a warning log. I don't see why it would be less "hurtful". Also, having this feature would lead to "yellow card" warnings being put in the permanent log, where before they would be temporarily on the talk page, which would be more disruptive if the block log is. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be a good idea, but it would need to be technically implemented in the software (you could create a protected Warning page but you would then need to link it from the user page—a link which would then be removed by the user). Given that it is a minor feature request and the block is nearly functionally identical, I doubt it would be implemented soon, and until such time we are left with these options. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The talk page history generally makes for a pretty good "warning log". It doesn't take long to check it. -GTBacchus 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to calm things down, as Ann says, when I noticed all the activity on Certified.Gangsta's page. Gangsta is not the pattern of editorial virtue, but I'm convinced he has a strong ambition to be a good and respected wikipedian. Centrx, like Ann, I believe that your actions were performed in good faith and with good intentions, but please let the man keep a little dignity here. I have experience of how much better he responds to that. He's very sensitive about his block log. On the general issue, using one second blocks in this manner, I'm totally against it. One second blocks are very useful for acknowledging blocking error, as Joshua says—I thought it was a brilliant idea the first time I saw it done, which as it happened involved the same editor. Please don't use them for anything else. Bishonen | talk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

In regard to the recent heated exchange between admin User:Centrx and myself, I decided to make a concise explanation of the entire matter from beginning to end. First thing I need to clarify is I didn’t know Centrx is an admin until I checked his logs after Bish calmed us down. I was actually quite surprised he is a sysop for a number of reasons. The reasoning behind my post on his talkpage was not because I disagree with the page move on wigger, but because he failed to read the previous discussions on the possible page move in the relevant talkpage; thus he is moving it out of process (without consensus or discussion, factual accuracy). I have actually invested quite a bit of my time improving that particular article. Whether wigger is an ethnic slur is debatable and the misconception of the use of word is widespread among people who do not understand hip-hop culture (some white rappers are self-proclaimed wiggers), so redirecting wigger to ethnic slur without prior discussion on talkpage seems to be rather POV.

The only thing I probably shouldn't have done was to post on his talkpage. I do admit my reflective response on his talkpage is not optimal. This immediately provoked Centrx’s violent response. Rather than start a meaningful discussion on Talk: Wigger, he decided to post a warning on my talkpage as well as removing my joke banner from my userpage and talkpage, which has nothing to do with the content dispute. The joke banner could also be found on another user's userpage(whom I encountered on His excellency’s arbitration case). And it has been up there for quite a few months now and no one complained about the so-called “deception” or “non-joke”. All of these hatred toward my userspace seems to be out of personal vendetta.

In addition, Centrx also reverted one of my edits on Chinese (an area he was previously uninvolved in)]. which was later reverted back by admin User:MarkSweep. Once again, he demonstrated he is being rather personal (one of wikipedia’s policy is to comment on the contributions not the contributor).

Many other users have posted similar warnings on my page, many of them baseless and unjustified such as User:RevolverOcelotX and User:PoolGuy, both of whom have been indef. blocked.

1 second block is a great way to admit administration error, like the link Bish provided above. Alex apologized to me about the unjustified 3RR block he imposed on me, which was brilliant. But it is hard to picture that happening here in the near future.

In regard to several unjustified accusations above, whether or not I disagree with the content is irrelevant, the point I am making is Certrx is redirecting out of process. I did not, of course, remove anybody's comment from article talkpages. Please provide evidence. The most outlandish accusation out of all is my connection to User:Cute 1 4 U, I'm not going to provide a diff. here (it's my bedtime). But if anyone is interested take a look at, Cute 1 4 U's talkpage and the previous thread about her on AN/I, I was actually one of the main advocate to have her blocked. The accusation is absolutely ridiculous. It is insulting.

On a side note, if anyone is interested to come to a resolution, I will be holding a discussion on my talkpage. All involved parties are welcomed to participate. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ha, you think we don't see through your "participate"? All you want is for people to come to your talkpage so you can trick them into clicking on the joke banner! Bishonen | talk 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
• I fail to see the point of a one-second block. If behavior is disruptive enough to warrant it, do a regular block; if not, don't block. We don't need to keep permanent records of any user's behavior that was "just shy of disruptive", least of all in the block log. (Radiant) 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please do not use the block log as a notice area for admins. If the behavior does not warrant a block, don't block. If the behavior is problematic in a long-term way, someone will notice it eventually, at which point blocks can be issued or a user RFC started, where the behavior can be analyzed in detail. Kusma (討論) 10:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• If you want a bulletin board, use the page history, not the block log. yandman 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• This seems like the latest manifestation of an ongoing divide in 'conflict philosophy' amongst the community. One school of thought holds that we should label and warn and record so that users don't 'get away with' anything without it being easily and immediately visible to everyone. The other view is that such 'scarlet letter' notices are insulting/embarrassing, serve to increase conflict, and may be abused for harassment or issued questionably in anger. I belong very much to the latter group and think that this edit warring to enforce display of warnings / one second block to record it does more harm than good. A warning was issued. It was read. If the warning is valid and the actions prompting it are repeated then a block can be issued. If not... then the warning served its purpose and is no longer needed. If the same problem occurs a few weeks later the warning can be dug out of the history to show that the person knew about it. I don't think people 'get away' with misbehaviour because past incidents are overlooked very often at all. Generally they get blocked in very short order and if there are continual problems they are out the door. Barring some epidemic of people who commit dozens of disruptions and magically never get blocked I thus don't think any of these 'record-keeping' efforts serve a positive purpose... whether it be edit warring/talk page protection to force display of warnings, 'suspected sockpuppet' tags and the like on the pages of non-blocked users, one second blocks to record things in the block log, or what have you... it is guaranteed to annoy the user, easily lends itself to abuse/harassment, and accomplishes little or no positive benefit. It is natural to want to make a record of things you disagree with and make sure people know that 'this person is trouble'... but it is also inherently un-wiki. We need to try to cooperate with and support even the people we disagree with in order for collaborative encyclopedia building to work. Warnings exist not to note that the person is 'bad' with an eye towards blocking or banning them, but rather to help them get along with others. IMO any time your motivation is more akin to 'make sure they get what is coming to them' rather than 'try to help them avoid further trouble' you are headed in the wrong direction... down a path which increases conflict rather than helping to end it. It is a ridiculously easy trap to fall into, with all the best intentions of 'protecting Misplaced Pages from the bad guy', but in practice it does little except make matters worse. --CBD 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, you seem not to understand that an entry in a block log is a slap in the face. If I broke 3RR, I'd much rather have the article protected for 24 hours than be blocked for 24 hours, even if that article were the only one I was interested in editing. Most people don't like having their block logs soiled. Removing warnings is not forbidden, and honestly, the way you and two other editors descended on Certified.Gangsta's page repeatedly restoring the warnings and removing the practical joke banner did amount to harassment. In the last year, I have been in dispute with two very disruptive non admins, both of whom made numerous personal attacks against me. (They're both indefinitely blocked now.) They both had that silly, irritating banner on their talk page, but it never even occurred to me to start harassing them by removing it. As Bishonen says, let users keep a little dignity. If something is mildly silly but is not harmful to the encyclopaedia, and fighting it is going to cause a lot of bad feeling, then just leave it.

You say that his behaviour is potentially blockable. If that's really true, I wouldn't object to a proper block from an uninvolved administrator. But I don't know, as you didn't give diffs. I did a little research, since you spoke of him threatening to block other users, and I saw this entry on your talk page. He simply says, "Next time you move a page without consensus, you will be blocked from editing." That's not a threat that he'll block you. Lots of non admins send warnings that say "next time you . . . you will be blocked", even though they don't have the power to enforce it. At worst, his massage to you is an inappropriate warning. I've sometimes removed spam or nonsense or copyright violations, and have received vandalism warnings. I've even (gasp with horror) removed those warnings from my talk page. But I have never considered blocking the user who sent them, except where the user was engaging in vandalism or other clearly disruptive behaviour.

You say that his removal of warnings might create a "time-consuming obligation on part to monitor his contributions endlessly", and suggest that an alternative to your one-second-blocks idea is that "we watch all his contributions for several months". If he's a very disruptive user, then he will come to admin attention without anyone having to watch him for several months. If he's not, then there's no particular need to watch him for several months. Noticeboard archives are full of threads concerning Mistress Selina Kyle or Blu Aardvark or Alienus. A user who does a bit of edit warring (and remember, I don't know if that's the case here) or sends an annoying warning to another user is not such a threat to the encyclopaedia that we need to keep a record of it displayed on his talk page or in his block log.

A warning is intended to make a user — especially a new user — aware that he's violating a policy which he may not know about. Once he removes it, you know he's seen it, so you can keep the diff if you need it for an RfC or an RfAr. If you want a record, then put something like "disruption warning" in the edit summary — once. It can then be easily found in the history. (I always put "Test2 warning" etc in edit summaries for vandals.) If you want to go further than that, then you need to ask yourself if you are treating the warnings as genuine warnings (with the advantage of having a record for other admins through the history) or as a black mark that a user is obliged to display as a punishment for being naughty.

Finally, please remember that the block button is to be used sparingly. Regardless of what your intentions actually were, it should never be used to send the message, "I'm more powerful than you, so if you refuse to leave my warnings publicly displayed on your talk page, I'm going to put them in your block log, because there's nothing you can do about that." I don't imply that that was your motivation, but it is certainly the effect. AnnH ♫ 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

God, Bishy, you think I'm the type? Anyway, in order to show genuine good-faith and my true intention to reach a constructive resolution to the incident, I have removed the joke banner on my talkpage (personally I think the banner's hilarious, but if y'all think it's obnoxious I gotta give it up).

It is really refreshing to see all these intellectuals having a constructive, meaningful, and intelligent discussion about an important issue on wikipedia. There is still a lot hope in the project.

And by the way, Bish, guess what? you don't see through me. :)--Certified.Gangsta 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Run, Gangsta! Bishzilla 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Policy edit

Policy edit. It seems to me that this thread expresses consensus that blocks are not to be used for the purpose of making notes in the block log of a user, with the sole exception of putting in something like a note of apology for a wrongful block. Centrx alone disagrees. I'm going to ask Centrx to oblige the consensus demonstrated here by discontinuing the practice, even though he himself thinks it's a good idea. Gangsta also urgently wants another note from Centrx (are you following me...?) in his log, to disavow the first. People do feel humiliated by this kind of thing, and I for my part would be happy to see him get what he wants. I've also made the following addition to the blocking policy:

"Very brief blocks, for instance of one second, are sometimes used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. This practice can be seen as humiliating, and is not approved, except for making notes that are in the user's own interest. For instance, when a wrongful block has originally been placed, a one-second block can later be added by the same admin in order to record an apology, or acknowledgement of mistake.."

Thoughts? Bishonen | talk 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

• I like it. It reflects current practice, which is what policy ought to do. I might quibble with "is not approved," because it implies a body which could approve it, which seems misleading. How about this: This practice has not found wide acceptance within the community and is discouraged, save when the notes..."-- Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good, but why should we use a one second block when an unblock would do the same trick? --Conti|✉ 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Conti, an unblock will do the trick if the original block is still active, but if it isn't, the one-second block has a use. Here's an admin who made certified.gangsta very happy by apologizing for a mistaken 24-hour block after two weeks. Or, do you remember Carnildo's notorious indefinite blocks of three people for "hate speech"? They were quickly unblocked by others; but Carnildo could undo some of the damage with appropriate notes via one-second blocks, if he chose. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Thanks for the clarification, that certainly makes sense. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. No need to have a "scarlet letter" mentality. I support Mackensen's verbiage also, for the reasons he gave as well as for the reason that "This practice can be seen as humiliating" seems to imply that is the only reason not to do it, and there are others. Not qualifying leaves it open. KillerChihuahua 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Fully support this proposal. One second blocks should never be used as administrative notes and this addition to the policy would help clarify that point. Thanks, Bishonen, for taking charge on this. AuburnPilot 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support for Bishonen's edit. (Wish I'd made it myself!) AnnH ♫ 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely Bish hits it squarely on the head.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Very well said and very well done. We mustn't let our worries with vandals lead us to petty wars, brush fires, and vindictiveness. This is not a war of white and dark hats, Jedi and Sith. One second blocks are an attempt at demonstrating power, of nasally threatening to make a black mark on your permanent record. It's quite distasteful: block for abuse after talking or talk without blocking (even better). Geogre 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NudeGalsRSexy and Hotgirlsarehot

I've run across a couple of accounts which seem to be used for nothing but keeping a personal collection of nudie pics. The accounts NudeGalsRSexy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Hotgirlsarehot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) only have edits to their own user space and only to create or move around links to photos. The tie that binds the two accounts togther is some edits by 166.70.74.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to both user's pages. As this is not MySpace, is there any reason to leave the accounts around or should they be blocked for good? --StuffOfInterest 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Their pages should be deleted... Cbrown1023 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolls try to get entries on bloggers deleted

Interesting article on digg about how Misplaced Pages trolls are trying to get entries on bloggers deleted. I've tried to clean up the mess as best as I can. --Yamla 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to post about this issue to get some second opinions. I agree with your actions. —bbatsell ¿? 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, probably quite a few of the entries on bloggers should be deleted. However, the users I blocked claimed to be part of the GNAA, etc. etc., and were blatant trolls. There's also claims of vote fraud, etc., but I did not look in to that very deeply. --Yamla 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have undeleted and unblocked. Yes, Timecop is GNAA. He also seems to have Misplaced Pages's interests at heart in this case. At the very least, discussion should take place about this issue, not a single admin taking this into their own hands. --humblefool® 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more that he and others involved in this 'crusade' have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart. This is clearly a personal vendetta against blogs without any attention paid to Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability. Reading their contributions and userspaces, no measure of notability is significant enough for them not to attempt to have every blog-related article deleted. Just spend two seconds looking into it, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not going to continue the revert war that you've started, however, and would like to see this discussion continue. —bbatsell ¿? 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell. Please look at this link to see their The criteria for marking a BLOG-related article to be deleted which is, in my opinion, complete garbage. --ccanni1028 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.76.121 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Humblefool, why undelete Timecop but not Femmina? PermanentE 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would anybody have a "personal vendetta" against blogs? cacophony 09:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the way User:Timecop/The war on blogs is presented is not appropriate even for user space (e.g. "BLOGS UNDER TERMINATION FROM US QUEERS", "shit inane garbage blatantly promoting the said blog", etc.). That said, I am not convinced the project is entirely without merit. Timecop's deletion requests do often seem to be successful at AFD, and a review of his contributions did show at least one recent instance where he improved a blog (Climate Audit) rather than AFD'ing it (apparently having found that blog to be notable, or at least accepting the previous keep AFD as reason not to try again). My opinion right now is that I would be okay with keeping a project to clean up Misplaced Pages's blog-space if it were to be rewritten to have a serious tone and avoid throwing around intentionally abrasive language. Bloggers are real people, and as a serious encyclopedia project we should treat them with respect even if their work is non-notable and deserves deletion. I don't know enough about the vote-stacking and other issues to comment on those concerns. Dragons flight 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I went ahead and killed the top part of his page, based on my opinion that it was wholly inappropriate. Dragons flight 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on the presentation/attitude issue. I agree that there's a specific need to police blog related articles, but this "War on Blogs" is being conducted in a way that is obviously lacking on the NPOV front and contributes to the public perception that Misplaced Pages is solely populated by ego driven elitists. The childish language used in the proposed criteria removes Timecop's campaign of any credibility that it might otherwise have (especially with new/non-editing users), making it appear to be a campaign of one lone misanthrope, rather than a coordinated effort by multiple editors, which is what any effort to police blog related content should be. I for one, feel that any AfD nomination made by Timecop, GNAA or anyone else involved in this effort should be looked at with suspicion, based upon their stated motivations and their inability to articulate their position outside of their "blogging is worthless" perspective. If a project like this is going to be successful it needs input from people who have a better understanding of the blogging field than Timecop has. Glowimperial 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If the GNAA wants to get vanity articles deleted in an orderly fashion according to Misplaced Pages's policies, more power to them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely. That was exactly the conclusion I recall we reached last time this was mentioned. As long as Timecop goes about it the Misplaced Pages way, with reference to policy and guidelines, what is the problem? And keep !votes based solely on the identity of the nominator are unlikely to get much weight either. Few bloggers are as notable as they may think. Writing about yourself every day is not a guarantee that your perception of society's need for your words is in line with reality, is it? Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just to concur with the above, the objections (last time around it was User:Bearcat who got very upset) made respecting the effort to bring blog entries of questionable notability to AfD is entirely in keeping with overall principles and policies. The "problems" cited above seem to be completely contrived - that AfD nominations that are not as civil as they might be or that bloggers are not being treated with respect... What is that? And how are those grounds to issue blocks against users whose efforts have in effect been endorsed by the larger opinion of the community (if one reviews the list of nominations brought to AfD, many have been successful. It's too bad that Wil Wheaton is upset, but then... doesn't he exist on blogging...? Blocking User:Timecop and User:Femmina on grounds of trolling, when the bulk of their AfD participation has received sanction from other, uninvolved editors is absurd, against policy, and should be forthwith reverted. Eusebeus 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Last time around it was Curps. Bearcat was the time before that. Uncle G 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tony Pierce here. This might be surprising coming from me but I agree with those of you who think that timecop should stay. Every society needs a garbage man, a cockroach, a cop. And those roles are oftentimes looked down upon. If in his heart timecop feels he's doing the right thing focusing on bloggers and if the editors of Misplaced Pages agree with him, then he is doing good work in making this place even better.

Not everyone, however, who does good things does them in a friendly, polite, or even decent way, however, and I think that's where timecop and the GNAA do themselves a disservice. For example I tried to politely ask timecop to remove the link that he found to a resume of mine from 2000, as well as delete the lie that I hadn't ever been employed for one full year from the AfD page and he refused. After I reminded him that knowingly keeping something posted that you know (from the resume) is false is tantamount to lying (and possibly worse: libel), he basically told me to piss off. That's a bad cop, despite his possible initial good intentions. And it lends to critics' arguments that someone with an agenda against blogs fails the Misplaced Pages standard of Neutrality. If somehow you can get timecop to play by the rules I think you'll have a really dedicated editor who is passionate about Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately there's very few worse things than a bad cop. And if you're just as diligent about getting rid of bad entries, why wouldn't you also be just as rigid about getting rid of bad editors?

With that said, there are two things that I have learned from the two discussion pages in regards to my case. The first is, as you can see from the information gleaned in the debate, there is far more information about me and my career in blogging that was ever on my Wiki entry. Sometimes it might be that the entry is lacking, not the subject. In which case it's unfair to debate the entry until it's complete. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it could be, and it could be the case for some one else down the road. Several people said "Delete, he has only appeared on G4TV? Big whoop" before seeing the information that I've been quoted in newspapers around the world, and that my award-winning post has been translated in several languages. Therefore I am grateful that mine wasn't one of those Speedy deletions. And I'm also grateful that the Washington Post story was published this Sunday which made me check in on my entry to see if I was in the same boat as the band in the WaPo article - and sure enough, I was. And I was lucky that it was on Digg, and I was lucky that there was time afforded for an intellectual discussion. I say "lucky" because I simply want a fair discussion based on facts, not a hurried debate based on a poor entry.

The other thing is there really needs to be, in my humble opinion, a better test than there currently is for determining the notability of a blogger and/or a blog. This too was brought up in the current discussion. The media has also had to struggle with this one while debating if bloggers are journalists, whether blogs are credible news sources (something we share with Misplaced Pages), and if blogging is merely a fad. Many of those questions are no longer debatable since bloggers have been granted access to attend and report on political conventions, a few blogs have broken news stories or severely changed political discussions, many newspapers now have blogs, and some blogs are hiring full time bloggers and editors.

I'm not saying that I know what should be included in the test of notability but things like Technorati's rankings, mentions in major newspapers, longevity, money made off blogging, or blogging professionally are the types of things that could be determined in separating the average blogger from the notable one.

There is a strong relationship between bloggers and Misplaced Pages, and I dare say that we are probably the source of more links and more traffic to your site than any other place. And if we're not we're way up there. Therefore the likelihood of more blogs being nominated for entry/deletion will be high. If that's true, it means a good standard specifically for blogs is something that I believe should be set at some point since we are (sadly) different than other forms of media.

Regardless of the fate of my entry, even if I disagree with it, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have in the future, if there ever are any, regarding blogs, bloggers, and blogging and its history, and I can be reached pretty easily in the comments of the busblog, LAist, or via email at busblog @ gmail. Best regards, Tony 75.203.122.243 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my irreverence, but I don’t think a link to the resume of an individual whose Misplaced Pages article is being discussed is totally off-topic. Also, why do you insist the link be removed and at the same time continue to serve the image from your website? Sam Hocevar 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the resume is irrelevant and off topic because it spans years up to 2000. i hadn't started blogging until fall of 2001. also the point of him linking to it was to expose me as someone who hadn't held a job for over a year, which if it were true, would also be irrelevant to what i have achieved in blogging, but it is a false claim. if you or he can justify linking to my pre-blogging, 2000 resume as a way to prove or disprove that i deserve a wikipedia entry go for it. but the claim that i havent held a job for over a year is not only a poor argument for a Delete vote, but it's untrue based, ironically, on the resume timecop linked to. therefore keeping the statement that i have not held a job for over a year is a blatant lie and possible libel since its sole intention is to defame me based on something that he knows to be untrue. tony pierce 75.201.132.119 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock tool down

The autoblock tool seems to be down at the moment. I'm going to bed, can someone else please kick it? --Yamla 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the whole toolserver is down. Martinp23 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to wikitech-l, all the European-hosted Wikimedia servers were down a while ago, and the developers are currently trying to bring them back online. This includes the toolserver. --ais523 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking Foundation-level news

Technically this doesn't need administrators' notice, but I'm sure you all will agree it's important enough that everyone will want to read it anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Board meeting in Florida

From foundation-l, by Anthere

We had to 1) replace Tim Shell, 2) plan next elections, 3) make decisions over how to expand the board It was a set of issues I expected would be problematic, but we actually rather easily and quickly settled down on an agreement. A very detailed resolution will make that plain official, but the basic ideas are these ones:

We will work toward a progressive expansion of board, up to a number of probably 11, to be expected in july 2008. 2 new members will be added (by appointment) before the end of the year on the board, until next elections in july 2007. Tim Shell will be replaced before the end of the year, by appointement, for a term of one year. All appointements will be for one year from now on, which means Jimbo and Michael Davis terms will expire in a year. Appointements may be renewable.

Elections will take place every year for 3 positions (3 positions in july 2007, 3 positions in july 2008). Elected seats is for 2 years term and may be renewed. Elections will stay direct elections, but procedures and rules (such as requirements for candidacy or voting system) may evolve. The board is apparently opened to the concept of appointing in the future, a member which would be warmly recommanded by chapters. Last, the board pledged the majority of the board would be from the community (through appointements or elections)

To be very specific

The board was also concerned by the risk of instability at next elections, due to the important influx of new members (possibly very knowledgable about the Foundation, or possibly not) and important departure of current members (Erik, the two new temp members and myself). The board consequently suggested that I, be appointed to the board from july 07 till june 08, which I accepted (OMG). The board came up with names for the three newly appointed members, but we first need to check whether they agree :-) You'll be informed once agreement is given. Stay tuned !

Discussion

Wow ... those are some very big changes. What do you all think? --Cyde Weys 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I think is that the math doesn't add up. If you have 11 board members serving two year terms, yet only elect 3 each year, you are only rotating 6 positions. —Doug Bell  06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'm most interested in is these three new board members who are going to be appointed. What was the point of the elections then? For every one that is elected, three more are appointed? I don't see how that leaves us, the community, with very much control. --Cyde Weys 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it, it's a temporary move. A possible timetable:

• February 2007: 7 members- 3 appointed, 2 voted (Florence and Erik), and Jimbo and Michael Davis.
• July 2007: 7 members- 5 voted (though Florence would stay until 2008), and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
• February 2008: 11 members- 4 appointed, 5 voted, and Jimbo and Davis, assuming both are reappointed.
• July 2008: 11 members- 6 voted, 3 appointed, mainly from the various foundation chapters, and Jimbo and Davis.

This is obviously a guess, but I imagine something similar would be done. Ral315 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It reads to me that Florence will become an appointed member starting in July 2007, so we would have 4 elected (Erik + 3 new) from 2007 to 2008, and 6 from July 2008 on. Converting elected members into appointed members is not a bad thing, preferable to plucking chapter members who have never demonstrated any broad support in the greater community. We should elect them first, then convert those that prove to be excellent board members into appointees. NoSeptember 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that one of the Village Pumps would be a better place for this discussion. --Woohookitty 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I wouldn't know which one. Feel free to move this there... Ral315 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:VPN, I think. --ais523 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New block reason for accounts - Unb-c

{{Unb-c}}
I keep getting emails from accounts I've indef'd because their username resembles that of a company, so I created a more specific version of {{Usernameblock}}. I'm not really bothered whether I end up being the only person using this, but I think it's useful for people to know about. -- Steel 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My Account

You can block this open proxy later, but first please unlock this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Leaderofall I did not do vandalism. I was unfairly blocked. 85.17.45.23

Need help with Adolfo Carrión Jr.

Somebody (using both a logged-in account and anon ip) has repeatedly put copyvio material on Adolfo Carrión Jr.. I've asked them not to do that, and eventually just sprotected the page to keep it from happening again. Now that they can't edit the page anymore, they've just gone ahead and put the copyvio material on Talk:Adolfo Carrión Jr.. I don't want to get dragged into a one-on-one battle over this. Could some other admin take a look at this? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

IP Address Blocked

I am a Safety Officer working with Dubai International AIrport. I registered myself on this site as it provides huge amount of useful information in terms of safety and safe airport guidance.

For past several days, whenever I log in, I keep getting the message "Your IP Address has been Blocked". If this keeps on continuing then I will be forced to cancel my subscription from this website and a bad rep for Wikepedia.

It would be highly appreciated if you could resolve this issue at the earliest.

Thanks.

Regards,

Ali Asghar Ali Safety Officer Dubai International Airport —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliasghar.ali (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello. In order for us to help you, you need to tell us your IP, as told by the page which is telling you that you are blocked. Morwen - Talk 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you were able to post this text here with your username, which is not possible for people who've been blocked. I suggest you clear your browsers cache and try editing again. Also, if you just want information from WikipediA, that can be done even if you are blocked. 68.39.174.238 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Subscription? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no subscription necessary to use Misplaced Pages, other than the general cost to access the Internet. If you are paying a separate subscription, it sounds like you are being scammed. —AySz88\^-^ 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at request of fellow editor

I'm on the computer of User:Tenebrae, who was giving himself a Wikibreak for a day and inadvertently gave himself a week due to a typo.

At his monobook page, he meant to end his Wikibreak tomorrow, Dec. 6, at 17 hours (5 p.m.). Instead he typo'd 187 hours, which takes him through to Dec. 13.

He asked me to ask you, with his apologies for his careless typing, if you would fix the typo from "187" to "17." Thank you very much -- Skippu 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done it - it's clear that he made a mistake by his edit summary in the diff. Thanks :) Martinp23 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

street Scholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created extensive disruption for making sexist attacks before, as well as making racist attacks against Bengali people . He was then blocked for a long time. Now, he is back, and has launched a bad faith AfD where he has made personal attacks against me and similarly in my talk page . He has also vandalized several articles by blanking sourced content, using the vandalism (POV commentary adding) of another anon user as a pretext to hide his tendentious edits. He has made many tendentious edits Something needs to be done about this user. Hkelkar 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any recent attempt by you to communicate to this user on his talk page. A properly warned user is more likely to be blocked, I will look through your diffs. HighInBC 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have given the user a 2 week block for personal attacks. HighInBC 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith copy-vio notice

I need other adminsitrators to visit Starfleet Security as a user has declared the article to be a copyright violation against Memory Alpha since, months ago, the initial version of the article (then 2-3 sentences) was coped over from MA. since then, the entire article has been rewritten with new material and sources added. In its present form the article looks nothing like the version from Memory Alpha. I tried to explain this to the user and remove the notice, but he reverted demanding the notice stay up for several days until other adminsitrators look at it. I think this might be bad faith since the same user posted some very harsh reviews of the article on the talk page and then, after all this, decieded the article was a copvio. I am asking for a speedy removal of this notice since the article does not appear to be n any way a copyright violation. -Husnock 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. I removed the notice. Cowman109 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Further note that the user in question (a) strongly objects to being called "he", (b) was perfectly correctly identifying a copyvio problem, as now pointed out on the talk page (c) is an administrator in good standing of over three years, has never been blocked, and strongly objects to being accused of doing things in bad faith, and (d) should really stop talking about herself in the third person. Morwen - Talk 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "possibly" was used to ask other editors for thier opinions, and they have now given them. One must admit, though, the tone of the talk page on that article could have been less harsh. Noone was trying to harm the article and this user certianly did not knowingly commit a copyright violation or copy anything from Memory Alpha. -Husnock 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but couldn't the article be deleted and only the latest non-copyvio revisions restored? BTW, I also disagree that anything was done in bad faith. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could do this, but since all versions in history are copyvio we would lose the attribution required for the GFDL for the new non-copyvio content. This is why starting a new article is the procedure. Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Instructions specifically instructed me to do what I did. I see now after the required tag has been removed twice by various users, someone had now purged the article of the sentences i specifically identified as copyvio, leaving a kind of a mess. Morwen - Talk 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen had nothing to do with this, but moments after the copyvio was closed as not valid, another user nominated the article for deletion. User:Coolcat states he believes the AfD to be bad faith and I kind of agree with him. -Husnock 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you persisting in contending my actions were not valid, after I have explained at length the word-for-word that was still present in the version of the article when I tagged it, and have pointed to Misplaced Pages:Copyright_problems#Instructions, which I followed to the letter. I can accept that you examined the article and were unable to spot the copyvio, as an honest mistake, initially, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that you saying "there is no copyvio" was a mistake. Morwen - Talk 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire article itself indeed did not and still does not appear to be copyvio, but there were indeed subtle sentences mixed in that, while not obvious at a glance, have since been removed. What concerns me now is that the article is unverifiable (and really does seem to belong more in a fansite than on an encyclopedia). Cowman109 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cool Cat and Husnock are wrong, I nominated it because it is a novel synthesis of primary sources, and not especially good ones at that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 5 December 2006
  • The article is referneced with in-line references to movies and shows and a reference is given at the end with others soon to follow. So, I cannot agree when you say this article "is not a good one at that", we don't need personal opinions about an article beng good or bad, lets all work together to make them all better. As for Coolcat, he is concerned becuase the same people seem to be visiting the Star Trek articles he has worked on and are nominating them for deletion. To date, two have been nominated and when one survives an AfD, the same people who nominated it will visit another one of the articles and try to AfD that one instead. I have to give Coolcat's fears some credence here. I am really hoping that there are no personal motives here and that people are not nominating these articles becuase Coolcat or I worked on them. I can only hope that is not the case. -Husnock 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As if to confirm what Coolcat is saying, yet another article nominated for deletion by the same people for the same questionable reasons: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General -Husnock 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Lochdale (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• Onefortyone (talk · contribs) remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation.

For the Arbitration committee. Cowman109 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin ethics guide

Is there a guide to administrator ethics somewhere that I'm missing? If not, would anyone be interested in working on such a thing with me? I'm still relatively new to being an admin, and I think it might help to clear up issues about how to deal with abusive editors, how to avoid conflicts of interest, etc. Also, if anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think a number of admins have written informal pieces on the subject. Just to toot my own horn, I've a small one here: User:Mackensen/New admins. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Toot away. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a great little nugget, Mackensen. The last line particularly struck me since I always figure two people should be grown up enough not to edit war on a page and, if they're not, they and only they need to take a break. But "This focuses attention on the thing that matters most" is a thought-provoking point... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this. I do think that some sort of central ethics guidelines - not policy - at least should be discussed, even if just to get admins to talk about the topic.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are more of these, please add them to A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook (Wikibooks). Just the sort of stuff we're looking for! --SB_Johnny||_books 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD

A bunch of user talk pages (such as User talk:Celestianpower and User talk:Hollerama, to select two random examples) are showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion without any obvious reason for it. What am I missing here? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now (at least that I can tell); I'd venture to guess that someone tagged one of the templates used on the pages as a speedy without <noinclude>, which then caused all the pages it was transcluded on to be listed in the category. But that's pure speculation. At any rate, I can't find them there now. Essjay (Talk) 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it had something to do with Clamster5 (talk · contribs)'s templates. I noticed that when I was glancing at some of the user talks up for deletion all had Clamster5's welcome template on them. It was somehow stemming from either the welcome template or the signature, Metros232 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're right; it looks like he included both {{User:Clamster5/Welcome}} {{Template:inviteASUE}} when welcoming. The history of Template:inviteASUE shows it was moved from User:Clamster5/Invite, leaving a redirect there, which was tagged for speedy deletion earlier and deleted. So, it looks like any page that he originally put the userspace template on was included in the CSD cat when he tagged it for speedy deletion. Essjay (Talk) 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense Essjay. I was trying to trace it myself but couldn't quite figure out how the pages were being tagged. From the looks of it, Clamster5 wasn't substituting and I couldn't find any evidence in the templates themselves. But, there you go. Metros232 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Someone drop past WP:AIV bit of a backklog - I'm at work (on lunch), or I would do it. 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any backlog. It's been cleared out. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There was about 8--10 wating to be dealt with. Viridae`

User:SORBS DNSBL

I just happened to stumble upon m:Proxy blocking (don't ask), and it's automatically suppose to block edits by proxies. It's operated by User:Tim Starling. Now, the weird thing is that it supposidly edited, and was subsequently blocked for vandalism. Has this come up before, was the idea scrapped, or did this just go unnoticed? The page that controls this (MediaWiki:Sorbs) still lists this user. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing further details of this blocking scheme I'd dare to say that the user account was deliberately created to spoof a MediaWiki script name, as has been done for User:Template namespace initialisation script and User:Conversion script. The fact that a page in user space is displayed to users blocked by the software in this situation is quite an unfortunate quirk, though. Kimchi.sg 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)

The title of this article has been changed without:

• adequate consensus
• cogent evidence to support a change based on article content
• considering the creation of a new article

Subsequent edits have been made without:

• adequate consensus
• any real change large enough to warrant changing the title

Please adivse: Talk:Gun_(Firearm)_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Suggested_changes_to_this_page

--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All but one editor agreed on the consensus under discussion. Only Haizum μολὼν λαβέ disagreed. A non-issue. No action required. The previous title was felt to be non-descriptive of the title content relative to Gun control, as more than gun control content was included in the article. Giving undue weight to a minor part of Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state) was not felt to be an accurate title. Yaf 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Two editors to one is not consensus.
• If "more than gun control" was included in the article, then it should have been removed per the article title.
• The content should match the title of an article under contruction, not the other way around.
• If I was to create a "Gun Control by State" article, it would take only one instance of a non-resrictive law being included in the article for the same logic to be used and the article title changed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. HighInBC 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How is two against one consensus? It isn't. Goodbye. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye. HighInBC 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A little late, but as an uninvolved Admin, with the firm belief that "gun control" means hitting your target, I concur with the name change. Most gun laws have restrictive and expansive elements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter IP blocks are better

I've noticed that some admins are blocking IPs for increasing amounts of time. Some of these are shared university IPs, some are probably dynamic, and they are blocked for a week, month or even 6 months(!). That's completely useless for our purposes. We are blocking IPs to prevent specific persons from editing, not to punish the IP addresses. In most cases, the person behind the IP changes within hours, so blocking the IP for a week brings no added advantage for our purposes. Even when you have reasons to believe that a prolonged attack over a couple of days is coming from the same person, there is no reason to expect that the same person will be using the IP next week. I strongly advise less fancy template work on talk pages, shorter blocks (3-24 hours is almost always enough), and in cases of prolonged attacks coming from the same IP over a number of weeks - if you really want to be useful, inform the school. Zocky | picture popups 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do the longer blocks on IPs when there are not any constructive edits coming, but just more vandalism everytime the block expires. If I see a variety of types of edits from the IP then I do shorter blocks. HighInBC 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember the point of blocks, by WP:BLOCK, is to protect Misplaced Pages. If an address has 9 out of 10 edits being vandalism (or even 10 out of 10), and they are editing several pages per week, then it is far more to the deteriment of the encyclopedia to allow them to continue to edit. Patstuart 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for long blocks when shorter ones have not worked and virtually no good contributions are being made. I've found some IP addresses, especially those of schools and universities, to be chronic vandals. Also, Misplaced Pages seems to be doing significantly worse lately when it comes to catching vandalism, especially in a timely manner. I've been finding vandalism that has gone unreverted for many hours and sometimes days on high profile articles. Sometimes the vandalism is not even caught and the article is edited without being reverted. Therefore, more aggressive blocking of IP addresses that make few or no constructive edits might be appropriate. However, I have seen some admins block IP addresses for six months or a year when the account has only made one or two edits. Also, before going past the one month mark, I think that the ISP, college or company should be contacted. In many cases, they can identify the vandals and either greatly reduce the vandalism or stop it completely. Perhaps it should be part of the blocking procedure before long blocks are made. -- Kjkolb 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We already contact ISPs etc. Check out Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports. Currently, I assume due to available resourcing and likelihood of success, we only do so after 5 bans minimum. Note that, while it may sound simple, in reality it takes a long time because of the necessary to compile all the information. Nil Einne 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Expired prods are piling up

CAT:PROD is now backlogged past two days or about 300 "articles" and user pages. According to the category tracker, the number of prods is at an all time high. Please get out your flamethrowers and help clear this backlog. Thanks. MER-C 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)

I'm not quite sure what to do about this article. User:Ryulong nominated it for speedy deletion, because it was created by a sockpuppet, User:Tennis expert, of the indefinitely blocked user User:Cute 1 4 u (as per WP:CSD G5). However, it has actually survived an AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)), so it does appear to have some validity as an article. Any ideas on what to do? enochlau (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't have any idea, this needs a community concensus. I would like it to stay as it has encyclopedic value. But due to the criteria for speedy deletion, I have to consider this, this is a very tough decision to make. If we apply CSD G5 here, then it has to go. Terence Ong 07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

G5 it. The article is not something you'd find written in an encyclopedia, there are obvious tone problems, and it wouldn't hurt us if it was gone. – Chacor 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be that quick to dismiss the article. The AfD has established some form of community consensus that this is something we can have - the introduction can be rewritten to conform with tone quite easily and you do find comparative tables in encyclopedias. The question is how strictly the speedy deletion criteria should be applied. enochlau (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in this case the AfD acts as a community consensus for keeping. There is a similar qualifier on the notability CSD criteria G11:"If a page has previously gone through deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion." That line was instated following a discussion here which decided that AfD's overruled CSD's, and I would suggest that this principle extended to all (non-copyvio related) speedy deletion criteria: surviving a formal deletion process should make the page ineligible for speedy deletion. --tjstrf talk 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone raised something along these lines on IRC the other day (I forget who). I said to them that to delete whole articles, which have no other problems, only because they were contributed to by a banned user or a sock thereof, is simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The article is the community's now, and we can do with it what we like. If there's a consensus to keep it, evidenced by an AfD, then we should naturally keep it. --bainer (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal actually, that once a page survives XfD, it should be exempt from speedy deletion (except if it's patently not the same content). Is it worth putting into the CSD guidelines though? I'm thinking this is a rather small minority of cases, but it might be worth noting just to prevent future confusion. enochlau (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already there in G11, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the general rules as well. With a parenthetical exception for copyvios, of course. --tjstrf talk 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is technically eligible for speedy deletion under the criteria doesn't mean that it must be deleted, only that it can be. Conversely, just because something has survived one of the deletion processes, doesn't mean that it should never be deleted. That said, in a common sense approach to deletion, the fact that an article like this (where the only issue relating to the criteria is that it was contributed to by a banned user) has been kept by an AfD would almost always mean that it should be kept. --bainer (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like process for the sake of process. Say I copy and paste the article to my sandbox and then you delete the article, I could then repost the material and the process would have been honoured. What a waste of time. The argument that the article is non encyclopedic is also a nonstarter - it's demonstrably a minority POV, as it's passed an Afd. If I've ever seen an occasion demading Ignore All Rules, this is it. It's a good article and should stay - don't cut off your nose to spite your face. --Dweller 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm not an admin, so if I'm not supposed to post my thoughts here, please excuse me.

You are allowed to put your thoughts here, its for anyone to say anything. Terence Ong 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Block and subsequent unblock of Tennis expert

I understand that User:Tennis expert is a confirmed sock of User:Cute 1 4 u with checkuser evidence, but in my dealings with User:Cute 1 4 u before he/she was banned, they were not of the intelligence to write the article in that tone, or with that degree of knowledge of the wiki syntax. They seemed to be very ameteurish/childish. This is evinced by their userpage when they were not banned (have a look at the deleted edits). Is it possible that checkuser has got this one wrong, and we have banned a worthwhile contributor. Possibly because they share an isp? The only other option as I see it is that they were putting on the 13 year old girl act (guessing the age here) and that messy myspace like userpage? And to what end would all those thousands of edits have been. Viridae 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who's had run-ins with Tennis expert I agree. Tennis expert does not exhibit behaviour of Cute 1 4 u, neither do they edit the same articles. Questions, questions... – Chacor 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could it be a school, or something similar? yandman 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We know Cute 1 4 u's IPs, and it's not a school (there is considerable question as to whether Cute 1 4 u is a child at all). The other sock blocked, Tennislover edited many of the same articles as well. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the user in question has had an unblock declined by User:Ryulong who is not an admin, yet the note on User:Tennis expert's user talk page suggests he is . I don't know how check-user can prove that two users are the same person, just that they have the same IP address?? Should another admin review? Catchpole 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked several administrators to look over that message before I sent it to her, including the blocking administrator. Frankly, there is not much that can be done in a checkuser block (from what I was told) other than to request that another checkuser be performed. And my actions such as that there have been discussed before in that they are not harmful. I know I cannot unblock, and I don't expect to do that for a while, but things such as checkuser blocks or blatant attacks are things that can be reviewed and declined. However, I will "un-review" it, and just place all of my commentary beneath it, seeing as this is more complex than usual.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Renesis13 has unblocked Tennis expert (supported). Something definitely has to be cleared up here. – Chacor 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My actions are explained at User talk:Dmcdevit#Re: Tennis expert. I did not know of this discussion at the time, and did not mean to step on any toes or seize control of the situation. I do still, however, support my position that Tennis expert is not a sock (see evidence at the above link). -- Renesis (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennislover (talk · contribs), tennis expert (talk · contribs) and Twister Twist (talk · contribs) were all blocked as sockpuppets of Cute 1 4 u, a banned user. This was done after an informed CheckUser, lots of investigation, and double checking by Essjay, another checkuser, before making it public. I am confident in the identification, and I was very surprised to see another administrator unblock without reasoning and even attempting to ask me beforehand. The rationale provided seems to have homed in on minor discrepancies when the IP evidence is clear, two socks edit the same set of articles with similar usernames, and we already know that Cute 1 4 u has a history of taking on a variety of personae in her reincarnations. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited tropical cyclone and related articles, or for that matter edited articles helpfully. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell. – Chacor 08:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your time, research, and general experience in these matters, I do not see why you keep refusing to acknowledge my communication to you. I have said several times that I absolutely did research the matter before I executed the unblock, and I took mentions of several attempts to communicate with you with no response to them as a major factor in my decision. In addition, at your advice I spent more than an hour researching the several accounts' contributions, and all of them exhibit strong similarities except User:Tennis expert. User:Tennis expert's contribution times also overlap all of the suspected socks with no similarities when based on time, and not that many are to matching articles, especially when you consider the entire range of TE's contributions. -- Renesis (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, you appear to be saying that I am a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U because I'm a sock puppet of cute 1 4 U. "... two socks edit the same set of articles...." It also appears that one of your criteria for making a sock puppet conclusion is similarity in user names. What is similar about "Tennis expert" and "Tennislover"? We both have "tennis" in our names. But so what? I chose "Tennis expert" simply because I anticipated that most of my registered edits would be in tennis-related articles, and my unregistered edits had been almost completely in that area for the previous 8 or 9 months. (I then started editing tropical cyclone articles because I have been interested in that subject since about 1971, when I experienced my first hurricane.) Is everyone on Misplaced Pages who has "tennis" in his or her username a suspected sock puppet of cute 1 4 U? Also, why don't you check the IP addresses I've used today and yesterday and the day before and really at any time in the past since I registered. You've apparently concluded in the past that cute 1 4 U is in the Chicago, Illinois area. As you will see, I am no where close to that location, and the first two or three digits of my IP addresses are different from the first two digits of the IP addresses used by cute 1 4 U. Your other reasoning is that cute 1 4 U has varied personaes. But that makes Chacor and everyone else in the world a suspect who has a personae different from cute 1 4 U; therefore, that is a useless criterion. What will it take to convince you that I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or any other past or present Misplaced Pages user? Or is your mind closed to that possibility? You have my email address. I'll provide whatever private information you need, within reason. Tennis expert 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser process is a detailed examination of the IP addresses that you have been using to connect to the internet and has nothing to do with your user name or even your contribution history. If Dmcdevit and Essjay say that Tennislover (talk · contribs), tennis expert (talk · contribs) and Twister Twist (talk · contribs) are all coming from the same computer as Cute 1 4 u and her sockpuppets, then I trust that finding completely. I don't know what prompted the check, since checkuser is only done after there is other evidence; the other admins weighing in here may wish to consider that as well. The question now is will a community ban for disruption be enforced against the person or only against the disruptive personae the user has created and not against their helpful personae. Thatcher131 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Dmcdevit actually said that I am using the same computer as cute 1 4 u? I haven't seen where he has said that. The closest anyone has come is that my IP address is within the same IP address range as that used by cute 1 4 u. I'm not sure what it takes to be within the "same range." But if my IP address is different, how can it be said that my computer is the same as the computer of cute 1 4 u? And how are dynamic IP address assignments handled by checkuser, which is my situation? Aside from all this, I would like to know what "other evidence" existed to cause the checkuser to be conducted. No one requested it as far as I can determine. The only "other evidence" talked about so far is that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names and that we have edited some of the same tennis articles. The logic (illogic to me) appears to be that if Tennislover is a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U and given that Tennislover and I both have "tennis" in our user names, then I also must be a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U. That makes no sense. And where is the good faith presumption when it comes to my account? What about fundamental fairness, which to almost any rational human being includes notice and the opportunity to contest the evidence before adverse action is taken unless an emergency situation exists. And even then, a meaningful opportunity to overturn the adverse action should be provided after the fact. Refusing to discuss the evidence and reflexively saying that "if A said it, then it must be true and accurate" is wholly insufficient in my opinion. Tennis expert 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read the discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page. If Dmcdevit says on his talk page - "You are on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u" - then I it means Tennis expert is on the same IP as C14U. Note: Dmc doesn't even say same range, or same ISP. And as the community has already banned C14U, I would support a reblock of Tennis expert. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my talkpage on this issue? Řÿūłóñģ originally said, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover are the same person, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u are the same person." BUT, he then amended his post to say the following, "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover utilize the same IP address range, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u do, as well." That is his last statement on the matter. Notice the reference to "IP address range." What Řÿūłóñģ says about this is relevant because he claims to have talked with Dmcdevit about this situation. So, given Řÿūłóñģ's change in position, I am not sure how you know what Dmcdevit meant when he said, "You are on the same IP...." If I wanted to say that Person A is using the same IP address as Person B, it would be very easy to be clear about such an important point and write, "Person A is using the same IP address as Person B." If I wanted to say that Person A has the same Internet provider (IP) has Person B, I might easily say, "Person A is on the same IP as Person B." And no one so far has disputed the simple fact that my IP addresses are 204.XX.XXX.XX or 76.XXX.XXX.XX (I use two Internet providers) while cute 1 4 U's IP addresses are 75.XXX.XXX.XX. Tennis expert 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to further emphasize the "IP range" point, Řÿūłóñģ said this on his own talk page: "Dmcdevit did a checkuser on a user who was suspected to be Cute 1 4 u, which was User:Tennislover, based off of known information about the IPs she had used when she was initially banned. User:Tennis expert (from what I can glean from the information provided to me by Dmcdevit) was also on the same range when compared against the IPs." Notice again the reference to "ranges." Tennis expert 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the account is only making good edits, why do we care if it's a sock of a banned user or not? Zocky | picture popups 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Depends what prompted the check in the first place. Inquiring minds...Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been tracking the Cute 1 4 u problem since before the first block, I can assure you that this editor has caused a great deal of difficulty. My position regarding the Tennis expert account is that I am sure that appropriate policy has been followed and that the blocking admin and supporting admin have good reason to believe the account is another sockpuppet. I do not understand how checkuser works, technically, so on the basis that I do not understand, I maintain the hope that the blocking admin has made a mistake (despite good intentions and following policy). Is it possible that Tennis expert has the misfortune to edit using the same ISP as Cute 1 4 u and so coincidentally used the same IP address at a different time? On the assumption that this is possible, I would say that we should extend the benefit of the doubt, given that the account seems to be used only for productive edits. If this is not the case, if we are really sure that this is a sockpuppet account, it should of course remain banned. I would support an unban of the Cute 1 4 u editor only after a full year of no more abuse. That is, no editing of Misplaced Pages whatsoever. And with the understanding that the account would not use Misplaced Pages as a chat site, would not violate copyright (basically, would not deal with images at all), and would refrain from even a hint of personal attacks, whatever the provocation. So far, Cute 1 4 u has been unable to go even a week without violating these since the original ban and has shown absolutely no intention of editing productively since the ban was placed. I'll also go on record as stating I believe the unblocking admin made a mistake. --Yamla 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anyone want to consider the reason this came up in the first place? Calm cooperative editors don't get checkusered. Does anyone remember this complaint? Thatcher131 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. Are you saying that my permanent block arose because of the disagreement among Coredesat, Chacor, and myself? If so, are you speculating or do you have direct knowledge that the disagrement was the cause of the current mess? What does that disagreement have to do with the question of whether I am a sock puppet for cute 1 4 U or Tennislover? Notice what Chacor himself said here: "As far as I am aware, neither Cute 1 4 u nor any of her socks have ever edited tropical cyclone and related articles, or for that matter edited articles helpfully. This user also definitely has knowledge that I don't expect C14u to have. Given also that this user started editing even before C14u's first block, I cannot support any block related to this imposed on Tennis expert from what I can tell." And notice the olive branch that Chacor extended to me on my own talkpage and that I accepted. It sounds like you're searching for a new justification to impose a permanent ban on me. The justification you're citing was resolved to the parties' apparent satisfaction. Tennis expert 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't request a checkuser, and neither I nor Chacor even mentioned Cute 1 4 u on that report, so I'm fairly sure that isn't why the checkuser was run. I don't support an indefinite block either - Tennis expert has hardly done anything worth banning for. --Coredesat 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tennis expert 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I no longer think that any block is supported by the evidence, and thank everyone here for the time put into this. With help from Mackensen, the evidence from CheckUser, not just behavior, doesn't support that claim. I think it was a giant misreading of the evidence, perhaps compounded by a bit of confirmation bias in seeing Tennislover and Tennis expert at the same time. I can't really give the technical explanation that would make this mix-up seem more plausible without giving away personally identifiable information, but another checkuser agrees in the assessment based on IPs that they are different. Apologies for the undue hassle this may have caused (and note that the other two users blocked at the same time, Tennislover and Twister Twist are still confirmed Cute 1 4 u). Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra effort put into reviewing this. I'm glad it's been resolved. -- Renesis (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am unsurprised by this outcome, because although I implicitly trust 99% of checkuser results, the behavioral evidence tying Tennis Expert to Cute 1 4 U in this case was exceptionally underwhelming. Dmcdevit's willingness to review the matter again is a Good Thing. I would urge that he post to Tennis Expert's talkpage as well. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad this has been resolved in this manner, and I accept the apology. And I want to give special thanks to the users who have supported me or at least expressed skepticism about the allegations. Without Renesis, I never would have succeeded in fighting (or even been allowed to fight) the ban. He deserves phenomenal credit for taking a risk on me and then sticking to his beliefs despite being severely pressured to relent. What's even more remarkable is that he has been an administrator for just 1 week!

Please, I'm begging you, don't put anyone else through this wringer again. The stress on me has been unbelievable. There simply has to be a better, more open, more impartial way of fighting sock puppetry. There has to be a way to allow someone who has been banned without advance notice to contest the ban in a reasonable manner, without being restricted to posting solely on his or her talk page.

It will take me a long time to get over the stuff that's been said about me all over Misplaced Pages because of this incident: the presumption of my evildoing by so many different editors, the unwillingness to listen to me or the evidence I've presented, the devaluing of my contributions and character, and the unfairness of the procedures that were followed. All that stuff about me is going to be "out there" (on several different user talk pages) for anyone to see. People who were not involved will wonder about me: were the allegations really true despite the ultimate outcome? There is no practical way, to my knowledge, to ensure that the stuff is deleted. The damage is done. I cannot begin to express how appalling this whole thing has been to me. Tennis expert 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennis expert, you should know that this discussion will be archived (and therefore pretty much won't be seen by anyone not specifically looking for it) within 48 hours after the discussion is over. You can also archive the discussion on your talk page if you are sick of looking at it (if you don't know how to create a talk archive, someone will help you), and I'm sure others with this discussion on their pages will do the same. The checkuser process is important and generally reliable, and I'm sure that the checkusers do their best to prevent this type of scenario from happening. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicolass

The user Nicolass has been adding a lot of relatively non-notable articles regarding the company Sophos and its product offerings. I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be a marketing arm for Sophos, so it'd be great if some of the lesser articles could be trimmed or merged with the Sophos article. Also, it'd be nice to have some discussion on how far the trimming should go. I believe the company itself is notable, but I don't believe individual products like Sophos WS1000 Web Security Appliance require their own Misplaced Pages pages. Thanks! Jonemerson 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Some redirected, some deleted, note left on Talk. Please keep an eye on him. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sword of Christ

Can someone check User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_14#User:Sword_of_Christ. I've blocked Sword of Christ, but the block isn't properly showing everywhere, even though I get an automated message he is already blocked when I try to place one. - Mgm| 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use descriptive summaries when blocking users

I was browsing the block log when I noticed that an admnin had recently blocked a user for having an inapropriate username with the summary:

06:49, 6 December 2006 Shreshth91 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Cordlesstwat (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)

Please note that the block summary is seen by the blocked user. It should explain to someone who unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages why they have been blocked. For this reason it should be a sentence without jargon and should ideally link to the policy they have been blocked for violating.

The summary above is not sufficient in this regard. Although in this instance the reason the username is inapropriate is clear, there are other occasions when the reason would not be obvious to anybody not intimately acquainted with our blocking policy. Compare the following edit summary, which (with the exception of the accidentally repeated word ;) ) is a model of good practice:

08:22, 6 December 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Holy crap I don't know who the hell we think we are (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name)

Thryduulf 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

'user...' is a sufficiently common block summary that it's even explained on MediaWiki:Blockedtext, so its meaning should be clear to blocked users who actually read the message they're given (I'm not sure how common that is...) --ais523 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that block messages shouldn't need to be explained, they should stand alone. Thryduulf 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They should have been given a {{usernameblock}} notice anyway. Viridae 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why I did not slap a notice on the said user. This was because, after a discussion of what name a disgruntled vandal would use to impersonate User:Coredesat, we came up with the name of Cordlesstwat. So, one of the admins in the channel, created the user, and I, while monitoring the new user log noticed it, and immediately blocked (without autoblock checked, of course). This example in question is a wrong one to take (since nobody will notice it save the admin who created the account), though I am inclined to agree that we should be making an effort to use more descritptive block summaries in cases where the user may be confused as to what he has done wrong (shared IPs, policy infringements like 3RR), and not in cases of username blockages, where the person knows full well that they have deliberately chosen an offensive username. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear it up further. I created the user after the discussion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was more talking in the case of a normal person creating an account with an inappropriate username. Not this case. They would therefore be notified about the block reason by the block notice put on their talk page. Viridae 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the only reason "User...." is a common block summary is because that's what Curps's antiwillybot uses on perceived page move vandals. That doesn't mean admins should do the same. (Radiant) 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad backlog at WP:CFD

WP:CFD has a heavy backlog. The regular discussion backlog is 12 days long at the time of this writing. Even the speedy renames appear to be proceeding slowly. (Some categories that I submitted for speedy renaming one week ago have still not been renamed.) Is it possible to get extra administrative assistance on the backlog? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can work on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A small dent was put in the backlog on 6 Dec 2006, but the backlog is still 12 days long. Some of the items remaining in the backlog look rather complex; expert attention may be warranted.

Additionally, it seems like some users are perpetually creating categories that are almost immediately deleted in near-unanimous decisions. See, for example, the clergy-related categories created by Pastorwayne since 15 Nov 2006. This phenomenon is partly responsible for increasing the volume at WP:CFD. The administration may want to look at this issue further. Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

School IP consent blocks

There's a lot of vandalism coming from 12.172.68.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). User:Daniel Case is in contact with the tech guy of the school, and they may consider a consented soft block (though apparently nothing decided yet). I have little experience with this, and there seem to be questions about the options and procedures, so I'll relay this here from User talk:Femto#12.172.68.114:

He said they may want to do that. Have we ever thought of formalizing that as a policy? I should think it would require a formal request from the school board or superintendent. Daniel Case 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to take over the case? (pun intended) Femto 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AOL

Anyone feel like updating all AOL related pages and templates to reflect the fact that the "proxy pool" doesn't exist anymore due to the fact that AOL now sends XFF headers? --172.150.17.234 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Template:AOL ranges

• Another point, there are thousands of talk pages sitting around for the now non-existent proxy ranges, so someone might want to clean those up--172.150.17.234 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Does wikipedia "trust" the XFF headers? It's not simply a case of sending them, we don't blindly take them to be true. Last I heard the software couldn't deal with ranges (i.e. the had to be listed one by one), so they weren't being used. --pgk 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That did change recently, but I don't have specifics about that. You may want to ask Tim Starling about that on IRC. Titoxd 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • XFF from AOL has been promised for months, and while it may well be working now, I would still wait for confirmation from the technical people before we start changing things all over the place. --bainer (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • They did, in fact, give us confirmation: Titoxd 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's only confirmation that MediaWiki is capable of respecting XFF headers sent by AOL, but is there confirmation that AOL is sending XFF headers properly? --bainer (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR (8 or 9RR actually by the looks of it)

Hey, sorry to pass the buck here but I need to get back to work. I protected the Negima!? article for a massive edit war but some folks definitely need some 3RR blocks - or 8RR or 9RR or whatever the case is there. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Going commando

Going commando has a single editor that wishes to use the page for noting whether celebrities are wearing underwear. The discussion on the Talk page has many editors expressing disapproval of this section. But when the sections are removed, the single editor is quick to replace them in violation of 3RR. Jonemerson 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a sourced section is a relevant addition to the article. The 3RR rule violation still stinks, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew WP policy a bit better, but content like the Celebrities section would not appear in a published encyclopedia, so I don't think it should appear on Misplaced Pages. However, dictionaries do use published works to decide what to publish, and often use those quotes. So perhaps a compromise I could live with is to only keep those sections where the word "Going commando" was used -- however, the editor is choosing to add any reference to a celebrity not wearing underwear. My preferred solution is still to have the section removed, because 10 years from now it will be completely outdated, and I don't think the talk of the day should be in an encyclopedia (Unless there was a Talk of The Day December 6th, 2006 article :)). Jonemerson 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not wearing underwear is going commando, so your logic is flawed in that respect. However, this is very clearly a content debate and not the sort of thing that needs much administrator intervention; let's shift discussion to Talk:Going commando instead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Upon reviewing the situation, you haven't done very much to warn him about the 3RR rule; leaving him a message on his user page isn't a very good idea. Randomly declaring the page protected when it very clearly is not is also bad form. I've warned Sjohnsonaz; if he reverts again, then I'll block him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought adding {{protect>> to a page would protect it, so that's what I put on the Edit summary when I submitted. But apparently that doesn't work... I wish I knew why :). It looked protected in preview! :) And what's wrong with leaving people messages on their user pages? Isn't that what they're there for? Or did I screw up and I'm supposed to use his talk page? Thanks! Jonemerson 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You can only protect pages if you are an administrator. --tjstrf talk 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User pages are for the users themselves to edit (usually); user talk pages, just like regular talk pages, are where discussion goes. Aside from the logic behind this, users are presented with a message telling them that they have new comments on their talk page; no such notice is given for edits made to their user page, though it shows up on their watchlist, assuming that (a) they have their userpage on their watchlist (a reasonable assumption) and (b) they check their watchlist often. By dropping them a line on their talk page, you're virtually guaranteeing that they'll see your message; continued editing after a warning means that they don't care that they are possibly breaking the rules and are disrupting Misplaced Pages on purpose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have deleted List of celebrities who go commando. It was without doubt one of the worst ideas for an article I have ever encountered. The way to deal with obsessives is not to give them their own article to play with, it's to get them to (a) change their behaviour or (b) go stick their head in a pig . I'm with the above: engage the user in dialogue, if he persists then politely show him the door. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The list article was my fault; I mentioned it as an example of what wouldn't be a good idea for an article. Fat lot of good that did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was recreated, and I have redeleted. It may need salting. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category Rename

Could you please rename as per the following: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_28#Category:S.C._Johnson_brands TonyTheTiger 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Notability

This message was on my Talk page this morning - any comments for the originator of the project? (aeropagitica) 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Could you check this WikiProject out and tell me what needs to be added? Obviously, a lot of things need to be added before it can become active, but can you tell me specifically which? Thank you." Diez2 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's got to be worth a try, and if he can get enough people interested then maybe the cruft backlog might get trimmed a bit. Who knows. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, I say. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Timecop

Hello, I am a bit new at the mop, and need some advice on this one. I found some userboxes that I felt to be out of line with the project on a users page, here they are:

The user insists they are appropriate, saying(paraphrasing):

• That the template for hate is a joke
• The Osama bin Laden one is a sincere opinion and valid, made no mention of why wtc is in the sidebox
• And that linking dog to Korea is valid because, quote "Many Koreans claim that the right to eat dog is a matter of cultural pride."

Am I wrong in thinking these excuses are a little weak, and that this is disruptive use of a userpage? My instinct is to remove them, warn the user not to add them again and explain why, blocking if the user re-added them repeatedly. Opinions requested. HighInBC 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I see the first one as being rather disruptive, the second one as being, well, almost an invitation for the FBI to come knocking on someone's door and the third, well, it's a valid cultural belief. I don't get the "smiley" face on it though -- Tawker 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well...I think the Osama one is disruptive, especially since the little mini-box tag is "wtc". That's pretty offensive to some. The "template for hate" one isn't so bad, and the dog one...if it didn't link straight to Korea maybe. (Tawker - the smiley face is "typical" of Asian online culture.) ♠PMC♠ 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• That particular kind of smiley face is associated with koreans, as is "kekeke" or "kk" for giggling. Actually, the first time I ever saw anyone say "kk" or "^_^", was when this cute Korean girl was chatting with me on MSN messenger...

I believe the user in question is a blatant troll (though certainly one with good edits). I blocked the account for such and my block was reverted by another admin. Part of the reason I placed the block earlier in the week was these user boxes which I think are a blatant example of trolling. So, in summary, I agree these are a form of trolling but I think it important to note that I was overruled by another admin earlier in the week and so you need to strongly consider that my opinion is incorrect in this instance. --Yamla 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that info, I will notify the unblocking admin that this discussion is occurring. HighInBC 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that dog is a derogatory term for Korean people? I have heard it being used that way in real life. HighInBC 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard "dog" used as such. Could be local slang or I may just never have heard it before. --Yamla 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It links to Korea. See the link HighInBC provided. I personally think "Dog" and wtc is offensive. First one isn't so bad, but it is disruptive. Nishkid64 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the thing about slang, it varies from region to region. I will consider that one in limbo. HighInBC 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's from Vietnam, I used to share a flat with a guy from there and he was very keen on dog . Failing that, I suspect it's someone looking to get a rise out of the community. --Charlesknight 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the user in questions is User:Timecop, looking at his blocklog he has been indef blocked 6 times, by 6 different admins, and unblocked 6 times. The most recent time he was unblocked the reason given was An indef block without community consensus? I'm ashamed by Humblefool.

Good point Humblefool. Lets get a community consensus on this user, take a good hard look at this users edits, his warnings, and his userpage history and give an opinion if this user should retain editing privileges. HighInBC 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Information I have gathered from this users contribution history:

• Profanity that brings zero encyclopedic value, and general incivility: Just today
• Says By blocking User:Supers you support terrorism.
• Use of an ethnic slur:
• An image that apparently had to be removed from the database so even admins cannot view it:
• Userbox accusing the jews of 911:
• My personal favorite, a request for surrender from the GNAA:
• Reaction to me removing his Osoma userbox:

Beyond this there are the general issues of dancing the line of what is allowed and what is not, testing the limits as it were. This is not behavior we would allow from a new user, why should we allow it from this user. HighInBC 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

*points upwards to the 'Trolls try to get entries on bloggers deleted' section for further discussion of Timecop* Tony Fox (arf!) 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point about not accepting this behavior in a new user is well taken. I think he should go now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I read that and looked into the user. The most recent unblock says the reason is lack of community consensus, I am trying to find that community consensus. I am not addressing the War on blogs which I think is 82% great. I am addressing this users general conduct, rules lawyering, lack of civility, and playing innocent every time he gets blocked. I am going to prepare some diffs to illustrate my point. HighInBC 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• At the time, I unblocked mostly as a procedural item; I strongly believe in gaining the support of a group before unilateral action. That said, I support an indefinite ban on User:Timecop. His behavior, while at times seeming to work towards Misplaced Pages's goals, is more often than not divisive, uncivil, and designed to get a rise out of people. The "eating dog" comment in the userbox is a slight at the stereotypical "korean's" love of eating dog, and designed to be offensive. The troll has overstayed his welcome on Misplaced Pages for long enough. Ban him, and let's leave it all for the archives. --humblefool® 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You should not revert good decisions on entirely procedural grounds. That's disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point about procedure. -- SCZenz 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While in theory I support the "war on blogs", the way he's going about it, including even the very name, is entirely disruptive, and has lead to various problems, including bloggers noticing it and recruiting their readers to come and fight on behalf of blog articles in AfD debates. Add to this the userboxes, the admission of being in GNAA, all of the other disruption ... and I think it's time for him to go. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First, as a preface, the userboxes are clearly created to provoke. "I love Osama bin Laden" might vaguely be OK, were he a militant Muslim, but not with wtc next to it. "I love to eat dog" might be OK, were he Korean, and extremely rude in his approach. Next to these, "template for hate" is just a nail in the coffin. Anyway, being an admitted member of GNAA, while benign if it were alone, is pretty damning in light of his other stuff: the GNAA flashing banner about removing bloggers, userboxes with an obvious intention to provoke, previous blocks for trolling, etc. seem pretty damning. I encourage anyone with doubts on the issue to look at the user histories of everyone under the "what links here" section of Image:Gnaa.png. If someone can give a good reason why this isn't true, please do. Patstuart 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I had an indirect encounter with Timecop and he is in no way a troll, in my opinion. The only few problems I had with him was that his comments were unbearably long to me for an essentially very small matter.

On a side note, ideal paragraphs are about 3 to 5 sentences long, IMHO. Anything longer that and the eyes just glaze over. Some article are so dense that they're virtually unreadable to me.

As a matter of fact, I trolled him. I deliberately misinterpreted his comments (which, if anything, were very long and sort of off-topic) because I was pissed off at someone else.

I said some horrible stuff and left the talk page for good, but I tend to doubt he rose to the bait.

On another side note, I hope the Gay Nigger Association of America article can be resurrected some day. I honestly don't know what was wrong with it, but it probably wasn't notable (yet). Sincerely, NinaEliza 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block. Whilst he makes some inexcusably rude comments, and enjoys baiting people, at the same time, clearing out the crap blog articles is something that does need to be done, so it's not a case of everything being counter-productive, just about half. Suggest keeping an eye on his conduct, ban for a month the first time he goes off the rails again, and permanently if that doesn't solve things. Proto::► 12:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us agree that getting rid of non-notable blogs is a good idea, but there is such a thing as "one step forward, ten steps back", which is essentially what Timecop's proclaimed "war on blogs" is. It's the most inflammatory way possible of going about the issue, and ends up causing a lot more fighting, and ultimately, makes it take a lot longer to get anything done. If you would like you compare it to something, look at how userbox deletions were initially handled and ask yourself if that was productive. --Cyde Weys 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block. User:HighInBC provided enough reasons why User:Timecop has overstayed his welcome in Misplaced Pages. Dionyseus 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Having seen this discussion, I hopped over to the userpage to see whether the material under discussion was still there. When I got to the page, there was a "you have new messages" banner. Given the nature of the user, I figured that this was probably one of those "practical joke" new messages banners found on userpages, but then again, I might have had a new message, so I clicked on the banner. It took me to Judaism. I have no idea what the message or purpose of such a link is, but it can't be good. The "this user died in a car accident" userbox, accompanied by an explanation that the user was killed on December 10, 2006 (i.e., three days from now), is also unimpressive. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy admits on his userpage he's a troll. An indef ban may or may not be too much, but he needs to know that purposefully trolling WP is totally unacceptable. WP is to write an encyclopedia, not test the limits of free speech. In other words, if you want to contribute, you need to do so in good faith. -Patstuart 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon all, but Timecop runs the GNAA and knows full well what we're about, and what he's about. Ban and be merry, I say. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of pileon: well said. He even admits he has an agenda, and then carries it out. Patstuart 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to make it clear, this user has been warned, is aware of policy, knows he is trolling, and is does not wish to stop. His talk page makes that clear. HighInBC 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That didn't take long (although, given how many socks I've blocked, that really could be anybody). Mackensen (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The template for hate is infact a joke, someone defaced my userpage ages ago and Linuxbeak blocked it for "template for hate" This is where the saying came from. Supers 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• All of the arguments for blocking this user essentially boil down to, "I don't like him and decided to make an enemy of him". You chose to view his userpage. You are chosing to put on the pseudo-PC act of claiming the userboxes are offensive, as if that has any meaning. If you are so sensitive as to piss and moan for a block over the above examples, you do not belong on the internet, or in human society for that matter. Grow up. You point to his "agenda" thinking there is some dark overtone or negative value judgment in the word. Do you even know what it means? You have an agenda. I have an agenda. No man exists without an agenda, for otherwise he would allow himself to starve. Agendas, goals, opinions are an essential part of man, and are the psychological foundation for information-aggregating projects like wikipedia. But you, not in control of your own emotions and psyche, and lacking any sort of moral-intellectual development, can only fixate upon your self-created enemy(I doubt timecop cares enough to make an enemy of any of you) and look for the slightest bit of mud to sling, the pitiful examples above. Slightly offensive userboxes, behaviour that is in your poorly-developed opinion "disruptive". Pretending that your actions are in any way for the benefit of wikipedia or that they are anything other than a childish internet bitch-fight is blatantly dishonest, cynical, and immature. I say again to all of you, especially HighinBC, grow up. 24.255.11.232 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got Consensus? I mean seriously folks, it seems to me like some guy just up and banned him, pretty much just because he didn't like him, before any consensus could be reached. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. --72.95.8.145 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timecop out of time

Buh-bye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, and I've already been accused of racial profiling for the ban. I feel all warm and squishy inside. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think many of the involved admins will receive some less than kind messages(not backed up by facts), that means you are doing your job correctly. HighInBC 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism claims for banning the founder of the Gay Nigger Association. That's precious. -Patstuart 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, at User talk:Timecop a couple of our good users have raised concerns over how I acted with Timecop, I have tried to alleviate their concerns but am not communicating well with them. Timecop's talk page is quickly turning into a circus. I will gladly discuss their concerns, but I also do not want to feed the trolls. I am going to bed soon, perhaps someone can communicate with them better than I. HighInBC 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't wheel war, but I still don't think a permanent block is the best way to resolve this. Proto::► 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It just that your suggestion Suggest keeping an eye on his conduct, ban for a month the first time he goes off the rails again, and permanently if that doesn't solve things. has been done in the past. This user has been warned, has demonstrated a knowledge of policy, has been banned a month, and has been watched, and has gone off the rails again. Not sure time and discussion will help someone who is not willing. HighInBC 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just began to receive harassing phone calls at my work number relating to this ban. HighInBC 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely unfortunate situation. Per discussion a couple of weeks ago when a similar incident arose, the suggestion was made that the harassed administrator file a report with the WP:OFFICE to keep them advised of the situation. You might want to do that if you have not already done so.

I also suggest that no further on-wiki responses be made to the trolling or attacks taking place on your talkpage or on the talkpage of the individual who was blocked (not by you) as responding sometimes only exacerbates the situation. You have done more than enough to address any good-faith issues that might have been raised.

I have filed a checkuser request with respect to the most vicious of the personal attacks on your talkpage. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Can you provide proof of such harassment? I happen to know the person who called you, and as far as he has told me, he simply called you twice. Once he said "Hello HighInBC", and the other time he played a possibly offensive song. Neither of these incidents are hardly harassing, nor do they warrant police action (not that any law enforcement actually cares if people call you twice without making threats, regardless if you know them or not) --Jmax- 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ahem" yourself. Are you seriously contending that it's acceptable user behavior, or human behavior, to make "simply" two unsolicited and "possibly offensive" telephone calls to an administrator in retaliation for his participation in a Misplaced Pages decision? Did you do anything to try to dissuade the "person you know" from continuing that sort of thing? If not, why not? How long do you think Misplaced Pages could last if this became common practice? Newyorkbrad 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good advice on all points. I will notify office of this, and give them what evidence I have gathered, and now the police are involved as the phone call was threatening to my wife. I will refrain from explaining myself more, as I have already addressed the issues. Thank you for the checkuser.. HighInBC 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it's time to ban everyone from GNAA from Misplaced Pages forever. This type of idiocy only shows why. -Patstuart 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed that Jmax- (talk · contribs) thinks that getting two phone calls in real life is no big deal. Jmax- has been around for more than a year, is an avowed GNAA member, his mainspace edits are mostly simple spelling corrections, and his project space edits are nearly all in some way related to the GNAA. I'll have a chat with him, but he may need to be watched as well. Thatcher131 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting two phone calls in real life isn't a big deal. Do you get phone calls in real life? Are they ever from people you don't know in person? Do you feel threatened by telemarketers who meant you no harm? Then why would you feel threatened by a call from somebody else who meant no harm? Thusfar nobody has made any explicit threats towards anybody else to my knowledge. Nobody has threatened any harm to anybody, so I don't see why anybody should feel threatened. cacophony ◄► 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite ban of all self-identified members of GNAA. To the best of my understanding, the whole point of GNAA is to troll online communities. That members are now calling up Misplaced Pages administrators at work and possibly threatening them shows that we should block these on sight. It is certainly possible that GNAA itself does not advocate such harassment but the whole thing just makes me sick, absolutely sick. --Yamla 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GNAA membership doesn't mean that someone is incapable of making good choices while editing here, so I don't GNAA members should be automatically banned. It does mean they're unlikely to make good choices though, so if it's clear they're not wearing their Misplaced Pages hat here, I'd support banning them. --Interiot 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Helloooo, did anyone consider removing the userboxes and asking him to move his "war on blogs" to a less violent title and restructure it so it's not disruptive? If those are the only problems, there are more ways to get rid of them then with a permanent ban. Also note that admission to being in the GNAA means nothing on its own. 66.231.130.14 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, it did not work. HighInBC 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, and he put them back up. And the userboxes aren't the only issue. Patstuart 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with saying that you eat dog. However linking to Korea is likely to cause offense because not all Koreans eat dog, and more importantly, Koreans aren't the only one who eat dog meat. Linking to dog meat makes more sense. I also don't personally think there is anything wrong with saying you like Osama bin Laden per se. As long as we allow people to express a like (or dislike) for George W. Bush and other people, there is no reason people shouldn't be allowed to express a like for Osama bin Laden (indeed I think I've seen userboxes expressing a dislike for ObL before). However the wtc part is likely to cause offense. Nil Einne 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I second that. The Mirror of the Sea 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, the userbox issue isn't the only component of the argument for his banning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people (with a capital B)

Don't know what to make of this. POV fork? At the wrong title? Anyone have any ideas? exolon 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a civil rights neologism, not sure. Spelling things with a capital letter to separate it's importance from the common usage has been done in numerous examples. The question is, does it pass WP:NEO? HighInBC 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a copy of Black people. I've speedied it, looks like an attempt to POV fork, or create an inappropriately titled page or something. exolon 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And it is outa there, I thought it was a bit well referenced for a new article. HighInBC 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an attempt (if a bit hamfisted) to split the article into something along the lines of 'Black people (African)' and 'Black people (Generic)' - see my talk/creators talk. exolon 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We now have 3 articles - Black people, Black people (with a capital B) and Black people (ethnicity). exolon 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs to stop before the page histories become messed up. Prodego 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted both of the new articles. I don't really understand what each individual article is supposed to be about and there is very little discussion about the proposed split on Talk:Black people. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently stumbled across Black People (disambiguation), moved it to the correctly capitalised title of Black people (disambiguation), realised it was not linked from anywhere, and linked to it from Black people by putting the {{otheruses}} disambiguation hatnote at the top of Black people. Unfortunately this dab hatnote got reverted, as some people think the existence of a disambiguation page itself implies the wrong things. Anyway, the material at Black People (disambiguation) is mostly duplicated in Black people, but the dab page remains orphaned. Possibly Black people is itself acting as an unorthodox type of dab page, though it should really, in my opinion, aim towards a summary style to act as a portal. The issue seems to be the conflict between having Black people be about Black culture (compare things like Deaf culture where both Black and Deaf are spelt with an uppercase letter), or whether Black people should be a summary-style article about the different 'black' peoples. Can anyone say what should be done with Black People (disambiguation)? Carcharoth 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages as a chat site

I swear that WP:NOT used to discourage people from using Misplaced Pages as a chat site. However, the policy currently states, "You can chat with folks on their user talk pages" (Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, section 5). Is this true? Are we really happy with people using Misplaced Pages solely as a chat site? Or am I misreading this bit of the policy? --Yamla 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They are really for chatting about Misplaced Pages related stuff, that should be reworded perhaps. HighInBC 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly my understanding. I'll go suggest a change to the wording. --Yamla 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it.  :) --Yamla 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, great minds eh? HighInBC 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2)Well I thought it was implied, but I guess I can see where some people would see the confusion in that. Anyway, I fixed it now to say "You can chat with folks about Misplaced Pages-related topics on their user talk pages". Is that better, Yamla? Nishkid64 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec) A very similiar question is a hot topic at the Misplaced Pages:Reference Desk right now. User space or project space is appropriate for essays or discussions about wikipedia. But if all someone is doing is chatting, they're clearly don't share the project's goals, and may find themselves unwelcome. However, fairly wide latitude is generally given to people who do useful work on the project- a certain amount of irrelevant stuff is happily tolerated because it doesn't hurt anything. But, Misplaced Pages is specifically not a forum, and if a talk page or project page turns into excessive irrelevant chatting, someone may come by and clean out the irrelevant content. Friday (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as people aren't becoming valley girls and leaving comments that consist of "oh my God did you see what Becky was wearing today?"-type comments, I don't have a problem with people going mildly off-topic on talk pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Prayer (song)

I tried to move The Prayer (song) back to that name, since someone had moved it to "The Prayer (Bloc Party song)", but accidentally hit slash and enter in rapid succession, so the page is currently called "The Prayer (/song)". Can this get fixed? Evan Reyes 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You could first get it moved back to The Prayer (Bloc Party song) via uncontroversial moves at WP:RM. However, given the history, this is clearly a controversial move, so, after it's been fixed, you will need to list it as such in order to move it back to The Prayer (song). Patstuart 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From the edit history, there doesn't seem to be any controversy at all, merely a failure to communicate. Possibly User:Evanreyes was unaware that the page had been moved to make way for a disambiguation page at The Prayer (song). I will move it to The Prayer (Bloc Party song), at least, and actually create a dab page! Morwen - Talk 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Patstuart 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman Das

This user (Hanuman Das (talk · contribs)) has created an article for the premieres of movies for every day of the year. I would like to do a mass AfD on all them, do I have to go into all 366 articles and nominate each of them for deletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they are very related articles, a mass-nom would be appropriate. ---J.S 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How is a mass-nom performed? I also think these new articles are inappropriate. Jonemerson 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should notify him first. It would be the polite thing to do, given the number of articles. -Patstuart 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. December 7 are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. —Hanuman Das 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? . No.
• There is no way to look up films by release date Go here. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related subject, this user is apparently setting out to add movie releases to every one of the 365 "days of the year" pages. It's not historically notable that a particular film happened to premiere on a particular date, and we've long maintained the policy that film premieres, book publications, CD releases, etc, are virtually never notable on these pages, and should be reverted on sight as listcruft. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See below (Administrators' noticeboard#March 15 in film) where I was told precisely the opposite and given time to move the same into the days of the years pages. —Hanuman Das 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative - a single article entitled something like "List of movie releases by date" might do the trick, wouldn't it? Rklawton 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A list of every movie ever released? Talk about cruft!!!!! User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it sure beats spreading it across 366 articles... :-) Rklawton 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Repeated mass-blanking of content in Goa Inquisition (vandalism), vandalism of sources , repeated vandalism of pic link and making religious attacks against Hindus in edit summary. He has been doing this off and on, for months. He has been warned twice but he persists. Hkelkar 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jandolin called users bigots on Goa Inq.--D-Boy 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He has also wikistalked me, see my userpage as of October 30 and his contribs around that day whoch consisted of vandalizing pages I had on my "TO/DO list". Bakaman 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue for WP:AN/I, or perhaps WP:RFI, if you think it's vandalism, and not just a content dispute.Patstuart 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What about his slurs in edit summaries (despite repeated warnings)? Hkelkar 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, that was over a month ago now. Like I said, if he's continuing, try perhaps bringin it up at ANI. -Patstuart 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lost.eu deletion

I recently authored an article titled "Lost.eu". I thought it was legitimate, informative, and even cleverly executed (as you will see). I hope it can be undeleted.

It's been deleted by four different admins now. The article apparently doesn't meet our WP:WEB guideline. This is not the proper place for this discussion, however. You need to go to WP:DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be useful: Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted?. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

March 15 in film

What's the deal with March 15 in film? Is this a new standard format for date-specific trivia about movies? It seems incorrect to me, but I'm not sure what Misplaced Pages is doing about the overwhelming amount of data in normal date pages. Thanks! Jonemerson 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor seems to be doing a lot of these articles: Special:Contributions/Hanuman_Das

• See the question posted a few sections above yours. - 131.211.210.10 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As they have no content or context, they should be speedied. Proto::► 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is rather disappointing to see. Out of all the ways this could possibly be handled (and I'm not convinced of the necessity of these pages yet), you think this way is best? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The ones that are empty articles, yes. The ones that have content, no, they should go via AFD. Proto::► 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The day of the year articles, e.g. December 7 are getting quite full. There is continual pressure to remove events that may well be notable to keep the lists short. Do you really want me to add a "films" heading to every day of the year? this is an indexing problem. There is no way to look up films by release date. I carefully combined the use of categories and lists to avoid an overly long list or an overly large category. This, my friend, is the wave of the future as people get tired of the size of the day of the year articles. Within a few years you will see "December 7 in science", "December 7 in politics", "December 7 in archeology" to get around this issue. Please reconsider your position. —Hanuman Das 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I did not create any empty articles, they have at least one event in them, so perhaps somebody else created March 15? —Hanuman Das 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad trend. We do not need yet one more way to divide and duplicate data. -- Renesis (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. Apparently there is no room for difference of opinion or discussion. Please give me time to move the info to the date articles before deleting. —Hanuman Das 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is room for difference of opinion or discussion. That is what this is all about. I will not delete any articles before the data has been moved; if they do get deleted before you have a chance to move the information, let me know and I will try to help you. -- Renesis (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And if they get rejected from the date articles? What then? BTW, how much are you willing to bet against the splitting of the date articles by topic within two years. —Hanuman Das 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They will be rejected from the day of the year pages. We have long maintained the policy that it's not historically notable that a particular movie, book, CD, DVD, video game, etc was released on a given date. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then please keep the deletionists from speedying or otherwise deleting my well-thought-out alternative. —Hanuman Das 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does this information need to be on Misplaced Pages in any form? Why would anyone care what movies happened to be released on March 15 on a series of random years? Something like 1939 in film can be justified -- it shows a snapshot of film at a particular moment in history. March 15 in film -- I'm sorry to say this bluntly -- is pointless. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You've heard, I assume, of indexing? This is a form of indexing that allows films to be looked up in a particular manner. Just because you can't imagine why you'd do it doesn't mean it is not of use. The index in a book isn't particularly notable, but I bet you'd miss it if it was torn out! —Hanuman Das 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word pointless lightly. Of all of the things you might want to know about a movie, the day of the year on which it opened is the most irrelevant. A movie is not something that "happens" on a particular day, it's a work of art that's created over a period of months or years, then is seen by an audience over a period of months or years. This is worthless listcruft, and it's not what Misplaced Pages is here for. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, given the view you are espousing, lets delete the day of the year articles too. WHy is it notable what day anybody was born or died on. Why should we care to look up any event by day of year? —Hanuman Das 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. The assassination of JFK occurred on November 22, 1963. The first men landed on the moon on July 20, 1969. Those are relevant dates in history. City Lights premiered on February 6 is pointless listcruft. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares. Those date of those events are listed in their respective articles. We don't need the lists. Delete 'em. all, they are just listcruft. Some people study film, they care. Artists make distinction that other people could care less about. What the hell harm is it doing you? or Misplaced Pages for that matter. Please quantify in scientific terms. —Hanuman Das 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably care, because community consensus has long been that movie releases, book releases, CD releases, DVD releases, videogame releases, etc, are not appropriate for those pages, and are reverted on sight. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, that's why I created separate articles, okay. I thought about it. I'm tired of your use of "cruft" and your use of the word "pointless". Why is it that WP is full of <insert your own PA> who refuse to even entertain that another person's point of view might be valid? I'm sure there are plenty of things you think are significant that I think should be deleted on sight. I don't do it, because there's a little thing called respect for other people that you and your ilk seem to have behind the door when god handed it out. —06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting that City Lights premiered in 1931 is useful, noting that City Lights premiered on February 6 is useless, and noting that Holiday Inn (the film that gave the world "White Christmas") premiered in August is weirdly useful but belongs in the article itself. Hard to imagine a case where putting a title in a day of the year article has the slightest bit of use either as information or a cataloging scheme. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I completely agree. It's doubly arbitrary in that most films go through premiere, then restricted release, then general release, then distribution, and the dates will be different in different regions (e.g. US restricted release may be weeks or even months before European general release) - and then we have the dates of release on video / DVD. You can say that a given film is a 2005 film without much controversy, but calling it a March 15 film is much more problematic. And besides, who would care? If the release is tied to a notable event - riots because of the film's content, for example - then it belongs in the main date article, otherwise it gets an official "so what?" Guy (Help!) 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative - why not just create a single article entitled something like "List of movie release dates" or something like that? The article could contain a list of movies sorted by release date (year / month). Rklawton 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my naivete, but I also think the dates of film releases shouldn't be listed under "Events" on the Wikicalendar ("not notable on a global scale"), and I've always directed people who list them to 2006 in film and similar pages. I know this doesn't provide the exact information that a page like "March 15 in film" would provide, but the impression that I get is that "March 15 in film" is kind of getting trivial and that a user interested in what was released on March 15 would hopefully surf through a few "x-year in film" pages to find what he or she needed. Fabricationary 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Works for me. Rklawton 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Spambots

What is the standard for blocking spambots running from ips? I was thinking a nice long one with account creation allowed and blocking anons only? Viridae 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd do an open proxy scan first. P.S. admins who can verify proxies are needed at WP:OP, which is backlogged again. MER-C 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

VCN proxychecker is down for me. I went through the list and blocked a few that were obvious (\'ing proxies, SORBS listed ones). Syrthiss 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, they are treated as open proxies and then we double check. Several ranges are solely used by spambots, and they're probably all zombie computers and/or open proxies.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Potentially not notable articles

Ok, many editors saw use in Timecop's War on Blogs, while admitting is was a disruptive way of going about it. I say we we keep the good and remove the bad. I have made an attempt at reforming this project into something compatible and helpful to Misplaced Pages. I have put up a first draft here User:HighInBC/Potentially not notable articles which is based off Timecop's project.

Please note that while I have created it in my userspace for now, I would prefer it eventually lived somewhere else, if it is to live at all. The title may need to be generalized more too. HighInBC 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To wash the rest of the stigma off of Timecop's project I think it may be best to start over from scratch rather than just slap a new coat of paint on it. --Cyde Weys 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, but not a job for me, I see the need for non-notable articles to be removed but it is not my crusade. As it is, I see no reason why the soldiers in the war on blogs will not simply continue to use the old project and it's... philosophies. HighInBC 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think they are notable, mark them with {{notability}}. There's no need for an article that would require constant upkeep when the tag accomplishes the same thing using a category. ···日本穣 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems redundant if there are no crtieria that make this any different from adding the {{notability}} tag. --Sam Blanning 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diez2 recently started WikiProject Notability and might have some use for Timecop's project. Since HighInBC understandably does't wish this to have a permanent home as one of his subpages, this new WikiProject might be a good place. -- AuburnPilot 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All good points, this is not needed, I have deleted it. HighInBC 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

uncorrected vandalism

Biodiesel: Biodiesel refers to a Gay HomoSexual man!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.201.134.96 (talk • contribs).

I don't see that anywhere. Did someone else revert it already? --tjstrf talk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It puzzled me too. The source did not reflect the vandalism, but the page content as displayed did. 70.201.134.96 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case it's old cached vandalism that your browser didn't update after it was reverted. Try opening the page and pasting ?action=purge onto the end of the url, then hitting enter. That should force a full refresh for you and update the page. --tjstrf talk 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article was sprotected a couple of days back to prevent this vandalism. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This subject link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Macedonia_%28terminology%29

has been vandalized with images.

Mike

This is not the place to report vandalism to pages. You can actually get rid of vandalism vandalism yourself, see WP:REVERT and WP:VAND. –The Great Llama 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This was 'complex' template vandalism. See here, here and here for some details. Carcharoth 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic

Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More CoolKatt pages

A while back, I asked for some of the user CoolKatt number 99999's pages (banned by ArbCom on certain articles). Some sandbox pages are still available, and I am interested in acquiring them, pending CoolKatt's approval. The following is a list of the pages I want something done to. No redirects for moves:

User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox → (Delete) User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 6 → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM3 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 1 (through 5) → (Delete) User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM4 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 2 → User:TrackerTV/KXRM5 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft 3 → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM5 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 5 → User:TrackerTV/KXRM6

And one of my own pages could get moved, even though I could be bold, I am grouping it with the CoolKatt sandboxes: User:TrackerTV/Serebii.net → User talk:TrackerTV/KXRM6

The six KXRM pages (and if this goes through, it will double to twelve) pages are my own sandboxes, and have been TrackerTV operated since 2 June 2006, when KXRM2 was created. I created it to create something for KXRM, as the name suggests: a naming scheme came from it. TTV/talk/contribs 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please change your signature. Advertising is no more appropriate in signatures than it is in User IDs. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done...sorry about it...TTV/talk/contribs 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting interactive map

I have a problem. I think this is the first problem I've had on Misplaced Pages so far, and I've tried to solve it, but I'm afraid that my attempts to stabilize the situation were unsuccessful. Therefore, I have to bother you, the administrators of Misplaced Pages, for just a bit and I hope you don't mind.

I've recently created a template: Template:Subotica Labelled Map, and I plan to make similar templates for every Municipality in the Republic of Serbia. Almost immediately after I added the interactive map to all the links, User:PANONIAN reverted every single edit, removed the interactive map and re-installed his old map, which is basically identical with my map, but with no links to the city names and different colors: Old map - New map.

First of all, I was informed by PANONIAN that he had reverted my edits and that the map is not good. I told him that if he had a problem with the map, we can discuss it, improve it, talk about it before he starts reverting my edits (and it took me a while to add the map to all these cities:

1. Bajmok
2. Palić
3. Hajdukovo
4. Bikovo
5. Čantavir
6. Novi Žednik
7. Mala Bosna
8. Višnjevac
9. Stari Žednik
10. Đurđin
11. Bajmok
12. Mišićevo
13. Donji Tavankut
14. Gornji Tavankut
15. Mala Bosna
16. Ljutovo
17. Hajdukovo
18. Kelebija
19. Subotica)

I therefore reverted back to my version (which is, I repeat again, absolutely identical to the old map, except now it's better because it has links to the city names and the colors are different. He then reverted my map again. I don't understand why his version needs to be there while I'm working on a compromise between us. My map is obviously better and more functional, and Misplaced Pages is not the private property of PANONIAN. I put in a lot of effort into creating this map and I don't think I deserve to be undermined by this user who just wants his map there for unknown reasons.

He told me to add stuff to the map, I agried to do that, but not before my map is re-installed. I don't deserve to have to put my version back to every article just because he keeps reverting it. Just compare his map and my map. Please decide for us which map is better for the articles. If you pick my map, I will add more stuff to make it better, but I will make no changes untill PANONIAN's rude edits are reverted.

Once again, sorry to bother you, I know this might not mean too much to you guys, but I would like to do this for every municipality in Serbia, and if PANONIAN is going to be obstructing my work, better to solve the problem right now before this turns into something bigger, right?

Kind regards,

--GOD OF JUSTICE 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. I removed his map and told him why I done this and asked him to improve this map before posting it again into articles, but instead to discuss this, he started to insult me personally on my talk page: he told me that "I am the most unpleasant person that he ever met" (and my previous message to him was very polite), and later he started to blackmail me that he will not improve his map if I do not revert articles to his version!!!. You have this written here, but he wrote that in Serbian, so only some admin who understand the language could read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PANONIAN#Mapa And now he came to report me here? PANONIAN (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that at least he wouldn't lie about this, but I was wrong. His first message was very unpleasant, and I said that he is the most unpleasant person that had left me a message on my talk page, not met. He later told me "What the f**k is the matter with you" (something in that sense, using a swear word). Blackmail? This user is really something.. I said that I will not change my map untill my map is re-installed (since he obviously didn't give a single good reason to remove my map). His main reason for removing my map was "its ugly and wrong". Well, I don't know about the ugly, but the content is identical, that would make his map wrong as well, right? I mean, just compare the two.. --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And just for the record, a swear word was in my second message to you, not in the first one, which was polite. :) PANONIAN (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PANONIAN, could you elaborate on what problems you have with the new version of the map? Bože pravde says, "He told me to add stuff to the map," but I see no differences in content between the new map and the old map, except that the new map is more functional. If you could explain your problems with the map, perhaps all involved can understand where you're coming from. Also, if I may, I make a humble request that future discussion be in English — this is the English Misplaced Pages, and it's hard for English speakers to follow along if it's in a different language that not everyone is familiar with. —bbatsell ¿? 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems the problem here is that the map I see is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Mapasub.png and the map that user:Bože pravde see is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:MunicipMap.PNG So, this was misunderstanding, but can somebody tell me why I cannot see the map? PANONIAN (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha! That would explain it :) I'm not sure why you're not able to see the map correctly, though — I took a look at the HTML code being generated by the template in question and it appears to be very simple and should pose no problems to browsers, but perhaps try upgrading or using a different web browser, such as Mozilla Firefox? The image loaded for the background of the map is here — are you able to load that image in your browser or is it being blocked by something? —bbatsell ¿? 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But I use 3 browsers (Opera, Internet Explorer, and Firefox), and I see same no-map image in all 3. What could be problem then? PANONIAN (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to see the image I linked the word "here" to in my previous post? —bbatsell ¿? 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot see image from your link - the link is totally empty in all 3 browsers (just checked). PANONIAN (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, are you using an ad blocker? The image is in a /ad/ directory. If that's so, all you need to do is whitelist http://upload.wikimedia.org. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What is ad blocker? I do not know do I use one, but if I do, can you tell me more detailed description how to switch it off? What is that whitelist? PANONIAN (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An ad blocker blocks advertisements. No idea how to turn yours off if you have one, as it depends on which one it is. A simple test: see if you can see Image:RVL-A-CW.jpg, which is the one I had issues with (also in the /ad/ folder). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see that image too. But, I think that I know how problem could be solved. Can somebody of you to upload that map created by user:Bože pravde again under different name? I think I should see it after that. PANONIAN (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent images from going into that /ad/ folder? This isn't the first time it has caused confusion and probably won't be the last. --CBD 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see this problem all the time at the Help Desk. It's definitely on your end, Panonion, and experience says it's an adblocker (e.g., anti-spyware). -Patstuart 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some firewalls also have adblockers as does Tor. Nil Einne 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is solved, I see new map now: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:SuboticaMunicip2.png :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, its good practice to use English in talkpages whenever possible per Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice. Reviewing communications while trying to follow a dispute is hard enough, without trying to translate from another language. Rockpocket 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment off-wiki

After a user attempted to get me topic-banned from several articles I edit (and have recently started up a WikiProject for), I thought nothing of it, but did send messages to the various users involved, but then after an IP posted to my user talk, I found these three wonderful threads that come up on a search of my username (this one at another board mentions me in passing), several of which do reference actions I took concerning the validity of source material from people who work with Disney/ABC/ESPN etc in the topic of Power Rangers. One of them who posts here and there as GreenNinja (talk · contribs) hates my guts now (he was the one who started up the malformed arbitration) as does Kyl416 (talk · contribs) moreso because an image he acquired was not proven by any external source to be official until fairly recently (within the past month). Jgp also brought these threads to the attention of Dmcdevit on his user talk at this referenced heading (as he was the arbitrator to remove the whole spurious RFAr).

Disruption from these users in the past that they refer to are a requested move and any of the discussion at next year's series, particularly found on the archive.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• What are you asking for, Ryulong? This certainly looks like a problem worth solving. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not all that sure as to what can be done, here. I don't want to lose an editor like GreenNinja, but I don't need any of the bullshit that goes along with what he thinks about me and my place on Misplaced Pages.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We can do one of two things: we can tell him, as admins, to cut the crap, or we can have an RfC. Which do you prefer? Guy (Help!) 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, none of that is going to really affect how they treat me at Fuñaro or RangerBoard. But it is also way too late/early for me to be making a concrete decision. I will try to comment better after my anthropology final tomorrow this afternoon.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Although that outside behaviour is unsavoury, literally, who gives a shit about what the Power Rangers fandom think of you? - hahnchen 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That message board made me feel dirty. Who do I complain to at the Internet about it? My tax dollars pay their salaries!--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on User:Rugby 666's edits

Could someone take a look at User:Rugby 666's contributions and take appropriate action (reversions, warnings, etc) if they believe it is warranted? Actions have included: Changing new infoboxes into old ones , changing disambig pages into redirects (usually to rugby league articles) and many more. I would do it myself but don't want to get involved in this one, because:

• I have been involved with blocking a rugby league editor (and his sockpuppets) lately who has accused me of being biased in my actions (as many of my sports related edits are to football (soccer) articles) - I'd like another admin's POV
• I'm going to be unavailable for editing over the next couple of days and don't want to provoke him into causing trouble and not being here to clean up

The editor(s) I have blocked (User:Freddie 34, User:Raezar34, User:Caesar34, User:147.10.112.157) have claimed they also have "an existing account on Misplaced Pages" which may be this one. I don't want to accuse the user directly, in case it is not, but the patterns are looking similar. -- Chuq 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The very first edit I looked at confirmed my suspicions. This is the sockpuppeteer Licinius/J is me/Jimididit/NSWelshman/FactoidKiller/Jebus Christ/etc/etc/etc. He has literally hundreds of socks. He is recognised by his penchant for insisting that Australian rules football be called Victorian rules football. Block indefinitely on sight as a sock of a banned troll/vandal. Hesperian 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, unfortunately came upon this. Do not wish to seem that I am trolling but by all means, do a checkuser etc. because I am not user:Licinius. To Hesp, I left a mention on your talk page about the Cultural cringe edit(sorry it had to be your first that you saw of mine, please check more). It is not revolutionary to make mention of terms like gayfl, VFL. Victorian Rules is not one I had seen much, but I will endeavour to use it more as a payout. Please direct me in whatever means of proof that I can provide that I am not user:Licinius. Here is some further evidence, on Licinius's homepage, it says that he loves soccer, definitely not my opinion, nor would I refer to rugby league as not directly being football. Hesp has also been attacked by the same user here which would tend to indicate that this whole conspiracy does not really exist. Also on , J is me is trying to prove that factoid and NSWelshman is the same editor so that blows the whole one giant crusade out the window. In fact if you put a Licinius IP number :User:60.225.200.50(from into www.ip-address.com it comes up from Sydney, at Mortdale, if you put the the FactoidKiller IP:62.254.168.102 at user:talk Jisme(which is referenced above), it is in north Yorkshire in England. --Rugby 666 11:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's an amazingly sophisticated analysis for someone who has been here less than a month. So I guess you're not Licinius; you're just someone who edits the same pages as Licinius, uses the same obscure phrases as Licinius, and has intimate knowledge of what Licinius did several months before your first edit.

I can't block; I've been hosing down Licinius sockfires for so long my judgement may be clouded. Will another admin please review the evidence and take appropriate action? Hesperian 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jaysus, I defend my bloody self that I am supposedly a huge conspiratoralist vandal, as the bloody advice is, by readin the bloody talk pages of one of the bllody IDs that I am supposed to be, which repudiates in itself the whole bloody conspiracy. Feck this, it is boring work, not what I came onto wiki for, and not what I bloody want to do on wiki. Ban me or do not ban me. I do not know whether I will even bother to come back. --Rugby 666 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby, I have a question for you: if you've only been here for one month, why do you refer to User:Rebecca as "Ambi"? Sarah Ewart 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From here and on other attack edits from sockpuppets there are three people attacked continually in the contributions, Snotty(who has becom Hesp), Grant, and Ambi who blocked Licinius. This is all boring. --Rugby 666 13:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
• Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility.
• All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.
• Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely.
• FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.
• ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research.
• Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user editing anonymously

User:Srkris, blocked for one week for violations of WP:COPY, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc has returned and has been editing anonymously:, . How can this be stopped? Thanks Parthi 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that it is a/'the' blocked user? Do you have any checkuser results or are you simply trying to malign an innocent editor? Sarvagnya 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be stopped by teaching User:Venu62 something about civility towards other users.

You'd know when you see this. Parthi 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And when the blocked user himself accepts using this pool of ips. There is no need for checkuser. Parthi 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How difficult is it for someone(an anon) to edit your user page with the comment "I cant even edit my user page when blocked"?? And, Kris has only said that his ip starts with 59. Nothing else. Do you have any idea how many ips in the world can possibly start with 59? Stop assuming a lot of things and misleading people. It isnt civil. Sarvagnya 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Parthi, I would advise you to file for a checkuser on the ip and User:Srkris. If it returns positive, then Srkris' block would be reset/extended and/or the ips would be blocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. However it is pretty clear, when this ip signs with the username of the blocked user, that these edits are from the blocked user. Parthi 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it occur to you that even you could, if you could get hold of a 59.xxx ip, edit using that ip and sign as 'Kris'?? Sarvagnya 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It did occur to me, but I have no experience doing that unlike some people Parthi 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

captaindansplashback‎'s RFA - Threats?

From: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/captaindansplashback

Captaindansplashback‎ (talk · contribs) filed a request for adminship recently. I thought it was a joke, and am still not entirely convinced it's serious. But some of the talk from the user has been bordering on threatening to wikipedia. "That's a shame...But I must remind you it will not be I who will suffer for this decision, it will be Misplaced Pages" etc. Also a few socks (or meats perhaps) were created to try to sway the nomination. I don't know what should be done, but I think at this point an admin needs to step in... it's getting a little silly.

Potential Socks

• Ride The Cheese Like A Horsey (talk · contribs)
• Mrfudge (talk · contribs)
• 81.131.109.95 (talk · contribs)

Signed, ---J.S 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief ... that page should be speedied as patent nonsense. BigDT 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a LOT silly. --Elaragirl 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think this should not be speedied. He "applied" for adminship. He was not accepted - as simple as that. (Our loss apparently) And we can have a little fun in the process. 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be SNOWed immediately, however, It should be kept as a (maybe) good-faithed RFA. There seems to be consensus on the talk page to send it to BJAODN. ---J.S 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be much funnier without the personal attacks, and if things continue in that vein I might IAR and close it myself. I don't think there's a serious "threat" issue, however. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I closed the nomination. People have been treating it like some kind of joke, and the nomination was highly unlikely to pass anyway. -- tariqabjotu 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Vandalised

Found this page vandalised with bad language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Macedonia_%28terminology%29#Etymology

Hope this is an approprate place to report.

Kindest Regards Rob.

Near as I can tell, this has already been taken care of.

Mundane vandalism of this type can easily be taken care of by anyone else, including yourself. Thanks for the effort, though; perhaps you should register so that you can help protect Misplaced Pages from vandalism even further. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

page move needed

Could someone delete Talk:Momo (novel) then move Talk:Momo to Talk:Momo (novel). I think Momo (novel) and its talk page got separated from each other when someone moved Momo (formerly about the novel) and replaced it with a disambiguation page, but didn't move the talk page. Thanks 67.117.130.181 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Cuiviénen 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page...

Greetings,

I am not a registered user, but I love Wiki! I was doing some research for a class and found some very obscene language here : http://en.wikipedia.org/Hajj

Thank you and keep up the GREAT work!

Cathy Morgan 1208/2006

The vandalism has been dealt with, but you needn't notify us of it. Just try to fix it yourself :)—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism that I can't fix

The page International Phonetic Alphabet has been vandalized by the addition of pornographic pictures. I am unable to remove them by editing the page - I can't find how they are included. Could someone with greater knowledge of wikipedia fix this? Thanks.Bill 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything there. All of the templates there are not recently vandalized, unless you remember where it was.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it, but someone fixed it before I could. The vandalized template was {{Rtl-lang}}. -- JLaTondre 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the template in question. Jkelly 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:The person who makes ip address unusable by A U T O B L O C K!!!

This seems like a case for indef blocking - but considering the name, it may be wise not to autoblock the IP, or if it's possible, make the IP block temporary...I'm willing to bet it's someone at school trying to get the whole school's IP blocked. Thank you, and sorry if I did this incorrectly —Keakealani 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already blocked. There are extra options to implement when blocking which prevent this sort of misuse. --HappyCamper 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! Thank you anyway for your help...keep up the good work, it's really appreciated! —Keakealani 02:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, credit should go to Luna Santin. I just happened to be here when it happened! --HappyCamper 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like to imagine this guy happily using his blocked account on different IPs, thinking that they'll all be blocked for 24 hours and blissfully unaware that autoblocking is optional now. -- Vary | Talk 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an SBC internet account that has registered the following usernames: Autoblocker‎; AAUUTTOOBBLLOOCCKK MMEE!!!!‎; Hey! Admins! Yeah! Luna Santin! (AUTO) BLOCK ME!!!!‎; The Autoblocker‎; The person who makes autoblocks‎; The person who makes ip address unusable by A U T O B L O C K!!! Raul654 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be proper to add a note in their talk page to point that, thanks to his helpful tips, autoblocks have been turned off for his person :-) -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange...

Mwx10 (talk · contribs) was brought to my attention through random link clicking and contrib checking, and he self-nommed his own RFA, probably set up an SPA to support him, and has only two article space edits in the month he's been here, and that's solely been to move a page, but then move it back. What's the protocol for something like this?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notify a B-crat, I guess. Khoikhoi 03:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The protocol is someone mentions what they noticed on the RfA, and the b-crats take it into account. This happen often enough to be expected. HighInBC 06:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Taxman closed it. Thatcher131 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

I was blocked, complained by User:Venu62 for 24 hours complaining as 'I violated the 3RR'. Please see what had happened before that.

Three districts are declared as a holiday by the govt for an Ayyavazhi festival in Swamithope. More over many unversity books as well as historians published books as Ayyavazhi as an autonomouse religion by its elements (scriptures, ideology...) . I cited all thease things with University papers and historian views many many times earlier to the same user. See (scroll down) He then remain quite for some times and after a day or two without any discussion he use to remove Ayyavazhi. Please see the edit summary. In every my reverts, I asked them to discuss before reverting. No one User:Bharatveer and User:Venu62 replied but reverted. Starting from here to here they reverted five times (with in 24 hours) and removed the contents cited with university papers as sources. Since they two have collectively six (3+3) Reverts, they complain myself as violating the 3RR rule.

Once again please see the edit summary i've written in each of my edits. When User:Bharatveer felt that he was personally attacked by my self I went to his user page and apologises for that. Even then no one discussed on that topic, but User:Venu62 reverted continuusly without discussing.

If the rules of wiki is so, then if two users decided to revert a third persons edit, they can going on edits closely following him. Since these two guys collectively can revert (3+3) times then the third person would be marked as violating and could be blocked. No matter about the valid citations and the references.

Also I noticed commonly, this user User:Venu62 use to note this What links here section of Ayyavazhi page and complain to many user as spamm, spammer etc... I was intrested in Ayyavazhi. So Iam writing Ayyavazhi articles. And I give appropriate links form other topics. One who is intrested in Christianity will edit and write many Christianity related works, and who is interested towards Religion, then he will contribute to Religion related works. They use to spend more effort and time the more they are devoted to the topic. If it was called as spamm then Religious users want to be called as Religious spammers, and Christian users should be called as Christian spammers and etc...

If Tamil Nadu is a state in India, then unavoidably it should be be noted in India article as its Sub-national entity. As if Ayyavazhi is a religion it needs a mention in appropriate religion related article. I've already cited with evn University papers for its notablility, its spread across South India etc..

I've tried many times to tell this to him. How ever he don't understand.

Also he told in the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as, "He will not listen to reason as numerous discussions". I answered to every users. See here.

Again User:Venu62 have reverted my edits again and in the edit summary he noted, "You may have cited it, but it is irrelevant to this article. We cannot include each and every sect present in Tamil Nadu into this article".

That is what i cited with university papers. For the 'thousands of worship centers' (notability) and for the Autonomous structure of the religion (not a sect). Iam reverting the article.

Now the other user User:Bharatveer reverted the page without discussion. Please help. I made university papers as citations; I was blocked for 24 hours. Please help. see what is going on here

Two people are collectively reverting without discussion so they collectively have (3+3) 6 revert options in 24 hours. But when I revrts with citing University papers i was reverted. Please help immedietly - Paul 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is ↔ over there. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

blocked as a sockpuppet???

I am User:Biscuit-in-the-Basket and I was blocked for no apparent reason by User:JamesTeterenko as he claimed I am a sock puppet in addition all my edits have been reverted by this same admin. Could someone please explain to me why? I looked over all my edits to see if any of them could have been misinterpreted as vandalism or similar to another user, I also looked at the history of User:JamesTeterenko and he seems to have a long history of labeling many users, sock puppets that appear to have made positive edits. I would suggest taking the admin. privileges away from this user, most of his edits and blocking of innocent users I would consider vandalism. Can I be unblocked and my edits reposted?--67.70.148.223 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)User:Biscuit-in-the-Basket

I looked over your edits and the VaughanWatch abuse page and could not find a definite connection after a very quick check. Some of the pages edited are the same, but that does not prove anything. However, I found that you blanked Talk:International Hockey Hall of Fame twice, replacing it with your own post. This is inappropriate. Since it was done twice, it was apparently intentional. None of the other edits I checked were clearly inappropriate. However, I am unfamiliar with hockey and do not know if the information is accurate. Also, if a claim is controversial, a reference should be provided. I suggest that you take the matter up with JamesTeterenko first. If you cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, there are other things you can try. -- Kjkolb 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO before unblocking, do a CheckUser. – Chacor 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty new here, I did make a few edits prior to me registering to so I am getting familier with the system. The blanking of the talk page that you make reference to I thought was the proper procedure as I posted my comment and question, every thing else on there seemed so out dated. All my edits are accurate and could be backed by facts already posted on other wikipedia articles or references provided.--67.70.148.223 11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet. He edited a talk page of an article that a known vandal used to frequent, that's it! I've asked the blocking admin to unblock, if he doesn't do so, and doesn't come up with a good explanation, I'll unblock you. For future reference, if there are lots of out of date things on a talk page, we archive them, rather than delete them. Just move the take page to a page with the same name but "/Archive" on the end, and then replace the redirect that will appear in place of the talk page with a link to the archive and put your question underneath it. --Tango 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Details at Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page; general info at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. John Broughton | Talk 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I am willing to defend my actions if necessary (or go to a checkuser if required). However, I do not want to do so in a public forum because I do not want to give this user any tips on making better sockpuppets. If you want just a little evidence, see PeanutChiselTip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that appeared shortly after (and was blocked by a different admin). This is stereotypical VaughanWatch behaviour. -- JamesTeterenko 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PeanutChiselTip reverting back to Biscuit-in-the-Basket's versions of articles is extremely suspicious, although Peanut/Vaughan may have been stalking you or just checking his favorite articles. However, if you have additional evidence that makes you reasonably sure, then I am okay with leaving it as that and not wasting time on a Checkuser request. -- Kjkolb 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit is very telling. The concept that the IHHOF has made inductions and that is how they gained access to the HHOF is a view that only seems to be held by VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck and his sockpuppets. For example, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inducted members of the International Hockey Hall of Fame. The only lasting support to keep the article is from sockpuppets. -- JamesTeterenko 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch to include more of the characteristic behaviour of VW to make it easier for those not familiar with him. Please let me know if anyone has any doubt about this. -- JamesTeterenko 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your theory sounds likely but there's a perfectly innocent alternative explanation: a user finds a factoid on the web, inserts it, it gets rolled back, they reinsert it, it gets reverted without an edit summary, etc. Now, if you had left a message on the user's talk page or at least an edit summary saying that this factoid has been proven wrong and pointed to the appropriate information, even the people who are not familiar with VaugalWatch could now know for a fact whether the user was acting in good faith or not. Zocky | picture popups 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally didn't rollback anything until after I blocked him as a sockpuppet. The previous reverts were by other users. I agree that a message should have been left for him while there wasn't sufficient evidence. By the time I saw any edits, it was very clear that it was indeed a sockpuppet. To determine that it was a sockpuppet, I looked at all of the users edits, not just the ones stated as examples. Almost every edit provided additional evidence that it was indeed VaughanWatch. In addition to being interested in the same topics as VW, having the same perspective on these topics (that are so unusual that I have not been able find a reference on the web or another individual that agrees), the same writing style, this user also has the characteristics of sock puppets -- JamesTeterenko 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blank and lock

Could an admin please blank-and-lock my user and talk pages?

I don't want to "vanish" per se (account that is) -- but am not coming back and won't be doing any more editing, and would rather not have to worry about random vandalism, et cetera. I've no issues with the page histories sticking around for historical reasons.

Thanks and good bye.

-- QTJ 11:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thatcher131 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Request undeletion of my stub concerning the Merton Cassics don R G C Levens (Robert Levens). The speedy deletions were on the grounds of notoriety. Levens was well known on account of his school edition of Cicero Verrine V----Clive Sweeting

I'd go to deletion review with something like this. --Woohookitty 12:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, why? Any admin can undelete an speedied article. Undeletion Policy states "You may ask any administrator to undelete an article if it has been obviously deleted out of process (no justification under the deletion policy)". Seems like overly convoluted having to go through deletion review for a speedied article, and Administrators' noticeboard seems like the perfect place for someone to get a second look.-Halo 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all overly convoluted when the speedy deletion was clearly proper for a non-notable biography. Please assume good faith when a speedy deletion is made. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith on the part of the original request, which seems fair, and Woohookitty's reply simply didn't seem correct - WP:DRV is certainly not certainly not the first place you should go if you're after a second opinion, and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with placing the undeletion request for a speedy here. :) -Halo 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's admin shopping. DRV is there for a purpose. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, if an admin wants to speedy delete something you have to go through DRV and then through AFD to get it kept? Am I the only one who things this not only goes against the spirit of the undeletion policy that this could potentially lead to all sorts of trouble? -Halo 10:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. DRV frequently comes back with a result of undelete, do not send to AFD. Frequently the deleting admin will undelete it themselves upon seeing the consensus emerging at DRV after a day or two. Talking to the deleting admin directly is another (and quicker) alternative, but posting for an admin, any admin, to undelete is asking for a wheel war IMO. -- nae'blis 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to divine what article is being talked about. There's no harm in undoing a deletion- what's easily done can be easily undone. But it should only be done if it improves the encyclopedia, of course. Friday (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

see WP:DRV#R_G_C_Levens. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gavin06

Just thought I'd note that the above user has been previously warned about uploading a huge number of improperly tagged images, and (after somewhat of a hiatus) seems to have resumed doing just that. See Image:Finalpcf3.jpg and Image:Helenanokia.jpg (it wasn't caught by OrphanBot, although I don't know why). Just thought I'd note it here. - _хот 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user and deleted any of the images I found that were unlicensed and unsourced, or were copyvios from a given source. Oddly most of their images were not only repeats of others, but were already orphaned. Syrthiss 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Paedophilia and Pedophilia move

So User:Tony X Liu did a cut/paste move of Pedophilia to Paedophilia. AntiVandal Bot has reverted my reversion and looking at the page history, it looks like VoABot and MartinBot even reverted each other as a result. I don't care what it's called, but User:Tony X Liu is a clear vandal, so I was just trying to clean up. Can anyone give a hand here? I don't want to edit war with my best friends. shotwell 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Paedophilia to the redirect version. It's a bit odd, normally redirecting overrides the bots. -- Steel 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always felt the bots had something against me. I think my only recourse is to request arbitration. shotwell 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Dudedontworry

Dudedontworry (talk · contribs) is creating a large number of articles about pianists, originally copyvios which have been deleted and replaced by one-paragraph stubs which rarely claim notability, and then don't prove it. No reliable sources are cited. All seem to have been the former students of Heather Slade-Lipkin, who might be notable if there were reliable sources who said so. I think that without reliable sources, most of these articles need to be removed. Opinions? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody? If this isn't addressed, I'm just going to start speedying all of these articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He's down to one-sentence stubs. At least he quit posting copyvios.... I can't tell whether he's a well-meaning but confused fan, or whether he's involved with publicity for this group of musicians. Sigh. FreplySpang 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

penis pictures on Sarajevo page ....

on this page:

Assassination_in_Sarajevo

is this image:

Image:Uncircumcised_Penis.jpg

both limp and tergid versions

it is * S E R I U O S L Y * out of place !!!

please correct as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.69.221 (talk • contribs).

It is not there now, which is probably that it was fixed by the time you have posted this.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was a template or image vandalism, because the history does not have such modification. -- ReyBrujo 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the image to MediaWiki:Bad image list. Not only does Commons have an obscene number of penis images, this is an identical duplicate of another penis image already listed. —Centrx→talk • 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two days in row. I wonder if somebody is trying to tell somebody something.NinaEliza 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:wr, et. al.

It appears that the "wr" templates were supposed to be kept, not deleted, as per the discussion here. Was this consensus overruled? I've been trying unsuccessfully to locate where there is notice or discussion of this. --GentlemanGhost 22:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a deletion review here at which there was consensus to overturn and delete them.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive61#Removing_warnings_templates and following subsections for a fuller explanation. --bainer (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you very much! I had come across the red-linked template on a troublesome user's talk page and was confused as to what was going on. Now I understand! --GentlemanGhost 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

wikivideolinks.org

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Wikivideolinks.org.2C_cause_for_concern.3F. (→Netscott) 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Help, please...

Okay, here goes: User:Hildanknight suffers autoblocks due to his IP address being in Singapore (and belonging to half the place) and therefore thinks that anons should not be allowed to edit. He's been blocked for sockpuppetry involving the creation of inflammatory usernames that protested anon editing and he has made clear that he will not rest until they are not longer allowed to use Misplaced Pages.

I think he has taken it to a whole other level, however. My suspicion arises due to the heavy number of articles he requests for protection that actually get protected. He has a nasty habit of going to RFPP everytime anyone vandalises just about anything, and usually he gets told off for doing so.

But all of a sudden, every request he starting making would go through. Whenever he would add a page to RFPP, it would have enough vandalism to merit protection. Why? That's what I wondered.

Until I discovered that ninety percent of the edits were from Singapore's common IP address!

Take, for instance, Everton F.C.. Hildanknight requested page protection because of its extensive history of bad edits. Look closer, though, and you will see that 218.186.8.12, aka Hildanknight's IP, vandalised the article eight times in a row. Notice also, that Hildanknight reverts the edits every time-but he's always one minute off' the IP's edit. Just enough time to log in and out, I'd say.

You will notice that these edits are always one-two minutes apart and Hildanknight almost always reverts. The revert(s) that are not his were probably caught in RC.

• Singapore IP blanks, one minute later HK reverts:
• Singapore IP blanks article again and Hildanknight reverts:
• More of the same: {RC patroller reverts)
• And again: (RC patroller reverts)

Now look at another page he got protected, Bebo. (page history)

• Hildanknight reverts vandalism like someone normally would, , but notice that after he reverts it, the Singapore IP vandalises it four times in a row

• Check Hildanknight's contribs for the time those four vandalism edit took place: . He has absolutely no edits in the timeframe.

Looking through his contribs, I found this behavior increasingly common and very disturbing. As I don't have an account, I am unable to open an RFC or RFCHECK against him. Also, me internet connection is very limited and I'm burning the little time I have writing this. Could someone with more time please dig deeper into this scary anti-anon hole I'm looking at? Hildanknight, I think, is trying to give the IP's everywhere a bad name and make it seem like they should no longer be allowed to edit by vandalising under his shared IP and then requesting protection after reverting his own edits. Please, someone help.--172.191.155.230 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it is time to get an account? Anyway what is your theory? HK vandalising an article many times just to get it semiprotected? Looks like a big effort for a very small gain IMHO. It is easily to imagine that the article is on his watchlist that he refreshes frequently (or monitors using the Lupin tool, or whatever). Alex Bakharev 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I'll get to it eventually. Anyway, I forgot to say that he has had a checkuser case against him opened and it was proven he was usign socks, and my reason for so few diffs is that even the little time I spent doing this took up my alloted internet time. I simply don't have the resourced available to check further into this, which is why I asked for help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.24.196 (talk • contribs).

It's not implausible... as his RFCU mentions, he did hit Microsoft-related articles so badly that reverting admins thought they were dealing with a vandalbot. Kimchi.sg 12:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And my suspicion has increased after this edit, just 3 minutes after I unprotect. (HK is online at this time.) Kimchi.sg 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD Backlog

It doesn't seem like a lot of people are closing AfDs lately. The backlog is only two days, but really not many are getting closed of those two days, so it will just get worse fast if we don't get just a bit more help. A lot of the ones up right now are pretty easy to close, I'm sure, unanimous keeps or deletes. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old. --W.marsh 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sign me up for a dozen or so.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The transwikis below are 3 months old, and if they're not done soon I'm tempted to delete them all. Proto::► 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete anything actually useful to make a point about backlog. (We have some good and valuable image pages that predate Commons in that list-- I'd be working on transfering some of those myself if I wasn't on dialup at present.) -- Infrogmation 16:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's been chipping in... we seem to have caught up quite well. Of course, with 150+ appearing every day to be closed, help is always needed. --W.marsh 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

request for speedy keep

Sorry if this is the wrong place to list this, but I don't see anywhere else that's specifically related. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Brunner (2nd nomination) meets speedy keep criterion 1, as explained there at final comment. Requesting speedy keep. — coelacan talk — 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well WP:SK is a guideline, not a policy so its criterion do not carry much weight. In this case I think that I would let the nomination go for the full length, or at least a day or two, just to be sure. Prodego 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at it now it looks like it would be appropriate to speedy close it, but I personally only speedy close AfDs if there is an extremely large majority, in this case there are not enough votes for me to feel completely comfortable. Other may feel free to however. Prodego 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have closed it as SK anyway. Alex Bakharev 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Just a guess, but this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this probably should be deleted.

User:Moronisatosser

I saw this name, Moronisatosser (talk · contribs), pop up editing Gaby Hoffman. Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on WP:AVTRIV and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed an unsourced picture, which was eventually deleted under CSD-I4. This new user, whose name may be a correaltion to my edits, has uploaded the image again, still without a source. Any admins care to comment on whether this name is too similar to mine or an attempt at putting me down (what is a "tosser")? Cheers! -- moe.RON 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this account as an inappropriate username (Tosser -- yes, it's offensive -- sorry to be the bearer of bad news!). It was likely a troll, let me know if you have any more trouble. -- Renesis (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Konstable, now voluntarily desysopped, may not be resysopped without using the normal channels, including a request for adminship and community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that most of the outlandish proposals got rejected, now there is only one false statement in the official conclusion which is only there because the ArbCom could not be contacted in time to remove it ()

Anyway, here are some apologies that I posted a few weeks ago. As for the rest, I am thankful to the first sentence in the legitimate sock policy which inspired me to create a test account - I suggest more people try it doing what they would normally do but from a new account, makes a huge difference to the way people treat you. As for me here, well two weeks ago I have intentionally locked myself out of my account () - no way to get it back now; the only account that I still have access to is User:KonstableBot, but hey I am not going to pretend to be a bot. So to those who wanted me to be banned - sorry to disappoint you; and to those who wanted me limited to one account - I am doing one better and limiting myself to no accounts (any minor spelling corrections that I want to make to the articles I am reading will be done from my IP(s) but, no, I will never edit here as I did before, I am reserving that for some place else).--203.109.209.49 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Konstable)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

• BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
• Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year.
• TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
• BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An unfortunate case of mutually assured destruction, apparently. - Merzbow 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference between BhaiSaab's and Hkelkar's bans? Tom Harrison 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, if BhaiSaab starts sockpuppeting the ban would apply to his socks too. The language is just there in the case of Hkelkar because of a history of socking. Fred Bauder 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I like how one of the parties in this case had been harping on about "I'll take this to arbitration" throughout the entire dispute and when it inevitably got there he ended up getting banned. -- Steel 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Heklar and socks 'are'. 'Are'. Steel, please don't gloat, it's not big or clever. Proto::► 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proto what are you talking about? I also thought it was funny, because it was thanks to harrassment by BhaiSaab that I myself developed a block log. Stell was uninvolved as well, theres nothing for him to gloat about.Bakaman 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wheelwarring by administrators

What is the opinion of the community regarding how the Arbcom should deal with administrators wheelwarring. Should we step in when we, or Jimbo, sees it, or should we patiently wait for a case to be possibly filed? To deal with what we see, or have notice of, would break a basic rule of procedure we have more or less followed, not to initiate cases ourselves. Fred Bauder 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Given time people will often sort things out for themselves. In a case where the behavior adversely impacts Misplaced Pages, you or others can always give an admin your opinion in order to right things, but initiating a case when the people involved haven't felt it necessary doesn't seem appropriate. Your current method of operation is sound, and even if a change would fix some things, it might break other things. Atom 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine for any given member of the arbcom to use the bully pulpit of that position to say, 'Please stop this behavior.' But I don't think the arbcom can issue binding decisions as a body unless a case has been filed. Chick Bowen 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the more interesting and important question here isn't about wheelwarring- it's about the Arbcom injecting themselves into a situation without needing a case that's been filed and accepted. This may or may not be a bad idea, but it's definitely a significant expansion of the powers of Arbcom. These two questions should be treated seperately. Friday (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the role of the arbitration comittee to involve themselves in preventing wheelwarring. It may be the role of Wikipedians who happen to be in the AC to try and calm things down, as respected members of the community, but I would expect that of anyone with some common sense and in good standing, not just AC members. There's certainly no special executive mandate the AC has to intervene, nor should there be. Arbcom insists on every case being prepared, the rule works both ways, and the arbitration committee (as an entity, as opposed to individual members acting on their own steam and not with any kind of mandate) must not override their own standards. Proto::► 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To clear that up - it may be the role of the arbcom to subsequently take action about wheelwarring, but only after a RFAr case is meandered through as per usual. Proto::► 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Meandered? I'd hope not. Wheel warring should be subject to a temporary injunction right at the beginning of an ArbCom case, and failure to abide by such an injunction should in my view result in immediate desysopping. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Context, Fred? What issue is so urgent that two (or more) of us think it requires a wheel war rather than a mature discussion or peer-review by other admins? I'm guessing this goes beyond boldly reverting and then discussing, which may validly be extended to admin actions even if I would normally discuss before reverting? Since past cases have ended up in sanctions, the mere threat of ArbCom should be sufficient. My view on genuine wheel warring is that it should be stamped on hard and immediately. And yes if that means a pre-emptive ArbCom with temporary injunction, or even immediate temporary desysopping, then by all means, as long as the option remains to restore privileges if those involved apologise and promise never to do it again. There are few things more calculated to destroy the peace than wheel wars, and they also seriously undermine the community's trust in admins. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  Completely agree with JzG. Provided that it's well understood that a single revert of an admin action is not a wheel war, and is no big deal. I see no reason to treat admin reverts so different than edit reverts- they should not be done lightly, but we can't call them automatically wrong. Friday (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin Wheelwarring should be reported at WP:ANI, and dealt with by other admins and the wider community. ArbCom should not inject themselves into these disputes, unless there is a formal RfArb filed by a party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Process for process' sake. Is the problem sufficiently urgent as to require immediate action? If so, take immediate action. If not, I'm guessing Fred would not be suggesting taking immediate action or possible scope creep. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think ArbCom should get involved as necessary, without having to wait for someone to file a case (if that even does happen). Wheelwarring can be very disruptive. It's best, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that problems are dealt with quickly. --Cyde Weys 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely our already-existing standard practice of all editors acting as a check on each other is quicker than arbcom involved? Friday (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur? Clearly if there's wheelwarring going on then we aren't acting as checks on each other and ArbCom should get involved. --Cyde Weys 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Any Arbitrator, just like any other member of the community, can file an RfArb and request an immediate injunction seeking a temporary desysopping. I would assume that the ArbCom would respond very rapidly to such a request, as another Arb will have access to the ArbCom mailing list. I would expect the Arb filing the request to recuse from the subsequent arbitration case, of course.

I would expect that Jimbo, or any member of the Board, wouldn't have to go through the ArbCom if the situation were sufficiently serious and volatile as to require a suspension of an admin's bit. Jimbo and the OFFICE can just have a steward pull someone's admin privileges. Arbitration would presumably follow.

If we were going to expand the ArbCom's responsibilities from it's current judicial roles into active policing and enforcement, might I suggest that it would have been wiser to bring this up before the election? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about automatic desyopping of any administrator who reverses an action of another administrator without attempting to discuss the matter? Fred Bauder 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about bureaucratic paralysis? Sometimes bold/revert/discuss happens, and if we're acting like reasonable adults, this isn't automatically harmful. Friday (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just instruction creep. If there is a wheel war that requires immediate action, Jimbo or OFFICE can get a steward to temporary deadmin the involved admins, pending arbitration. This already has precedent, so it would not cause an uproar if it happened again in similar circumstances. And of course, Jimbo can deadmin or ban whomever he wants at any time. Zocky | picture popups 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just overturned an action by Friday (I unblocked an editor) a few days ago. I didn't discuss in advance, I just went and did it—then I explained politely on his talk page my reasoning. It calmed down a situation that was getting needlessly heated. I've done this a few times in my time on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps on three or four occasions all told.

Afterwards, Friday was both polite and reasonable, and we were able to discuss the matter constructively. (In fact, in all the matters that I've handled this way, there's never been a subsequent wheel war, and the admins involved have responded positively to my actions and reasoning.) As it turns out, the editor in question decided that my unblock was carte blanche to carry on with playing about with WP:POINT, making veiled attacks on the original blocking admin, and just generally being a WP:DICK despite warnings. I reblocked, as I had assumed some responsibility for the editor's behaviour by unblocking him in the first place. As far as I know, there hasn't been any sort of firestorm swirling around my actions, and everything is working out as it should.

I would have been desysopped ages ago under such an automatic process as you've described, Fred. I really think such a short route to desysopping isn't going to be a net benefit for the community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Echo what TOAT said. Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits? This is a collaborative project. We should all be a check on each other, and if there are many admins who object to being overturned, this is worrisome. Friday (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed the case that ToAT and Friday were involved in above, and that was indeed a case where productive discussion between the admins involved was possible. However, not all cases where an admin undoes another admin's actions will be so good-natured. It all depends on how reasonable and open to discussion the admins involved are. Admins should, theoretically by their very nature (if they were correctly chosen as admins), always be open to discussion, or at least be able to find a temporary middle ground where discussion can take place. In most cases of wheel-warring, I suspect, the admins involved are so convinced that (a) they are right and (b) there is no other way and no possibility of discussion; that the wheel-war continues. This type of attitude, not the actions, is what should lead to immediate referral for de-sysopping, in my opinion. Immediate de-sysopping should only be for a 'clear and present danger'. Carcharoth 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about as reasonable as automatic blocking of any editor who reverts another editor without attempting to discuss. One has to wonder whether Fred so much as read any of the responses to his first query. —Cryptic 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The ad hominem is unnecessary and unhelpful. --Cyde Weys 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no ad hominem. Fred's idea does not seem to follow from the discussion in any way, and it is not an attack for Cryptic to point that out. Chick Bowen 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see an ad hominem attack anywhere. Regardless, the examples of wheel warring under the proposed wheel war policy seem to be better examples of wheel warring. I don't think an automatic desysopping – albeit temporarily – is necessary for a single wheel war (which could be an honest mistake), but a desysopping for repetitive wheel warring, as defined by those examples, seems reasonable. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(after 3 edit conflicts!) I was going to say that Fred nowhere says that he supports this, but calling Cryptic's comment an ad hominem is ridiculous and indeed unhelpful. Zocky | picture popups 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is an ad hominem (might want to read that article). Rather than arguing any of the merits of the idea, Cryptic accused Fred of not having read responses to another query. Note that this response is directed against the merits of Fred himself, and not the merits of the idea. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's directed at the merit of Fred's actions. Cryptic was IMO mistaken to presume that Fred supports this, but assuming good faith, his concern is procedural, not personal. Zocky | picture popups 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Automatic desysopping" for any single action would be a terrible idea. My suggestion would be that an arbitrator who observes a wheel-warring situation, which isn't being resolved between the administrators involved, should post about it to this noticeboard and advise both/all of the involved admins to step back from their buttons until a consensus emerges. Newyorkbrad 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. First of all, not all wheel wars need to lead to desysopping--many are peacefully resolved and not in the grand scheme of things that big a deal. Second, "any administrator who reverses an action of another administrator without attempting to discuss the matter" is a ridiculously broad definition of wheel-warring to begin with, as TenOfAllTrades says. Chick Bowen 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky and Newyorkbrad above. I do not think an automatic process would be helpful. If it needs to be done, get a steward to do it. A quick and temporary no-fault suspension of sysops could de-escalate things better than a difficult arbitration, or some kind of admin auto-desysop policy. As admins we should all extend a presumption of competence and good will to each other. If a page protection looks like stubborn stupidity, assume the other guy knows something you don't. Find out what that is before flying off the handle. If someone undoes your block, assume he had a good reason to. Don't take it as a slap in the face, because it almost certainly is not meant to be. If possible we should prevent things from getting to the point where one or another of us has to be publicly rebuked. Lately I've begun to wonder if we have built a system that somehow forces us to stone an admin every two weeks. Tom Harrison 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Stewards won't act on an involuntary desysopping request without a request from the ArbCom of the project involved. We know from prior incidents that ArbCom is capable of acting informally and expeditiously (i.e., without a case pending) when the members consider there is a true emergency in which the project is perceived to be endangered by an individual retaining his or her buttons. True emergencies are rare. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just adding that when somebody undoes your admin action, the first thought on your mind should be "Have I explained it well enough in the log entry?". If you can't be bothered to enter a valid description of your reason to block, delete or protect, you shouldn't expect other people to bother looking for your explanation in other places, or even to have a chat with you about it before undoing it. Zocky | picture popups 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To give Fred the benefit of the doubt, I would ask him to give us some context. What prompted you to ask this question, Fred? It seems unlikely this question just popped out in your head. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To join the chorus, no we should not desysop for reversing an administrator action. That would cause vastly more problems than wheel-warring ever has. It is not at all uncommon for Admin A to protect a page, Admin B to unprotect it after the problem seems to have been resolved, and then Admin A (or Admin C) to re-protect if the dispute flares up again. That isn't 'wheel warring'/grounds for auto-desysoping... that's admins doing their jobs properly. The majority of admin action reversals likely aren't even disputed, a sizable portion of those which are disputed would be/have been endorsed by consensus/policy, and even most of those which are widely contested stop and discuss rather than warring back and forth. True protracted 'wheel wars' are few and far between. As to ArbCom taking cases without anything being filed... I generally don't see the need. The whole idea is that ArbCom is supposed to be the court of last resort after all other dispute resolution methods have failed. This seems to suggest that ArbCom would take action before dispute resolution was even begun. Granted that wheel warring is a special case there might be some benefit in ArbCom imposing an immediate injunction to order it stopped (which is more or less a standing reality anyway), but beyond that I don't know that it would provide any benefit. --CBD 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think this is quite a bad idea. To pick another example, let's say CBDunkerson blocks Jossi just because he feels like it, and makes it clear on an offensive block summary that it was a decision made by whim. (The reason I picked them out: their comments are directly above this post.) I then go and unblock Jossi, because it would be a clearly improper block. Under such an "automatic" desysopping scheme, I would be summarily removed of my admin status.

While this situation is so implausible it almost seems absurd, there are other situations that are not as clear-cut (such as the ones brought up by TenOfAllTrades and CBD) that would be short-circuited by such a rule. Besides, do we really want to give wikilawyers another reason to bug us with? Titoxd 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Arbcom's purpose is to adjudicate disputes brought before it via RfAR's, not to proactively become a "wiki police". It is judicial in scope, not executive, to borrow terms from US government. -- Avi 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Er, guys? The phrase "wheel war" really does not apply to undoing a single admin action once, it means two or more admins repeatedly doing or undoing the same admin action. There's no possible doubt that this is a Really Bad Thing. It does not happen often. A bit of calm, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors who make disruptive edits can be temporily blocked from editing. Admins who make disruptive admin actions can not be blocked from adminning; a block from another admin only stops them from editing, which was not part of the problem. (When an editor abuses the position we take away his pen. When an admin abuses his position we take away...his pen?) Thatcher131 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Must something be DONE?

Is wheelwarring a problem which is so serious that something must be DONE about it? For your information, I'm just asking questions. I have taken no position. Fred Bauder 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. There is no substancial issue now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Definately no. No more procedure creep please, at least not on this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing more than the procedures we have now, in my opinion. -- Avi 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• No problem that I can see, most wheel wars are resolved without arb anyways, and they are not too common. HighInBC 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• We should always continue having conversations about the causes and potential ameliorations of admin disputes, as these are harmful to the project. But no, no new procedure needs to be created--desysopping should always be rare and reserved for genuine abuse. Chick Bowen 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• If anything, the problem that we should solve is the feeling among some admins that they deserve not to have their actions reverted. Mutual respect and collaboration does allow the occasional revert. Friday (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Something is done. Wheel warring inevitably leads to discussion at ANI. In most cases the discussion leads to a consensus that all parties are willing to abide by. Sometimes issues move on to Arbcom, which through injuctions should be able to promptly defuse the situation. It is rare that a wheel war is such an urgent and destructive concern that it cannot be adequately dealt with through this process. Given that both sides of a wheel war are generally well-intentioned administrators, I believe it is often healthier for our community to have this process of discussion and formal argument (even as messy as it sometimes is) than it would be for people to simply try and quell all wheel wars as quickly as possible. Dragons flight 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• (afer edit conflict - concur with Dragons flight also) No. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is AN/I; there is Rfar, with injunctions; there is OFFICE. I feel quite strongly that "immediate desysopping" by any member of Arbcom for any single action would be precipitous and unwarranted, if not downright abusive. Per Friday, we don't OWN our Admin actions any more than our Editor actions; another administrator may have found evidence we missed, or have a clearer perspective. They may, of course, be in error - and that too will sort itself out with the transparancy we have here on Misplaced Pages. Were "any Arbcom member" be given the power to be detective, judge, jury and executionor, there is no such community oversight, no consensus, no "second opinion" and certainly not the kind of group examination which we currently have with AN/I and Arbcom - and what if it is the Arbcom member who is unaware of the entirity of the situation? Bold, revert, discuss works fine. Wheel warring is a repetitive or continuous thing, not a "one off" instance. It has happened enough to cause a serious issue on Misplaced Pages precisely once, and that, too, has been sorted out - albeit with some bumps and bobbles. I see no reason to expand Arbcom's scope to this degree; and I see numerous reasons not to do so. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - the current way of managing the occasional (and it is occasional) wheel war is discussion, and a temporary injunction if this does not resolve the issue (and it rarely comes to that). The current system works - change for the sake of change is foolish. Proto::► 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Again, the only 'change' which I could see having some validity would be some sort of notification that, 'ok, this admin dispute has reached the point that it is disrupting Misplaced Pages - stop taking admin actions on this issue'. People almost always stop on their own before it gets to that point, but in the few cases where multiple disputed admin actions have been taken (most recently the whole 'disputed conditional re-adminning' conflict) it could be worthwhile to tell everyone to stop without having to go through a formal procedure. Just a notification with the implication that failure to heed a 'stopping now would be good' warning doesn't look good if/when an arbitration does take place (which they inevitably do on issues which have reached the point where such a notification would be warranted). --CBD 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Explication

Let me flesh this out a bit, since the proposal was mine on the mailing list and I think its grounded in good sense. First, let me say that, as an arbitrator, wheel warring is, by any definition, one of the most serious items of administrative misconduct one can do. Any case of what is clearly wheel warring will be inevitably accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Also important is that no one else but the Arbitration Committee can sanction an administrator in any way; this is different from editorial misconduct, in which any administrator may apply blocks and arbcom is not needed in the vast majority of cases. Now, I suggest that not only should we accept all such cases that come before us, but that we should take all such cases. Any wheel warring should earn an offender an automatic arbitration case, and arbcom will look into it, accepting a case, with or without community impetus. This is not a very extreme statement: the pedophilia wheel war case was referred to us by Jimbo. This is the model I sugggest. This is current arbitration policy, a case may either originate with a request that gains arbcom acceptance, or with a referral from Jimbo. Jimbo agrees that any cases that the Arbitration Committee deems wheel warring should be viewed as referred to us by him, and he will make this explicit if there is any question. One of the frustrations of being an arbitrator is seeing the valid cases that are causing harm to the community bypass arbitration because no one brngs it to us (the particularly hapens when both parties are at fault, and any potential initiator knows they will not fare well in arbitration; this describes almost all wheel wars). Also, third party initiators have little motivation for starting such cases, especially if they face stigma from people who are either uncivil, or popular (as admins tend to be). This is all that would happen: any case that the Arbitration Committee deems wheel warring may be accepted as a case (without prejudice to final outcome, as with all cases). This isn't a proposal about desysopping, and it is also about warring, not single acts or reversals. Jimbo has supported it, but Fred was afraid of community dissent: I hope the way I have described it clears up any concerns that this is a controversial new practice. Dmcdevit·t 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it does not. First of all, you say, "no one else but the Arbitration Committee can sanction an administrator in any way." This is simply not the case. Admins can block other admins and do; we have the right to say to another admin that they are not behaving properly and must stop their actions, and that can and frequently has resulted in solutions to wheel wars. Chick Bowen 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• If ArbCom initiates a proceeding, it has a case to prove (that there was really a harmful wheel war going on), i.e. ArbCom becomes a party to the proceeding. ArbCom arbitrating on its own case is not a good idea. Zocky | picture popups 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ummm, what does it actually mean for Arbcom to accept a case if neither side is interested in presenting evidence? Dragons flight 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Arbcom would have to dig up evidence, but not that hard for wheelwarring. Fred Bauder 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't happen, really. To answer your question and Zocky's, the idea is that the Committee will accept a case, in which parties will offer evidence, as with any other case. Parties that don't want to be in a case (if they're at fault, usually) still usually offer evidence. Findings are then based on evidence. Arbcom has closed cases without result for lack of evidence, but this is unlikely. Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused by Fred's and Dmcdevit's answers. Does this mean that ArbCom would be proving its own case or not? Zocky | picture popups 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You seem to misunderstand arbitration. There is no case to be "proven". A dispute is arbitrated in a case, meaning anyone can offer evidence, and the arbitrators make findings of facts based on the evidence, which then supports certain remedies. A case has scope, not direction. Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • According to most dictionaries, arbitration is the process where a third side decides between two opposing positions held by two sides. These positions are the cases that are proved/disproved and or decided to different extents in arbitration. My problem is not with the sides to the original dispute, it's with the sides to the meta-issue of whether ArbCom intervention in a certain case is desired or not. Zocky | picture popups 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some truth to both Zocky and Dmcdevit's positions here. If there were community sentiment that there is a problem needing to be resolved through greater ArbCom attention to wheel-warring disputes, which from this discussion there isn't at all, it would be easy enough to design a procedure to address situations where a case is opened on the ArbCom's own motion (most likely, the committee would designate an uninvolved Clerk or independent user as the equivalent of amicus curiae to assemble the evidence). But as I indicate below, discussion of changes to ArbCom procedure should abide the appointment of the six or more new arbitrators. In the interim, my suggestion that arbitrators (or anyone else) bring alleged wheel-warring problems to the attention of this noticeboard while admonishing the involved admins to await consensus here should hopefully be sufficient. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• If nobody has asked for a case, it may be that it can be handled without arbcom, this is not a bad thing. HighInBC 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, so if two admins countermand each other's administrative actions, even if it's subsequently resolved amicably (as it often is), and neither admin presses for Arbcom to get involved, a full Arbcom proceeding will take place, anyway? Yeesh. Maybe I should be glad I'm getting murfdered in the Arbcom elections ... pointless effort is exactly that. Proto::► 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO it is an instruction creep. In the most cases admins as a board can handle the case by themselves (by just blocking the disruptors). In the urgent and obvious cases (e.g. an admin repeatedly unblocking himself) any steward can fix it. In between there should obviously be enough people to file the case (even as a third party). Alex Bakharev 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It's an important question for technical reasons - an admin can unblock their own account, so ArbCom, Office and Foundation have the only enforceable mechanisms for dealing with an outbreak of admin idiocy. They can cause the admins to lose the sysop bit, temporarily or permanently, so that the problem is actually and enforceably stopped. It's an extreme situation, and very rare in my recollection, but I am relatively new around here. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom still needs to refer the matter to a steward to desysop (being an arbitrator does no automatically gives one the steward bit). If the behavior of an admin is as egregious as repeatedly unblocking himself any user (including arbitrators) can refer the case to a steward. The arbcom is redundant here. Alex Bakharev 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my suggestion above about a constructive but more limited role that arbitrators could play in such situations, at least as a first step that might resolve most problems, may I suggest that discussion of any significant revision of the Arbitration Committee's role or its policy for accepting cases should wait until January. I presume that the six or more new arbitrators soon to be appointed should participate in discussion with respect to any changes. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Dmcdevit for the clarification. I would argue that in some extreme cases on sustained wheelwarring, ArbCom intervention should be welcome. But it will require very specific guidelines as for the criteria, method, and process of such intervention. An alternative would be that an ArbCom member steps in, brings a wheelwarring case to RfArb and recuse himself. After all ArbCom members are also editors, and in most cases admins themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ArbCom members serving as de facto prosecutors would be problematic appearance-wise, even with recusal. In contentious cases, which these are certain to be, we'd get the accusations that ArbCom is protecting its own members and/or power. I still think that we should rely on third parties to bring the normal cases to the ArbCom, and Jimbo and/or office should intervene in emergencies. It's not as if admins repeatedly unblocking themselves are a common occurrence. Zocky | picture popups 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, a quick reading of WP:BAN shows that it is not only the ArbCom that can sanction an administrator (though I suspect Dmcdevit meant only the ArbCom has the authority to ask for the removal of an admin's administrative rights, not that only the ArbCom can sanction an admin in any way). I was thinking that community bans are possible, but I see that there are other possible routes for banning as well: (1) Community ban; (2) Ban ordered by the Arbitration Committee; (3) Ban authority passed by the Committee to a probation officer or mentor; (4) Jimbo bans someone; (5) Wikimedia Foundation bans someone (presumably under WP:OFFICE). Carcharoth 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose there was such a thing as a 24 hour desyop meant to be used an average of once a day on the worst offender that day to set boundaries for incivility, contemptuous attitude, unblocking self, and disruptive reverting. It could be a good thing if a way could be found to prevent its abuse. An elected position held for only a month and ineligible to run again for a year? WAS 4.250 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping has always been reserved for and should always be reserved for severe abuse. As for the general point in contention here, I found this clarfication in response to my question to Jimbo about this useful. Chick Bowen 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, here is the problem I (and possibly others) am having with this... I don't see the problem. You say that it is 'frustrating to see cases which are harming the community not brought to ArbCom'. Such as? In every case of 'wheel warring' (as I understand the term) which I can think of there HAS been an arbitration. Which would seem to mean only one of three things: this is a solution to a problem which does not exist, there are 'stealth' wheel wars out there with admins reverting each other back and forth half a dozen times but no one noticing... OR some lower threshhold for 'wheel warring' is being contemplated. The last would seem to be the only one which makes any kind of sense (given that both you and Jimbo have indicated that this is an actual rather than hypothetical 'problem'), but I can't agree with it. Admins should revert actions taken by other admins when the situation has changed or if the action was clearly wrong. Granted, that latter especially can lead to wheel warring if both 'sides' are convinced the other is wrong, but a single revert with explanation is not doing any damage to the encyclopedia. In most cases it is fixing an existing problem. Admins disagreeing on how long a page should stay protected (and reversing back and forth) is an inevitable but insignificant difference of opinion which always seems to sort itself out. Admins blocking users with whom they are in content disputes on outright false 'charges' (which I have seen less than half a dozen times) is the kind of thing which 'does damage to Misplaced Pages' and ought to be reverted immediately. Et cetera. Some examples of the sorts of cases you have been frustrated over not being able to arbitrate would be helpful in evaluating where you are going with this, but it does sound like you are seeing a problem in places where some of us do not. --CBD 09:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Fred and Dmcdevit, at the very least, why couldn't an arbitrator file a request for a case and then recuse? Surely this would follow accepted procedure. To the others, what is the difference between arbcom filing a case sui generis and one arbitrator filing and then recusing, except that one follows "process" and the other does not? Thatcher131 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not be involved in initiating cases that I am not involved with. On the other hand, if I am not involved, there is no reason to recuse. Perhaps clerks could initiate such cases in a pro forma manner. I think after this discussion I have come to a position. If there is conflict between administrators, it should be discussed at AN/I. Only if there is not a satisfactory resolution should it become an arbitration case. Perhaps that decision should be made on AN/I, whether a case would accomplish something. Obviously discussion between the administrators should precede even the AN/I discussion and apologies all around may help some after incidents occur. Fred Bauder 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

Since no one else wants to mention the specific case (or perhaps only one of them) at issue, I will. Was this a wheel war? Was it resolved amicably? Is it an isolated incident, or part of a larger problem? Thatcher131 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Without commenting on whether it was a "wheel war" or not, I think it self-evident that the actions by both parties were completely unacceptable. Removing a question from a candidate's question page, regardless of how loaded it was? Protection wars? Revert wars? No series of actions could have been more calculated to make all involved parties appear more ridiculous. It should never have happened, especially not between administrators of long tenure. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So if Arbcom wants to act; to send a message that has been forgotten since January, should they have to wait for someone else to complain? Thatcher131 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By "both parties" who do you mean? If you are referring to the two admins in the protection log, SlimVirgin protected an election page in order to prevent another person from asking a question of a candidate, and Geni, the election clerk, unprotected an election page that belongs open for questions. I don't see how the latter user's actions could be considered unacceptable, or the former user's could be considered appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 20:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• THANK YOU. Much easier to address than, 'guess what the heck they are talking about'. Definitely a 'wheel war'. Worthy of de-sysoping? Well, consider the total length of 'disruption'... twenty minutes and twenty-five seconds from first admin action to last. The end of the wiki it aint. Of course, there was an edit war (also involving admins) leading up to that and the whole thing was incredibly silly... but I'd think a good trout smacking would cover it. The best course would probably have been to let the candidate handle it... either by leaving the question in place or (once it was removed) alerting them on their user talk page that it had been there so they could restore it and respond if they chose. I think some of the actions in that dispute were 'worse' than others, but overall it was a minor flare up (clearly related to earlier conflicts... going all the way back to the pedophile userbox brouhaha) which was quickly ended when people realized how ridiculous such a fight was. --CBD 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That episode was sui generis, but there have been a series of disputes about what is or is not an appropriate question (for a particular candidate or for the entire field of candidates) during the whole election process. Not to digress, but I think what's needed here for next time is a designated election official or two with authority to police the question pages. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm? Worthy of desysopping? I'd say maybe; it doesn't realy matter how disruptive this one event was, but whther, based on the evidence, it was part of a pattern of poor judgment, or simply a forgivable mistake. You question misses the point, though. Here it is: Worthy of an arbitration case? Absolutely: that's the only way we can answer that pattern vs. mistake question. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one. Thatcher131 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• And another Thatcher131 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One, two, three, four. Rare and resolved amicably? Thatcher131 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither the Skulltag or the Nixer-block matter rises to the level of a wheel war. In the case of Skulltag Humblefool is either actioning an AfD or a DRV outcome. That leaves one undelete by Sarge Baldy and one redelete by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. We wouldn't call two reverts by two different people an edit war, so we can't reasonably describe this as a wheel war. Similarly Nixer's block log has several instances (further down) of unblocks, but these all seem quite amicable and uncontented. Only Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's reversal of Zoe's block, and Zoe's replacement of it, is a contended reversal of another admin's action, and again two reverals by two users is not remotely a war. These aren't elephants in tents, these are storms in teacups. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the examples you cite seem like they 'just barely' meet the definition of 'wheel warring' I generally use and then stop... which is as I described things above; true protracted wheel-wars are exceedingly rare (none of these qualifies), most admin reversals generate little or no conflict (even some of these were amicably resolved), and even those which are hotly disputed generally stop at the point where it would become wheel-warring. So what's the problem? People disagree with each other? Not going to change. And the only way to prevent anyone from ever stepping up to or poking a toe just over the 'wheel warring' line would be to outlaw reversals entirely... which is a cure vastly worse than the disease. --CBD 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom-initiated RfCs?

Would it help if the ArbCom, while not specifically handing down remedies, was able to comment on such cases, and present them as examples of what not to do? If the involved parties, or any third party, felt things were being misrepresented, or evidence was being missed, they could open a case. Kind of like an ArbCom-initiated RfC? That might also give the RfC process more bite, as at present many RfCs that fail to resolve end up at Arbitration sooner or later. This would also specifically address the ArbCom concern that cases where both sides act badly are not acted upon (as neither side would want to initiate an Arbitration), but would allow the admins involved to say sorry, while still having them hauled over the coals in public view so others know what is and is not acceptable. Carcharoth 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for that, although I often read them once the case is to arbitration. In the case of users who are editing in good faith, but are mistaken regarding policy, my preference is to set forth the policy correctly, then let the matter go with an admonition to follow the policy. A couple of problems with that though: having gotten away with a "warning" a user may think nothing will happen if they keep on; such remedies sometimes don't have the support of other arbitrators who feel there ought to be serious remedies for serious infractions. Clearly though, after cutting some slack, and then cutting some more slack, at some point disruptive behavior must be grappled with whether it is because of can't or won't. Fred Bauder 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible solutions to unreported wheel warring

• If unreported wheel warring is a serious problem, maybe someone could set up a group of non-arb comm members (admins and editors) who agree to watch the boards and present arb comm cases where appropriate. I'm sure a few words from Jimbo would motivate some group of editors to watch the watchmen.
• On the other hand, in light of the current MONGO kerfuffle, I'm worried that Arb Comm is something of a blunt instrument to deal with wheel warring. If an otherwise productive admin engages in a minor wheel war, it seems to me that the best outcome is to encourage the admin not to do it again, whether by RFC, community feedback, or something else. Maybe this hypothetical panel of watchmen-watchers could have a set of escalating remedies at their disposal, ending with Arb Comm.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite easy to ignore blocks

It seems that it is quite simple to ignore edit blocks.

User:Srkris was blcoked for one week for consistent violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:COPY, WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:NPA has been circumventing his block by editing anonymously. I requested a checkuser but was inexplicably declined. I have added more diffs to support my request. However my question to the community is if a blocked user can openly disregard the block this easily and continue his merry way, circumventing 3RR and other guidelines, then what use blocking anyone? How is this a deterrant? I have included the list of vioations here:

Comment: It is not clear why this request was declined. If it is due to lack of diffs, here are some which clearly shows that this user identifies with the blocked editor:

1. 59.92.83.63 (talk · contribs) - acceptance that he is User:Srkris and is breaking the block
2. 59.92.83.63 - incivility
3. 59.92.83.63 - reverting copyvio notices and questioning the validity of WP guidelines. WP:COI
4. 59.92.87.43 (talk · contribs) - incivlity
5. 59.92.87.43 - incivility and acceptance that he is user:Srkris
6. 59.92.87.43 - acceptance that he is user:Srkris
7. 59.92.46.252 (talk · contribs) - Personal attacks
8. 59.92.46.252 - disputing blatent copyvio and questioning the validity of WP guidelines.
9. 59.92.46.252 - reverting copyvio notices
10. 59.92.46.252 - Incivility
11. 59.92.46.252 - reverting blatent copyvio notice
12. 59.92.46.252 - WP:COI violations and the acceptance that he is User:Srkris
13. 59.92.46.252 - reverting copyvio notice
14. 59.92.63.37 (talk · contribs) - Personal attacks and vandalising my User page
15. 59.92.63.37 - Fake warnings in my talk page
16. 59.92.63.37 - acceptance that he is User:Srkris
17. 59.92.50.88 (talk · contribs) - Incivility and acceptance that he is User:Srkris
18. , , , - 3RR violations using anon edits

Parthi 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need checkuser. Better to go on editing pattern. If it swims like the duck, its the duck. You may sometimes block someone as bad as the duck, rather than the duck, but that is understandable. Fred Bauder 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pasting my message to Admin:Ragib : I'd like to request you to warn Parthi to stop his mudslinging against srkris. He has no proof that the anon ip is srkris and yet even after his attempts for a checkuser were ignored by the checkuser admins, he's acting like he has solid proof that the ip and srkris are the same and is continuing with his shameless mudslinging. Until the checkuser results come in(he has appealed again), this mudslinging by Parthi so 'matter-of-factly' is nothing short of misinformation and slander. Even if the checkuser rules in favour of Parthi, these messages(he has spammed these messages to all and sundry and even on talk pages of articles!) are still slander.

For all we know the ip may even be User:Parthi himself or maybe some other totally unrelated user(anybody for that matter) who is trying to impersonate User:Srkris. Neither the ip nor srkris have done anything against the rules of wikipedia and whatever disputes there may be they are all still under consideration and deliberations. User:Venu62 has no right to appropriate the moral high ground for himself and the reason i am intervening(note that I had scrupulously stayed out of this for nearly 2 months and have entered it only in the last couple of days) is because his private fight with srkris is spilling over everywhere and disrupting constructive editing.

And as far as srkris' supposed copyvios are concerned, I'd just like to say that as one who has attempted to upload pics unsuccessfully in the past, all the rules concerning uploading pics are very very vague for people new to uploading pics. As an admin, I'd like you to discuss this with other admins on irc perhaps, and come up with better wording for what is permissible and what is not. As it stands now, there's just too many vague rules and guidelines out there. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have doubled the original block to Srkris and blocked the IPs. Next time just inform an admin that the user is avoiding his block Alex Bakharev 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Sam_Spade - why blocked?

Can anyone help me figure it out? - crz crztalk 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell only Essjay will be able to tell us what's going on. No point in speculating until he shows up. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - it's an autoblock from checkuser-related block Essjay instigated. Proto::► 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be the culprit here. I unblocked too hastily, and then reblocked, with apologies to Sam. Please see a message I've just left for Essjay. AnnH ♫ 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see also a message I left for Sam. AnnH ♫ 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Essjay hit the 84.166.0.0/16 range with a month-long block. Gazing at the log, there were certainly some sound reasons for doing so. That being said, if Sam's hitting it there shouldn't be a problem reblocking anon-only, with account creation prevented. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's been taken care of now (I tried to unblock and it gave me an error about not being blocked), so I take it everything is now kosher. Sam wasn't in the /16 when I blocked it; if I'd seen any legit users, I would have made it anon-only. Essjay (Talk) 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

can someone archive WP:AN3 please?

Unfortunately it is now 500kb and my browser cannot open the page (without crashing), so I can neither read it nor archive it. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not being active on that board, I'm not really sure what should or shouldn't be archived; obviously, completed requests are removed at some point, but I don't know exactly what. Likewise, old inactive requests must be removed at some point, but I don't know that either. If someone could offer guidance about how quickly things should be removed, I'd be happy to work on it; moreover, if there is a set standard (anything over x days is removed) I can set EssjayBot up to do it like it does ANI. Essjay (Talk) 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A large chunk of the page was moved to archive at 06:49, 11 December 2006, by Dmcdevit. However, it's still an open question of what the standard is for archiving, and using a bot to do so. John Broughton | Talk 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that any report over 48 hours old will be acted on, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

There is a fairly large backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Volunteers? --Dgies 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I went there (hours ago) and fund one that needed some pretty extreme cleanup instead, so I got sidetracked. Typical! Guy (Help!) 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another crusader comes to Misplaced Pages

This one's cause is "Korean fabrication". Moonlitcherryblossom (talk · contribs) has already created such gems as the now-deleted List of Korean fabrication in Misplaced Pages ("...draws up the list of Korean fabrication in Misplaced Pages. If you are student or using Misplaced Pages for an academic purpose, you MUST not use the topics below as references, otherwise, humiliate yourself in academic field."), the hopefully-soon-deleted Category:Korean Fabrication in Misplaced Pages ("Because of the Korean spread the world, economic growth and knowledge of English, Korean have started the fabrication to the world based on her hope and strange nationalism. The purpose of this category is to prevent the informaiotn from Korean fabrication.") and the soon to be gone Koreate ("Koreate is a terminology to discribe the Korean fabrication toward the origin and background of history and culture especially from Japanese and Chinese. Koreate have been fused with Korean and create and also known as Coreate.") Just a heads-up. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the only thing holding him back from calling you an agent of the Korean government on his user talk is his poor English. *ducks* Kimchi.sg 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I left a polite but firm note and also nuked Koreate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Let us know if this does not work, if the edit-warring resumes a ban will likely be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Images with no fair use rationale

I am confused with no fair use rationale category. There are many images which explain about fair use, claiming the reasons for fair use. Still they are tagged with no fair use rationale. Am I misunderstanding something wrong? There are some of the examples enlisted below:

• Image:Anthony Mark Greene.jpg
• Image:Ayaotdcab.png
• Image:CarusoMilos CSIMiami.jpg
  

Are these images not fair use rationale? Regards, Shyam 15:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The first has a source but no rationale; the other two have rationales, but they're woefully inadequate. For comparison Image:Fairuse Gruffalo.jpg has a reasonable fair use rationale. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note specifically that an image can not be intrinsically "fair use", it's only fair use on a specific article, and the rationale has to mention that article (or a small number of articles) and explain for each why it's fair use in that specific context. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Finlay McWalter, now I got a better idea for that. For example, Image:Fairuse Gruffalo.jpg has two file links, whereas it is fair use rationale for only one article, i.e. The Gruffalo. Then image should be removed from another listed article? How these cases could be handled, once it was removed from the page and again someone uses the image on another article? Shyam 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from the other page, indeed the fair use rationale only covers one of the pages and on the page about the author doesn't even meet the basics of the tag applied to the image "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", where the article on the author doesn't do. It would fail criteria 8 of the fairuse policy "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." --pgk 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnson family Categories

Last week I spent a lot of time overhauling Category:Families. Among the tasks that I felt were essential was the renaming of certain specific families. In particular I had hoped to rename Category:S. C. Johnson family to Category:Johnson family (Samuel C.) and Category:Johnson and Johnson family to Category:Johnson family (Robert W.). For detail see log1 log2. These changes are for consistency with the entire category and specifically Category:Johnson family (Rafer) and Category:Johnson family (Lyndon). The proposals generated little or no interest (the former had 1 support other than my own nomination and the latter had 0 support). Neither had opposition. Basically, no one but me cares. I would still like these categories renamed even though no one else cares. Can an admin do this for me. Please respond to my talk page if there is an issue with this request. TonyTheTiger 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, someone will. It is not uncommon on CFD and TFD for a request to get little comments, and in such cases we see no reason not to comply. At the moment CFD is a bit backlogged, but someone will get to it soon. (Radiant) 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock tennislover

An additional checkuser was performed on Tennislover (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u. Based on this, I would like to assume good faith and unblock Tennislover (though obviously not Cute 1 4 u). However, I would like some reasonable amount of consensus before doing so. This is a particularly difficult case and I want to avoid even the possibility of a wheel war. Given that Twister Twist appears to have been a sockpuppet of Tennislover, I may be a bit hasty. But given the situation and given Tennislover's extreme patience and civility during this process, I believe an unblock and a general-Misplaced Pages-apology to be appropriate. I am not asking or demanding that the blocking admin apologise, however, as policy seems to have been followed appropriately; instead, whoever unblocks this user (myself, if I do) should extend an apology to the user. --Yamla 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that User:Sweet Pinkette and User:Tennislover are in contact outside of Misplaced Pages. Both have also been "cleared" from suspicion as sockpuppets of User:Cute 1 4 u, however, this connection is still suspicious overall. Since User:Sweet Pinkette is not blocked, I think User:Tennislover should be unblocked as well (pending explanations for actual sockpuppet accounts of Tennislover), but I do still hold some reservations about the character behind this account. -- Renesis (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the unblock on the grounds that he is not Cute 1 4 u. Not taking into account any other actions. Viridae 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarah Ewart did the unblock already. User:Zscout370 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry guys. I wasn't aware of this thread until just now. I unblocked on the basis of the inconclusive checkuser. Sarah Ewart 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User clearing talk page

It is my understanding that a user clearing their own talk page of warnings and other messages is considered to be against policy. In the case of User talk:Revrant I warned him once about uploading a copyrighted image from a porn site, and marking is as free use. I had the image speedy deleted, and returned to his site and all traces of my warning were gone. In reviewing the history, he had been warned once previously by another user. I returned the previous warning, and my own to his page, and left a polite note indicating that this (removing warnings) was against policy. If anyone else would care to discuss this with him, I'd appreciate it, as he has reverted me twice already. Maybe another opinion, or two might clarify the situation. Atom 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Users may remove warnings from their talk page. At least it is a sign they were read. Archiving is preferred, but removing is allowed. If you are concerned that the user might be hiding misconduct, make sure to use an informative edit summary--that can not be removed from the page history. Thatcher131 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew you would do this, this is incredibly rude, I'm offended by these actions towards me and my Talk page, I already reverted your vandalism and quoted the etiquette, you removed that image before the stated date and did not give me a chance to provide a source, that's bad etiquette. I provided a source and legal information after you wrongfully removed the image before I could even react, you have stained my talk history and if you continue this I may consider your actions extremely hostile and get an Administrator involved. The issues were resolved, and thus I removed them from my talk page, which I am allowed to do, and you had no right to continually revert the Talk page, if you take one more hostile action I will involve an Administrator.--Revrant 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies but I am only quoting policy. I've been quite friendly and informative on your talk page, rather than hostile. The reason that we are here is because it made no sense to argue with you. After you reverted me twice, I thought it best to involve others. The image you uploaded was from a porn site, and had a clear copyright on the page it was posted on. You marked it as fair use when it was not. You didn't give credit to the movie it was from, nor the people in it, not mention the copyright. Apparently whomever did delete the image also agreed that it was a copyvio. Atom 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Atom, you are mistaken. There is no policy against removing warnings from talk pages. --Cyde Weys 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, again. I got the idea from this: "Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"(See here)

Which references "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."

Which references Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. The current reading of which (among other things) says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." Which is somewhat ambiguous, and could be read to mean "removal by archiving of comments is at the users discretion" OR "policy does not prohibit removal, nor does it prohibit archiving at the users discretion." As the phrase starts with the clause "...and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page..." the former interpretation (removal by archiving is acceptable.") makes the most sense.

Apparently the latest word is now at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, which says "When users behave in a manner which is outside Misplaced Pages norms, they are often warned on their talk page. It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid." But, this is not policy, or even guideline, but more of a discussion, as there are arguments for, and against enforcement. (And likely the user in this case would continue his claim that his upload of a copyrighted screenshot of a porn movie was valid, and so the warning not valid.)

I also found (doing a search) dozens of recent cases of people being warned for removing warnings from their talk pages.

If it was policy in the past, and now a discussion is active as to whether it should be enforced or not, is it no longer policy, or what? What stands behind the statement "It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid."? Why are at least two admins here convinced that it is not policy, when clearly it has beenin the past?

Thanks, Atom 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That user you cite was blocked. Blocked users get far less space than clean users. – Chacor 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just dug my way through the various discussions, and I'd have to support removing "warnings" after they have been resolved, though I don't agree a notice to try and include copyright information for a picture is a "warning", nor after reading about "warnings" does it seem to fall in to that category. The discussions lean strongly in the direction of viewing it as unfavorable to delete "warnings" and disruptive, but not against policy, this issue should be cemented instead of unclear and somewhat up to the Administrator as how to deal with it. Also, does any reply to user's Talk page qualify as a "warning" if it is from an Administrator? I am unclear if the request made on my Talk page was a "warning" or not, and if I should have removed it after the issue was resolved if it was indeed a "warning".--Revrant 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty important to resolve in terms of what is precedent and what is desirable and defensible. I've seen several cases in the past where removal of warnings from user talk pages has resulted in severe tongue lashings and statements that removal of warnings will be taken as an indication that the user is a troublemaker or is trying to hide their wrongdoing. The negative consequences of confusion on this are pretty significant. Therefore, there should at least be a guideline on the matter, if not a policy statement of some kind. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the situation. Some people thought it would be a good idea to prevent users from removing warnings. They said so, people disagreed, they went ahead and put it on the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism page anyway. It was removed as a major change without consensus. They re-added it. It was removed. They re-added it. Et cetera. Along the way templates were made up and used to 'enforce' this philosophy. However, this was never approved by the sort of broad consensus needed for something to become policy... and eventually a broad consensus was formed that it should not be policy and that the templates should be deleted. Atom quoted the right section of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism above, but apparently missed the relevant portion... "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own...". In short, the policy specifically excludes a user's own talk page from the list of those where they are prohibited from removing other people's comments. Edit warring to enforce keep something on a person's talk page which they don't want there is a good way to get a block for 3RR violation and/or harassment. Don't do it. --CBD 10:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the historical perspective. For clarity's sake, here is the text of the entire (short) subsection from Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    quote from WP:VAND Policy "Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion"

Thank you, I would have assumed it wrong to edit someone else's user talk page without having seen the rule, but hopefully Atom now understands this to prevent further incidents with others which might be seen as hostile or even reported as vandalism.Revrant 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not certain what the policy is or isn't. Others continue to warn people for removing stuff from their own talk page. The quote above, I quoted in my message, is ambiguous, and not clear. Apparently many people read the quote that is given two ways. Looking at the quote above, and particularly the last sentence, it says: " The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion". As I said before, it could be read (and obviously is by many people)

a) The prohibition "above does not appply to the user's own talk page, where this policy does not not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments" This is being read by some as "removal by archiving is acceptable and not prohibited." b) Others read it as "removal is not prohibited, nor is archiving". We need to rewrite the paragraph so that the policy is clear. We need a clear guideline or policy regarding the specific issue, not as some small portion of the vandalism policy. Atom 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-functioning redirect

I've tried to get this to work myself, but it doesn't seem to be "taking", so I'm hoping that one of you guys with more power would be able to help out:

The article Sheikh al-Hilali is listed at AfD. This is a duplicate page of the longer and better-cited Taj El-Din Hilaly, so I attempted to redirect it there which would get around the need for a protracted AfD. The redirect is mentioned in the page history, but the page itself is still obstinately there and un-redirected. If an admin could redirect the page accordingly (and consequently close the AfD), that would be great. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Try purging your cache. --Sam Blanning 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well how do you like that? Something so simple yet so effective. Thanks for the tip, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator ethics

Are administrators actually required to have ethics to continue being administrators? Are there any rules for administrators? KP Botany 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's a leading question if there ever was one. What's on your mind? Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• edit conflict Administrators are expected to abide by all of the conduct guidelines and policies that other Wikipedians are subject to, including Assuming Good Faith and Civility, and they are subject to disciplinary action just like any other segment of the Wikipedian population. Are you thinking of something in particular? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Admins are subject to all the regular policies, just like other users, plus specific policies in relation to the use of administrative tools, for example the protection policy in relation to the use of the ability to protect pages. --bainer (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have something particular in mind. I think it would do administrators a lot of good to actually remind themselves of rules, you know, like administrator continuing education. And I think administrators should police themselves better and take more serious accusations of administrator misconduct at an early level--it might stop it from escalating, in fact, it probably would, since an editor simply scolding an administrator seems to have at least a little impact. Thanks for the links, Bainer, just what I was looking for. KP Botany 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness (and don't take this the wrong way), usually the only times administrators get scolded are by the editors that they've pissed off, and it almost never has any grounding in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. For an admin to shrug off a complaint is to be expected. I'd be happy to take an unbiased look at a particular situation, if you want. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with along-term abuse on Misplaced Pages is that doing anything about it takes too much effort--I was considering it yesterday, when I got misdirected by a user account that appears to be a blatant sock puppet of another editor's account. The effort required to post the evidence to ask someone to investigate anything is prohibitive. I would still rather write and edit articles.

I would simply like administrators to consider what the impact of ignoring abuse by other administrators is, what the impact on Misplaced Pages as a whole is, when you let another administrator slide on some minor lack of ethics. What I think happens is the less conscientious editors are the ones most likely to cross ethics guidelines, and giving them a little leeway, by not calling them to task for minor unethical behaviour, can be mistaken for carte blanche to ignore administrators' ethical guidelines. But reigning them in immediately could give Misplaced Pages an administrator who takes ethics guidelines seriously and knows they are enforced.

Maybe I'll take you up on it in the future, but I doubt it, as I'd still rather write articles, and I get too steamed up about it. KP Botany 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Long-term abuse on Misplaced Pages becomes all the longer if you don't report it. Seriously, how can anyone do something about a problem if they don't know about it? I understand that sometimes it takes quite a while to build up a case proper against someone, but it is time well spent if you honestly believe that they are harming the project. Try gathering evidence in bits and pieces (saving diff links to your hard drive so the offensive admin can't track it); fifteen minutes every week or so shouldn't impact your encyclopedia writing too much. Hell, even just saying "so and so is doing such and such" without providing diffs could be helpful; perhaps someone else has been having problems with them as well, and will chime in with their own diffs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll consider it. I think it's a good idea to just gather evidence in bits and pieces, but I really think that the problem exists because administrators in general won't get involved when other administrators don't act in an ethical fashion. It is a valid point that administrators do take hits because of being administrators. I, for example, know for a fact that any time an administrator has taken me to task they've been wrong and I've been right, and, although other users wrongly feel this way, when only I rightly do, I realize that administrators get hit with this all of the time. One of the problems against me is that Misplaced Pages administrators are a self-selected group, and in spite of spending a lot of time editing over the past two months, I'm not really a hard-core web person, and if I go up against an administrator, saying they are and have been acting in an unethical manner for a long time, thereby making a big problem on Misplaced Pages an even worse problem, I will be faced with battling experienced Misplaced Pages administrators and users defending essentially their right to be a closed community. I've watched this happen a number of times on Misplaced Pages, where less Newbies have had legitimate complaints that have been bowled over in defence of more experienced editors who can play the system well. I think that, unless I become a more serious user than I am, and I won't and can't, because I have an outside job, that the cards are really stacked against me. I might give it a try, just saying "so and so is doing such" without the expectation of getting anything out of it, though. KP Botany 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification please. You say "Yes, I have something particular in mind" and that administrators need to remind themselves of rules and such. But do you have a specific example incident or incidents, or repeated behavior (with a couple of examples) to discuss more concretely your feelings? Is there a specific circumstabnce where you feel that administrator conduct/ethics breaks down or might break down, which we can actually focus on? It's a bit hard to discuss if there is nothing actually the problem, and if there is something the problem then let's take a look at it closer to judge the ethics and conduct of those concerned. FT2 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just really don't think that I can do this--see my comment above. Although I will consider some of the baby steps offered above. KP Botany 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, administrators aren't expected to have any ethics at all. Why, every morning on my way to work, I specifically try to run over at least three puppies and/or children. This is, of course, after indefinitely banning several new members over breakfast. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Don't forget the sweet, sweet graft. Seriously, though, admins are subject to the same policies as everyone else, plus the admin related policies. If you have an issue with an admin, there are a bunch of dispute resolution procedures that might help resolve the issue. Admin continuing education is an interesting idea, but challenging to implement. TheronJ 17:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, challenging to implement, but there are other ideas, like admitting there may be a problem and looking for other solutions that me be easier to implement. For example, review new administrators after a couple of months with the thought of making administrators better, or do self-nominated administrator review, and encourage it of all administrators. Maybe creating other types of administrators, specialists with limited powers (although I think the powers are already fairly limited), seeking ways of getting different types of administrators, figuring out if the process really does select only for like. The best thing about the editors at Misplaced Pages is the diversity, imo, that allows for creation of something with much broader appeal than a typical encyclopedia created entirely by editors educated at First World institutes of higher learning. Shouldn't the administrators be nearly as diverse? Or strive for some level of diversity?

I tried WP:DR with another user who then attacked me for disengaging from articles--one of the recommended steps in dispute resolution, I complained about being attacked for this, and was pretty much enitrely dismissed. I think WP:DR is the most dangerous and useless and ill-thought out policy on all of Misplaced Pages if it backfires on newbies in such a way, and experienced editors don't bother, and administrators ignore it. I really believe in what Misplaced Pages is trying to do. And I think that most of the most frustrating parts of Misplaced Pages can't be changed without changing some of the really great things about Misplaced Pages. I really believe that a committee of anonymous volunteers can create something great, not just great, but better than everything else, because it dismisses the dominant paradigm that the only way to learn is through First World institutes of higher learning, and that anybody being able to edit is one of the best ideas not just in all of Misplaced Pages, but in all of the Web. But WP:DR bites it big time, and even admins don't take its procedures seriously enough that they would bother to support some lame newbie trying them.

Graft is probably what I was missing out on. There ought to be unwritten rules for Misplaced Pages, like bribe early and bribe often. But I'm a starving artist, and my work tends to be political, obscene, and requires frieght to ship, so maybe I could just be provided with a useful list of administrators within driving distance who would accept artwork in lieu of money?

I do appreciate the thoughtful feedback. KP Botany 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Malformed Category

Category:SC Johnson brands was malformed. It shows as a redlink, but when you click the redlink start this category the category shows up. TonyTheTiger 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's not unusual. It means that there are several articles that have had the category added to them; it works similarly to 'what links here' for red-links, at the title level. Take a look at Drāno and you'll see a red cat-link at the bottom. There are a variety of reasons why this might happen, but I think we can rule out prior existence followed by deletion because the deletion log for the category is empty. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  P.S. note the category Category:S.C. Johnson brands, which is empty and up for renaming - it looks like there's been some activity around trying to create a category by perhaps an inexperienced editor. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  P.P.S. Well - there you are, participating in that discussion - gee. I didn't mean to insult if I did with the 'inexperienced' comment - it was a speculation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone moved the articles in the category but not the category itself. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian. Request for removal of ban

The Gibraltar pages were being targeted by a racist troll "Ecemaml", and my only "crime" was to take exception to his peddling his poison on WP. My POV was ALWAYS neutral, and my posts were made to ensure accuracy and NPOV. WP is NOT the place for users like Ecemaml and others to spout fascist inspired racist propaganda. The "arbitration" did NOT follow any procedure, my posts in my defence were vandalised repeatedly by Ecemaml, and there was no justification for my initial block. Merely disagreeing with "The bible according to Ecemaml" is NOT vandalism. This block MUST be removed if WP is to have any claim to neutrality. It is unjust, it is plain WRONG! I hope some Admin out there takes up this issue and acts accordingly. My block MUST be lifted. Justice demands no less. Gibraltarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.225.97 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian, for ease of reference. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the case or your editing beyond what you write above, but based on your word choice I can be nearly 100% assured the situation was/is not all that close to how you claim it is. Anyone that does have an interest in looking into this will likely find the same. Why not just try to actually follow the spirit of the NPOV policy and actually improve articles instead of your current efforts? - Taxman 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Your block MUST be lifted? Bullshit. If you want it lifted, I suggest that you email an arbitrator or find yourself an advocate at WP:AMA and go to arbcom to ask nicely. Demands like yours above are very close to 100% guaranteed to earn a resounding "fuck off", so do take the time to write your request in somewhat less strident terms. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch your language, gentlemen. Zocky | picture popups 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG... minus the bad language, though I'd certainly be thinking it. --Deskana talk 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well hush ma mouth. True, though. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a classic case of a persecution complex. Alot of respected members of the community took a look at this situation and it's clearly not a case of a singe admin acting out of control. ---J.S 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merely based on this edit of yours, I think it is sufficiently clear that your editing was not, as you claim, "ALWAYS neutral." See also this relevant section, which passed 7-0, in your arbitration case. Picaroon9288 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My $0,02: I disagree and think Gibraltarian should be unblocked. Not only because he can help counterbalance the (alleged?) raging Spanish POV, but it also can help the wiki-community maintain some control over his antics. Give him a probation, a revert parole or whoever else you believe it necessary, but when a use is banned, you don't have any menaces. You can tell a regular user "don't make personal attacks or I'll block you"; you can't say that to a banned user evading his block. You can't threaten or control such a user in any way. I agree though in that I don't much like the wording of Gibraltarian's request here. I also believe he won't repeat it now that he knows for sure that Wikipedians don't consider it acceptable. //Dirak 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian has a long record of making such statements, and has had every opportunity to stop acting like a bigot and start editing constructively. He has chosen not to do so, this is his choice. Thus he remains blocked. Morwen - Talk 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't he change that choice, can't he be given another chance? //Dirak 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He can indeed. However, look at his request here - the same tone of message that got him banned. If he wants unbanned, then he has to start being civil first. Morwen - Talk 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This user is infamous: WP:LTA#Blocked User:Gibraltarian, {{Gibraltarian}} and WP:LOBU#A-L. 68.39.174.238 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from his infamous ranting, i don't see any reason why this banned user who call other established users fascists and racists would change his own behaviour in wikipedia. Just a couple of days ago, he was here vandalizing and removing sourced content! He was the reason why many people in Gibraltar couldn't access wikipedia when they wanted hijacking their connections by using IP ranges 212.120.225.XXX which connect Gibraltar to the world. -- Szvest 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

immediate permanent deletion

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of posting this here, but this page seems to get appropriate attention. Perusing the WP:EL located at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Child_modeling&oldid=19758222, this page and any others similar to it in history should be permanently deleted for a bit of CYA. — pd_THOR | 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eek. Those links should go! I'm not going to even look at them, but they give me chills. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the birthdate from a minor's User page

I have removed the birthdate from User:Degenlash because he's a minor and it includes his full name and place of birth, as well. It might bear some more pruning. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Thelaststallion

Thelaststallion (talk · contribs) continues to add increasingly nonsensical variations on the theme "Richard Wright is cool" to Richard Wright (politician). My request for Thelaststallion to desist () was met with quite a dismissive attitude () and further insertion of nonsense, this time referencing the "Intergalactic Council on Coolness" (). Could someone with a bit more patience and tact than myself help convince Thelaststallion that his additions are not, in fact, improving Misplaced Pages? Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just gave him a {{test2}}. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Berkeley City College

User:Berkeley City College - is this userpage appropriate? It's pretty much an ad for BCC. S/he's converted the Berkeley City College page to the same ad for BCC, which I've reverted. Argyriou (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be copyvio of official website, plus copyrighted photograph cannot be used on user page, only in article if necessary and fair use, blah blah blah. Can I blank it? Can I? Please, someone tell me I can blank it, and don't anyone do it before me. KP Botany 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd personally comment it out and ask the user if I thought they'd take it the wrong way, or if the opposites were true, {{db-spam}}. 68.39.174.238 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Berkeley City College has replaced the article at Berkeley City College several times, also. See their talk page, and mine. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed two "fair use" images from the userpage and left a note on their talk page explaining my edit and the rationale behind it. Someome else may want to suggest a username change as the current one may not be legit. 68.39.174.238 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User has reverted your edits. In comment to my userpage, s/he claims to be part of promo dept of BCC. Argyriou (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't hold this against me, but I blanked the user page, and put a note on the user talk page, and really enjoyed it. I have always wanted to blank a Misplaced Pages page, and, it's not that I'm scared to, it's just that it's pointless and pretty much in the top 3 of most boring acts of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. The user is asking for help, someone outside can explain the situation. My note did explain the copy vios, the non-fair-use of a copyrighted picture on a user page, and plagiarism issues. KP Botany 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tey reverted it. I get to do something even more fun- the blank-and-protect. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The user tried a workaround by duplicating their page at New Berkeley City College (which I redirected). I hope this isn't a trend. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template/penis image vandals connection

call me a crank, but is there any possibility that the recent severe surge of vandalism aimed at the featured articles be in any way linked to the deletion of the GNAA article? See also . Circeus 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't care, but somehow I'm fairly certain that the GNAA people are happy to receive the attention and happy to be linked to. PDFTT. -- Hoary 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell cares. A vandal is a vandal; their "organization" doesn't mean anything. Ral315 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The penis template vandals is from Singapore. See WP:RFCU and WP:RFCU/IP. Thatcher131 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The whois' I tried for the non-template penis images on the current main page FA showed allover the place (Australia, Bulgaria, US...) But then maybe I'm not good at using WHOIS... Circeus 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These are just proxies, there's no way to be certain where the person actually lives. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Block as proxies? Titoxd 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're sure they're proxies, go ahead. Otherwise list it at WP:OPP for verification. Thatcher131 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

small request

This page, Universalism in Christianity is db-userreq tagged, and we'll probably be moving something else there soon so we want to get it out of the way. Can someone speedy it, please? — coelacan talk — 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done (though it probably should have been marked as G7 rather than U1, as U1 technically only applies to articles subpages in userspace). —bbatsell ¿? 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. What is the template we should have used? — coelacan talk — 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

{{db-author}} —bbatsell ¿? 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose Spam

Brack1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which also seems to be this ip 67.177.34.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) same articles/links.--Crossmr 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, you warned them about it. That's about all that can be done now until they recommence spamming, at which time they should be final-warned and after that, reported to WP:AIV. Sandstein 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano on the radio!

I have been contacted by a producer with a public radio show called Weekend America. Who is looking into a story about the ArbCom elections and was wondering if I might have a few minutes to talk about my experience in Misplaced Pages. Tempted and amusing as that might be, I have strong feelings on blabbing to the media and those that do it, but does Misplaced Pages have a policy on this? I'm sure I am not the only obe to be singled out Giano 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Misplaced Pages has a policy already, but I don't see the harm in it and I think that openness can only benefit us. If there's media interest in the ArbCom elections, the best course of action is to be honest and forthcoming, and do what we can to ensure that the coverage is fair. Clamming up makes it more likely that it won't be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious. Giano, did the producer explain how they came to select you? (→Netscott) 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not me? I actually LISTEN to the show! In any case, go for it. --Calton | Talk 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we have some suffrage for the arbcom voting, I do not see the problem. I would be worried if an AfD or RfA advertised in the big media Alex Bakharev 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've no idea why they chose me, cos I'm more horrible than you I expect! Is it real station then, I though it may be a hoax? Anyhow, I have enough experience of these things to know than a "nice happy story is no story" They want my "experience of Misplaced Pages" but I expect it will be all about Kelly Martin's arbcom result and behaviour etc, and the "Giano case" Neither of which are Misplaced Pages's finest moments. They are hardly going to want to discuss Palladian architecture are they? (Which is what I like talking about) No I shall leave it to others - interesting to see who though! Anyway they want me to phone them, and I'm certainly not spending megabucks on transatlantic phone calls. You lot would never understand my vowels anyway. I'll forward their email to Jimbo and he can tell them how marvellous the place is - especially the architecture section etc etc etc. Giano 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell them to phone "the co-founder, Jimmy Wales". That should give them a story... yandman 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neille i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asking arbcom candidates on-wiki to beinterviewed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbcom candidate - heaven forbid, so I can't immagine what they want to know Giano 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about giving interviews to the media. See for example , I was picked because of this I believe. Sure, go for it, and be honest in your answers. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hilarious! Jimbo recreated it two minutes later, with a rather endearing edit summary: . Are you saying doing the interview was a form of punishment? :-) Carcharoth 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a real radio show, at least. If the story comes off it will probably be available on podcast, too. . Thatcher131 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only concern is whether you know the questions in advance or not. I've into this before w/ David Gerard and pshapiro and that's why i am bringing this concern here. There may be tricky questions waiting for you Giano. Is it possible to check if you can get those questions in advance? -- Szvest 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I say go for it, I'm sure they'll call you for the actual interview. And yes, tell them about the architecture and how the articles are getting written. If they try to focus on the drama, just tell them that Misplaced Pages's internals being more transparent than their company's doesn't mean that we have to discuss our dirty laundry with outside players any more than they do. Zocky | picture popups 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Threat Accusation

Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her which is totally absurd. The user twisted a conversation where she had stated it was "wrong" that I be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages without access to sources . My response to this was that she should be careful telling people who are deployed in the military that they are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages: it is not only against every policy we have to tell anone they "can't" edit this site, but disrespectful to those who are serving thier country . However, this user was never threatened and even stating such an accusation is very serious. Not to mention that I have tried to wrok with this user, have answered her many questions about sources, and even tried to be a bit friendly on her talk page . As we can see, there are some issues with the user that she feels neccesary to post that I have threatened her and she is in fear of her life. -Husnock 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for deep breaths and a walk around the car park! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us see the comment here

I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason

Do I think that User:Husnock is actually threatening to kill me? No. Did I say so. Did this comment scare me? You bet. Is this comment intimidating? Yes. It's intimidating in the "well, you wouldn't want this house to accidentally burn down, now would you?" type way. Was the comment intended to be intimidating? I don't know. Is it the type of comment we should be allowing users to go around making? Nope.

I linked everything above so people could see what was said and by whom. The fact is you stated you were "in fear of your life" based on a comment I had made on Misplaced Pages. Time to calm down here and reaize I don't even know who you are (or care) and have no plans to do anything towards you. Your statement was uncalled for as it it appears to me, and most liely others, you stated that you are fearful that I will harm you in some way. -Husnock 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Husnock flagrantly misrepresents my position here. I said, that he should not be adding stuff from his (imperfect) memory of sources. Indeed, in one occasion he has cited his memory directly as a source, when patently that memory cannot possibly have been true. Obviously, he is free to edit Misplaced Pages. Morwen - Talk 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont recall ever putting "my memory" in a source section of an article. I have stated that I am sometimes writing things from memory and will check later when the sources are available. But that is not the issue here. The issue is you stating you were in fear of your life because a statement that was made against you. That bis the issue that should be resolved. -Husnock 11:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Easily done, you can cease to make intimidating statements? Morwen - Talk 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, if it were certain that you had made a death threat you would be permanently blocked by now with zero chance of appeal. As that has not happened this hasn't been any sort of 'rush to judgement' and there seems little for you to be complaining about. You made a comment which could be interpreted as a threat. That's a bad thing in and of itself, but could just be a misunderstanding. The proper response right about now would be, 'no no... that's not what I meant, I was just suggesting that... <whatever you were suggesting>'... not 'trying to get the person in trouble' (for being concerned) by taking it to the Administrator's noticeboard. --CBD 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Solution

It doesn't appear that any death threat has taken place, there is no need for this to be here. My solution would be that you two acnowledge your misunderstanding (its easy to do - we are working with a purely text environment) and calm down and take a step back if necessary. Remember that fighting achieves nothing, its better to discuss this as adults, not argue. Viridae 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds fine to me. This was not to get the other person in trouble, just to ASAP indicate that this had taken place to the noticeboard since, as stated above, an actual death threat against another user would have resulted in a permanent ban with zero appeal. I would also lke to add that I just had an actual real world incident where someone tried to find me in the real world and called my wife. It was not fun, so yes this stuff is scary. But, it is also very serious to say anyone on this site is threatening anyone else. -Husnock 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to apologise for your intimidating statement or what? The reason I did not bring it up immediately was as you outline. However, this did not stop the fact it was a very sinister and intimidating comment, and it did frighten me. I brought it up in on the talk page only to indicate the hostile atmosphere you were creating. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to argue this point, can you please do it in the user talk space. Viridae 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not apologize for something I didnt do. No one harrased you and no one intimidated you. If I had said "I will get you" or something like that you would have a point, but i didn't. I responded to your statement that it was wrong that I edit on Misplaced Pages without sources after I stated the reason why I had no sources was becuase I was deployed to the Middle East in the military and did not have access to them. The fact that you have twisted that into a threat against you I cannot comment on, but I will not apoligize to you for anything (kind of reminds me of that scene in Horatio Hornblower whe Hor is accussed of cheating at cards). -Husnock 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, you both need to calm down. You both come across here, to others reading this (well, me at least) as over-sensitive and seeing problems where none exist. We all need to be a bit thick-skinned around here. Hopefully you have both learned lessons from this encounter. Carcharoth 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Husnock meant it as 'It's not my fault I can't provide references, I am a serving member of the military and so I can't provide them'. He should know better, anyway; if you're asked to provide a reference for a statement, whining about being 'away from your reference material' is not a getout clause. However, the way Husnock said it was not smart, could easily - very easily - be construed as intimidatory, and the fact the he's refusing point blank to apologise for such a boneheaded statement is pretty poor conduct. Proto::► 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the term "whining" is rather insulting. I am serving in a forward deployed unit in the War on Terrorism, am living abroad for over a year, and do not have immediate access to my reference material. As stated many times before, when I return to the US, I can double check and provide more exact references then, but not now due to my situation. That is not whining, that is stating the truth. And the "bonehead" statement stands: I will not apologize to someone in the United Kingdom, sitting comfortable in their home, who proceeds to tell a member of the U.S. military, living away from their family in the Middle East, that I should not be allowed to edit on Misplaced Pages without immediate access to sources, and then when I tell her she shouldn't tell *anyone* they shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages, a death threat is suggested and the user states "I am in fear of my life because of what Husnock said". Total nonsense and extremely insulting. -Husnock 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did Morwen suggest you shouldn't be permitted to edit Misplaced Pages? I think she suggested that adding contentious content without access to the sources you claim to have to back them up is ill-advised. When you return to the U.S., surely you could add the content, properly referenced, then? Your personal situation isn't a getout clause, nor does it entitle you to preferential treatment (such as a being allowed to ignore WP:V and WP:RS). Surely you understand this? Proto::► 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, might I suggest that you make a list on one of your user pages of things that you intend to look up when you get back? It is highly likely that others could look them up for you, and even if they don't, this will help you follow through on these promises. Carcharoth 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea, I actually already have such a list in the works. -Husnock 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we have a start point which is a comment which is thoughtlessly worded at best and intimidatory at worst; by common consent, if you explain and apologise there is not problem. Instead, you are arguing the toss. A statement which is perceived as intimidating is a minor, fixable problem; unrepentent self-justification is a bigger problem, indicating both an unwillingness to accept criticism and a refusal to learn from your mistakes. So, Husnock, please consider: do you really want to continue to escalate this dispute, or would you like to accept that what you said was interpreted as threatening, and go and clear the matter up in friendly terms? Your call. In respect of the information you wish to include, the deadline will not expire before you get back to your references. We can wait for inclusion until you have the sources to hand. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If I said I was sorry, that would be unture. I am not sorry, I think Morwen has been equal in her thoughtless wording. And let us not forget: she posted that I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That is a very serious accusation and could have resulted from my being banned from Misplaced Pages forever. And, I hate to bring this up, but we seem to have all the people from the ] s (who opposed with all vigor the very articles that Morwen and I are now debating on) now posting thier support of Morwen on this discussion. Not that I am saying I am not open to all inputs, but that seems rather one sided. To end this, if Morwen *really* feels I have threatened her, then please start an RfC. This discussion here is obviously not resulting in much except drawing back in the people from the AfD discussions who had issues with me in the past. -Husnock 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Husnock, what you wrote was, "I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason". The first part, "I would be careful", is clearly a warning. Given that you and Morwen were not on chummy terms and your comment was presumably not inspired by affection and concern for her it might be characterized as an 'unfriendly warning'... also known as, a 'threat'. The question then becomes, just what were you threatening here? Morwen feared that your subsequent mention of military service indicated you were threatening her with bodily harm. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you were perhaps instead suggesting that 'patriotic fervor' would move other editors to be extremely annoyed with Morwen for so abusing a serving veteran. Something along those lines? While your current situation certainly warrants understanding of your inability to provide sources, Morwen is IMO correct that it would then be better to stick to adding content which is not likely to be hotly disputed / require sourcing... you apparently took her to mean that you should not edit at all, but I think she has explained that was not the intent. Certainly Morwen herself would not see her view on this matter as unreasonable/worthy of anger from patriots and thus naturally would have read your comment with the darker implications she took from it. An apparent mis-understanding, but not cause for the scorn you seem to direct towards her for having misunderstood what it was you meant her to "be careful" of. --CBD 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is actually happening. The guy is in a damned war zone and could get his ass shot into an early grave tomorrow and we're having a discussion about something like this. Do I think the comment was a bit arrogant and high handed on Husnock's part? Yeah. No offense, but reservists tend to be a bit touchy about forward deployments. Do I think this was a threat to Morwen? Absolutely not. Everyone needs to calm down and walk away from this one rather than escalating this further. Please. --Elaragirl 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no basis for a "deployed member of the military" exception to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Persons in Husnock's situation may make suggestions for content to be added to an article on the article's talk page, where editors who are not temporarily lacking access to sources may reference them against sources and make the relevant edits to the article. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their country honorably, but service in the Armed Forces is never a "free pass" for Misplaced Pages policies, whether that be the requirement for verifiability, or the requirement for civility. As an American citizen, I would expect more of an officer of the United States Navy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Never said I had a free pass, in fact I don't, unsourced crap should be removed at once. HOWEVER- If I state that something is sourced, recall the name of a book or a manual or something else, I see no reason why that can't be posted and then, when I have time later, can get exact page numbers, etc. We are clouding the issue though. Another Misplaced Pages user stated that I had made a threat and that she was in fear of her life. No threat was made from me and this thread was started to inform everyone of this so that I did not get banned from Misplaced Pages for making a death threat against another user. This was my primary concern. I am amazed at this since, 2 years ago when I joined Wiki, Morwen would have been blocked in about 5 minutes for making a baseless, extremely serious, accusation against another user. I am not saying she should be blocked, though. I am saying I am very upset since I tried to work with her. I told her exactly where all my material was coming from, exactly what book, exactly what manual, etc. I left good hearted messages on her talk page, invited her to help improve my talk page as well. She responds by saying I would "not allow her to edit" pages and then says "I am in fear of my life". What is this site coming to where people assume such things? Last but not least, for those who do not know, I just experianced a rfeal world Wiki-stalking incident where someone e-mailed my job, wrote two cities trying to find out where I lived, and contacted my wife. Real harrasement is very scary and I wouldn't do it to anyone else.

• Precisely. The comment was perceived as threatening, an apology or at least some kind of acknowledgement that it was problematic is clearly in order, but Husnock chooses instead to bluster. If editing in a war zone produces the kind of stress that makes it impossible to interact reasonably with other editors, you could always try not editing. We can help with that... Guy (Help!) 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• See my reason above for why this is upseting. And I again state I find nothing useful in harsh inputs from the same people who were very vocal and uncivil about my votes on the Star Trek AfDs. Especially when the statement above seems to covertly imply that I will be blocked, i.e. "you could always try not editing, we can help with that". -Husnock 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't give a toss about old AfDs, I do give a toss about you making statements which are perceived as threatening, and then pretending that complaints about that behaviour are baseless. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I could take half a dozen talk page statements on this site and say that they sounded threatening. I could probably take some of your edits and say they were threatening. But, I would never post to Misplaced Pages that I was in fear of my life because that is a serious statement that could get someone banned from this site. People don't seem to get that. -Husnock 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• And yet you are utterly unable to see the slightest threat in your own original comments. Funny that. --Calton | Talk 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not going to validate Morwen's accusation by making such a statement becuase it will probably be used against me later (i.e. "Husnock admitted to threatening me on XXXX"). No thank you. I am also slightly upset that when I was being Wiki-stalked, very real and scary, my concerns were met with deaf ears. People said I shouldn't accuse others, etc. That is a separate issue, now resolved, but my point is little has been said along the lines of "Morwen, you shouldnt post on Misplaced Pages that Husnock made you fear for his life because, you know, that could get him banned from this site". Going deeper into this will solve nothing, I suggest an RfC if Morwen really felt her life was threatened. The deck seems stacked against me with thsi debate. -Husnock 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Little has been said to Morwen because all Morwen did was feel threatened by a creepy comment you made ("I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason"). How dare she. In Morwen's defence, she posted this on your talk page. Instead of resolving it amicably, you decided to splurge it over the admin noticeboard, claiming that it was you who had been slighted. The comment is ambiguous, it can be read either way (as a creepy threat or not), and all you needed to do to resolve this was to apologise for the misunderstanding (not apologise for the "threat"). Instead, you have decided to refuse to apologise because 'it would validate Morwen's accusations', and continue to bluster on and on. Accept you made an error of judgement, apologise, and move on. Proto::► 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Yo, if I may break it down for a minute chaps: what seems to have happened here is a simple misunderstanding which has snowballed into a substantial misunderstanding. Husnock, you made a comment that was ambiguous; we're sure you didn't intend it to be threatening, but someone has perceived it that way and that's caused some problems. Instead of everyone getting together to resolve the misunderstanding it's ended up posted here.

Now no-one is asking you to apologise for making threats, because you say that you didn't intend your statement to have that meaning, and that's fair enough. But your statement was ambiguous, and someone did in fact feel threatened by it, so we are asking you to say that you're sorry that some completely unintentional harm resulted. I don't think that's too much to ask. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock apparently does. But that's OK, because it's everybody else who is the problem here :-) Guy (Help!) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Again with the sarcasm and stating you know how I feel, much as you did here . So Morwen is totally free from blame? People can post on Misplaced Pages that they are fearful of thier life based on vauge statements and the person must then apologize? I will apologize to to the Wiki community, and plan to do so after getting more comments on the matter, but to Morwen personally- NEVER. To say why I won't would violate WP:NPA, so I will simply state its due to personal feelings about that editor. -Husnock 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, did you see the second part of my comment? We're just asking that you express that you're sorry your comment unintentionally resulted in harm. Without wanting to be presumptuous, I'm sure that Morwen would be similarly sorry if her misunderstanding has caused you any hurt. Can we all agree that we're sorry for the misunderstanding and put this behind us? --bainer (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't matter, actually. How many people have to tell you that you're being a dick before you believe it? Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • At last, a personal attack. You will notice that, up to now, I have not called Morwen (or anyone) any names. But, now, you are calling me a dick. -Husnock 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you read the essay he linked too? What do you think? HighInBC 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you should never call another user a Dick as I just was. If I called Morwen such a name, I would be blocked at once. I am trying to defend this position and dont need to be called names by other users for doing it. -Husnock 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't want to be called a dick, then all you need to do is stop acting like a dick. The essay at m:DICK was written to describe situationsjust like this. You have said something that someone finds offensive, and instead of acting like an adult you have spent five or six hours completely failing to persuade anybody else of the merits of your case. Ten out of ten for persistence but minus several million for style. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't calling you a dick, he was pointing you to an interesting essay (that you need to read) by integrating it into his sentence. Can we calm down, please? yandman 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the comment that Morwen found threatening: "Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason." Now, I've been subjected to death threats myself, and I can see why Morwen saw this threatening. A warning to "be very careful" combined with a implication both of access to weapons and the capacity to travel (both clearly suggested by the "deployed member of the military") is a very common formulation for a threat of violence and is very likely to be perceived as a threat of violence, especially by women. Couple with that the advertisement in Husnock's userspage that Husnock is trained in firearms and holds decorations for accuracy in their use, and his statement that he has "visited four continents and 19 countries" and the threat becomes far more credible. Morwen's perception of being threatened is valid and reasonable, and she should certainly not suffer any sanction for having had such feelings or at having expressed concern about them.

Now, I don't think that Husnock intended any threat of violence, at least not explicitly, but was most likely instead lashing out aggressively out of frustration at his present situation, possibly combined with the stress of service in a combat zone. However, it worries me a good deal that Husnock is not willing or able to understand why someone would see his comments as threatening, and I therefore strongly suggest that Husnock consider taking a wikibreak until his personal stress levels have declined somewhat. It would be most unfortunate if stress related to editing Misplaced Pages interfered with the performance of Husnock's duties as a Naval officer, which are certainly more important than some Misplaced Pages article about Star Trek. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More drama

someone has now posted this personal attack at my talk page. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charming. "Little girl, its time to grow up. Watch who you pick your fights with and remember who your friends are". I very much doubt this is a real Lt Colonel - they would have better things to do, and would be more concerned that one of their staff had been wasting his time on Misplaced Pages, rather than the actions of someone they don't know. IP address has been blocked for a week. Proto::► 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the block log and talk page, make that a month. Proto::► 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the IP address, it does appear to be in .ae. Oddly the IP seems to have vandalised User:Husnock/Durinconcerns at one point. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like someone expressing a viewpoint (granted, he shouldn't have called you a "little girl") But, should such a thing really be blocked? That looks like a legitimate edit from someone and I'm not just saying that because it supports my view of this. I would highly suggest unblocking that ip instead of a one week block with no warning, that didnt look like a personal attack and we can't assume that we know who that really was without evidence. It might be viewed as trying to "silence the opposition", so to speak. -Husnock 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the IP's history of vandalism, abuse, and previous vandalism of a page involving you (see Morwen's diff above), I won't undo it, no. Proto::► 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RBI applies. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start yet another problem, but the talk page says its a general ip address out of Dubai, which is a legitimate place a Lt. Colonel in Centcom would be. Also, should this blocked by people involved in the discussion supporting Morwen? It may be seen as blocking someone who disagreed with your position. -Husnock 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's how a US Colonel behaves, I understand why you're in such a pickle over there... yandman 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Useless comment, Yandman. Completely useless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That post deserves either a strong NPA warning or a short block, but I am concerned that a week-long block on an IP described as above will cause too much collateral damage (an unfortunate phrase in this context, but it has an established wiki-meaning). Newyorkbrad 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem bad enough to warrant that long a block to me, either. I thought it would be better to sit this one out and not comment on the appropriateness of a block or whatever, since this could be seen as improper. But it was certainly quite a nasty personal attack. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, a version of the post made to Morwen's talk page was also made to this page, again from this Lt. Colonel. The version on this page was removed as trolling. This situation is deteriorating rapidly. FWIW (I am not an admin), I support Proto's block of that IP address used to make those posts. See here. Carcharoth 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this has all gone far beyond ridiculous anyway. Move on, guys... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. has it exactly right... Look bottom line is that editors shouldn't be adding content if they don't have access to their sources. Sometimes things that are written can be taken several different ways and it is clear that while Husnock didn't mean his statement as a person attack, Morwen took it that way and you can reasonably see why the text could be misunderstood. The IP Block was warrented because that contributor was adding nothing of value to this conversation and is simply pouring gasoline on a fire, though a month seems a bit excessive. All in all everyone needs to be WP:COOL. Apologies all around would be nice, but mostly this should just be dropped instead of continuing on ad infinitum because at this point it is just escalation of a misunderstood comment. Let it go.--Isotope23 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still concerned about collateral damage from this block. The general policy is not to block shared IP addresses for long periods of time, certainly not for a first offense. Newyorkbrad 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a first offence, though. A month-long block is probably too long, under the circumstances. A checkuser of the IP suggests that people using that IP rotate in and out, so 48 hours is probably enough to be rid of our 'Colonel' (whose existence I doubt, given the results). Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Check the block log of 195.229.242.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is not a first offence. Support shortening of the block,though, for the reasons stated. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant probably a first offense by this particular individual user, not by the IP as a whole. Concur with Mackensen. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't this why we can now block anon IPs only? Anyway, shortened to 1 week per comments, although do the IP addresses really rotate that much? I have my doubts ... given this IP has leapt to Husnock's defense on prior occasions, it has clearly been used by the same person to offend before, and clearly can't rotate that much. Proto::► 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actualy, the ip address vandalized my account on a previous occassion, not defended it. I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai. -Husnock 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Olive Branch

I will be the first to start this since its been suggested as a means to end this dispute. The dispute started when Morwen posted she was in fear for her life because of something I posted on Misplaced Pages. To this, I posted at once to Admin Noticeboard since I did not want to get an indefinite ban on Misplaced Pages for making a death threat. So, now, here's my final comments:

1. I apologize to the Wiki Community for the major thread this has evolved into and the disruption which some have stated it has caused.
2. I apologize to Morwen for her getting scared. I ask that Morwen acknowledge that I am a married man with a family in the United States and the suggestion that I would travel to the United Kingdom to harm her is very offensive to me.
3. I request acknowledgement that at least two of the major contributors to this discussion were the same people who had major issues with me on recent AfD votes and, in the end, I was called a "dick" by one of them. This was offensive to me.
4. I ask that we all get back to editing and this not be used against me in the future (i.e. "You once threatened Mowen, so...") and we don't kick someone when he's down.

With that I wish everyone a good night and hope everyone learned something from all of this. -Husnock 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, it was nearly six hours ago that I posted that I accepted you did not actually intend to kill me. I was scared by your comment, and while it gratifying that you are apologising for me getting scared by your comment, I still note you have not expressed the slightest bit of regret for your misadvised wording. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that you did not have malicious intent, but where is your acknowledgement that your wording was infelicitous? Morwen - Talk 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If it defuses the situation, then fine, you have a full apology and I am so sorry for all that was said, all ill-chosen wording, all bad faith suggestions, and any other action or statement which I made which was in any way offensive. I will not be editing Wikpedia for the rest of the year as a self imposed cool-down period and will no lnger post any information to this site which does not have a source. Fair well until 2007. -Husnock 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad username

I came accross a vandal with the username Hippyhater3. I just thought that this was against the username policy.

(Short and sweet)

Cheers,

Tyson Moore es 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please send these to WP:AIV in the future. Thanks. MER-C 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help move to articlespace?

As the topic states. Should admins be held accountable for false info and copyvios in user sandboxes they help move to article space? WP:RM says no discussion of moves. I added a general comment to one proposed move (not discussing the move itself!) that since the person requesting the move has a proven history of copyvios, the moving admin should check the article before performing the move. Is this legit? And should they get in trouble should there indeed be copyvios? – Chacor 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consider WP:AGF, both on the part of the author of this article and on the part of the admin. Nobody on Misplaced Pages has mindreading software ... if a page isn't an obvious copyvio, an admin can't be expected to magically know that it is. BigDT 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by all this talk of "held accountable", but a simple note saying "hey, would someone please check this for copyvio, they user has a record" seems appropriate, although I wouldn't be too annoyed if anyone missed this. Morwen - Talk 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that if admins missed it, should they be warned about copyvio just as a normal editor would be? Should they be held as accountable as an editor if that happens? And to BigDT: It's not difficult to copy and paste two random sentences from the article into google. – Chacor 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a big deal unless it is a chronic problem. Many veteran editors and admins have edited articles repeatedly without realizing that they are copyright violations, even when it is clear to anyone paying attention that it is a copyright violation. Once, a prolific editor added wikify tags to hundreds of copyright violations (I suspect that he or she was watching new pages/recent changes or went through the articles on Misplaced Pages:Dead-end pages). That is the kind of case where someone should be asked to be more careful. If someone misses an extremely blatant copyright violation (such as the article saying where it came from and/or the word "copyright" appearing in it) or misses several less blatant but still obvious copyright violations, I would consider leaving a message on their talk page. -- Kjkolb 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards