Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evrik (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 26 July 2006 (→General). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:48, 26 July 2006 by Evrik (talk | contribs) (→General)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion Visual archive cue: 52


    Tasks

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
    NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

    General

    user:AdilBaguirov making attacks

    I merely point something out on the discussion page and user:AdilBaguirov attacks me and my nationality. He then insults my country men as shown here ]

    I mention something for academic reasons on Talk:Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic and he decides to attack me and insult me by attacking my nationality. Iran's human rights records had nothing to do and no relavancy to the subject at hand. Basically he was telling me to shut up becuase he did not like what I had to say. Good thing I am not a blind nationalist, I am upset though becuase it was clearly a personal attack. I reacted calmly and told him to keep comments directed towards edits and not editors.

    It must also be noted that this user has almost consistantly been the subject of conterversal behaviour including uncivil behaviour, disruption, and ongoing edit wars. Here is one example of what he has been up to recently ].

    He really needs to cool down and be handled by someone. If the information I have provided needs further clarification, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Thank you. 69.196.164.190

    This line is to timestamp this section so that it will be automatically archived. 08:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Encyclopædia Dramatica

    I received the following as an email. It appears to relate mainly to an article Encyclopedia Dramatica that looks like it describes a somewhat peripheral Internet phenomenon, the kind of article I really don't care either way whether we have or not. It also contains miscellaneous allegations of Admin abuse. On the whole the picture I get is that the sender of this has most likely been repeatedly blocked/banned, has not been willing to deal with any of our usual procedures as a way to try to get unbanned, and instead keeps creating new accounts, behaving in at least a mildly abusive manner (maybe worse - I gave this about 10 minutes, and obviously the person is unlikely to point to his/her most egregious actions), and then getting blocked on those new accounts.

    Still, having sampled a few of these, there might be some inappropriate admin actions, which is why I am posting this here. Admins, especially when acting in their capacity as admins, should not be calling people "retarded" and telling them to "fuck off". I've certainly dealt with "contributors" who make me want to do that, and I fully sympathize with the frustration, but venting it this way is, at best, troll-feeding.

    I don't tend to watch this page a lot, so if someone wants to ask me any questions on this, please "ping" me on my user talk page. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    E-mail commented out, please don't "feed the trolls"... the text herein has been SPAMMED to many admins/others in e-mail. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    I also received this exact same email and concur with User:Jmabel's analysis. - FrancisTyers · 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've gotten it twice, from two different accounts. The first version didn't have the first two lines. KillerChihuahua 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    From what I've seen surrounding all of this, posting this e-mail here would be a fine example of "feeding the troll". (→Netscott) 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I got it too. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also received the email. Phish much? Although I somewhat disagree. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of a case here. Yes, there was some incivility and personal attacks, but no administrator abuse. MONGO, et al. have every right to delete an image whose use is to attack or disparage the subject. He has every right to remove banned users' (+ socks') edits. He has every right to remove his personal information that someone else has put on the wiki. And we are not the keepers of ED; if there is vandalism there, they have to deal with it. I just got done writing MONGO an email letting him know we have a phisher. --LV 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also got it, looks like he spammed admins...? I responded that it was an inappropriate venue and told him to bring it to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Got it too. My response was basically "What do you want me to do with this?" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I wonder if there's anyone who didn't get it? -- Natalya 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    I'm getting tired of these emails. I'm getting 1 wikispam almost every day ... yesterday it was a phisher, today, it's a sneaky complainant. I propose blocks on such mass spammers. --Ragib 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Generally unenforceable. Even if the spammer self identifies, there's no guarantee that it's actually who they say they are. If the mass block was policy, it would be a simple matter to impersonate a target to get them removed from the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well what do you know. I got the spam too. So I went to the AfD and voted with my conscience, which is precisely what I urge everyone else to do. Review the article, it's cited sources, its potential for further reliable sources, and above all its stated aim of becoming the next GNAA, and decide what role Misplaced Pages should play in helping them to achieve that aim. Do check for mentions on Google News and your favourite newspaper sites (with and without the diphthong). Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's what I did as well, JzG. And I got the spam... Will (message me!) 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I was spammed with this crap too just after I voted. — Nathan / 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I did not even do anything, yet I got this. I believe it should be a sanctionable offense, but with the comments other gave, it could be just giving people tickets to remove people from WP. User:Zscout370 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Don't worry. The way things are going we'll soon have an article on the email itself. ;-) Tom Harrison 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Again, my issue was that administrators should not be calling people "retarded" and telling them to "fuck off". - Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Based upon this diff I'm beginning to think that hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is our culprit here. (→Netscott) 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    I asked the sender why the e-mail was sent, and I got this response:

    I have been unable to report abuse through proper channels. I have tried repeatedly and my comments are removed and I am banned. If I put them on my talk page, it is reverted, locked, and deleted. I have tried multiple times to contact others about this. Even if I ask one single person for help, someone comes along and reverts it and bans me. It took me a endless hours doing it by hand, but I want to help improve wikipedia.
    --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    At the risk of beating a dead horse, and I promise it is the last time I'll say this in this discussion, but am I really the only one here who thinks there is a problem with an administrator calling another user "retarded" and telling them to "fuck off"? Instead, everybody is flaming about the spammer. I've certainly felt that way toward several users myself; that's when I come here and see if some other admin will take over from me in dealing with that person, because I have obviously gotten too engaged to do so dispassionately. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Of course, it is a bad thing, and the admin who said it should face some kind of sanction, but regardless of what the admin did, the spammer should have tried to contain the issue within its' current locations, instead of trying to spam everyone about it in their inboxes. User:Zscout370 07:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Everyone hates spammers with a passion. Once you start acting like a dick, any claim against another user is null and void in most people's eyes. --mboverload@ 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Calling someone "retarded" and telling them to "fuck off" certainly seems to be "acting like a dick"... yet your axiom strangely doesn't seem to hold in such cases. When an admin acts like a troll, and using terminology clearly intended to insult is certainly 'trollish' behaviour, they share in the responsibility for the bad behaviour of the person they abused and provoked. Saying, 'the admin was annoyed so it is understandable' is a cop-out/double-standard... the regular user was equally annoyed and their behaviour equally 'understandable'. But 'understandable' doesn't equal 'acceptable'... for either party. Admins ought to be better than trolls... and when they aren't we should say so and tell them not to do it again. --CBD 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    In AD 2006, War was beginning.

    What happen?
    Somebody set up us the bomb.
    We get email.
    What !!
    Email open.
    It's you !!
    How are you gentlemen !!
    MONGO blanked our article.
    You are on the way to vandalism.
    What you say !!
    The article will survive, waste your time.
    Ha ha ha.
    Jimbo !!
    Delete every article.
    You know what you doing.
    Delete article.
    For great justice...

    /me gets hit by cats Will (message me!) 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    *mboverload@'s brain explodes due to high-pressure awesomeness*
    It seems to be peaceful. But it is incorrect. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Missing one key line, all your article are belong to us. (→Netscott) 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    That'd be "Mongo blanked our article". But I liked yours better :) Will (message me!) 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    The original version is here: User:Yelyos/AYB. The image version is somewhere, I can't find it just now. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Back to business, the mailer responded to me: I have been unable to report abuse through proper channels. I have tried repeatedly and my comments are removed and I am banned. If I put them on my talk page, it is reverted, locked, and deleted. I have tried multiple times to contact others about this. Even if I ask one single person for help, someone comes along and reverts it and bans me. It took me a endless hours doing it by hand, but I want to help improve wikipedia.

    I responded with the following: This issue is being discussed at the following address. Use it, not email. Emailing this issue is absolutely inappropriate. The mass-mailing you did is doubly so, and whatever merits your case might have, you may have irreperably damaged your chances of presenting them to an accepting audience by your methods. Your only chance is to participate in this discussion: (then the link to here). I missed a chance to say "if you do not participate here, you have no chance to survive, make your time". Ah, sadness. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


    Request to undelete articles per OTRS permission confirmations

    Hello there, I'm now going through the permission queue of OTRS, and there's quite a lot of pages which were deleted |after| anyone noticed the permission was given. I think it would be fair to undelete them. Anyone with access to OTRS can check the tickets numbers to see the permissions. I'll list them here:

    no AFD is busy enough already.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Apears to have problems with a number of wikipedia policies.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    As a generaly rule articles should not be writen in a question and answer format. Notice a patturn here?Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    More to come later :) Thank you! --Timichal (I hope this is the right place...)

    I looked at a few of those and they're missing the all important release under the GFDL. Someone can say they're the copyright holder, but they need to clearly state their permission to release under our license or we cannot use the material. The "More specific statement of permission" template is used for these cases. Shell 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Articles that were deleted due to copyright violations may simply be re-created. However material copied straight from another website is unlikely to be NPOV or have the right tone. Even if permission is given the material may need to be rewritten. -Will Beback 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I can't see the deleted article content, that's why I request the undeletion here. As for "more specific statement of permission", I'll recheck these tickets and send mails where needed. --Timichal 10:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well I can see the content and as a result there is no way I will be undeleteing it.Geni 09:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Delete lines from deletion log archive

    Hello,

    Is it possible that someone delete lines from deletion log archive or just comments in brackets?

    These are actual persons and would like their names removed from wikipedia's deletion log archive because it is showing in google search.

    If so, please delete lines starting with (or everything in brackets after the texts):

    12:44, 28 Oct 2004 Ahoerstemeier deleted "Vojmil

    12:21, 28 Oct 2004 Rdsmith4 deleted "Verica

    12:20, 28 Oct 2004 Rdsmith4 deleted "Silvio ross"

    12:20, 28 Oct 2004 Rdsmith4 deleted "Vojmil

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glaskonc (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Should we just blank all pages linked from Misplaced Pages:Deletion log? That way, the log data is available in the history but won't be cached by Google. Kusma (討論) 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't there just a way with meta tags in HTML to tell a robot not to index...? Sasquatch t|c 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yup, google for meta robots noindex nofollow for instructions. Who can edit the HTML of Special:Log/delete? Weregerbil 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    They can be added to /robots.txt, like is done with AfD. --cesarb 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    What good reason is there for hiding/obfuscating records from the system? rootology 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    Nevermind, I misread. rootology 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    Usernames consisting of email addresses

    I brought this up on Misplaced Pages talk:Username, where I got two responses. However, since administrators are the ones who do the blocking, I'm bringing it here for more discussion.

    It is my perception that editors with email addresses for usernames are always blocked, eventually. Such usernames are often blocked before they make a single edit, but all of the rest are blocked once an admin who blocks for this reason notices it.

    The username policy currently just discourages the creation of usernames that are email addresses. I propose that such usernames be prohibited so that the username policy matches blocking practice. I think that it is misleading to suggest that such usernames are a bad idea, but that they will not be blocked. Editors who feel misled may leave the project rather than signing up with a new username, since they just joined and have no strong attachment to it yet. The current wording may also create additional work if the account has made some contributions before being blocked and the editor wants to transfer the edits to their new account.

    One way of preventing email addresses from being used as usernames would be to technically prohibit @ from being used in usernames. I think that this is the best solution, especially since not all editors read the username policy before choosing a username. However, this would prevent users from using @ in non-email address usernames, like matt@new york. Also, editors may try to use "at" in the place of @ for usernames containing email addresses, like "matt at yahoo.com". If they do this, there is also the question of whether such usernames should be blocked. I think that these problems are relatively minor, though. This technical solution may take a while to implement, if it can be done at all. For now, I suggest that the username policy simply be modified. -- Kjkolb 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    This sounds pretty fair. We have warned people in the past about not using email addresses for their usernames, and I can see several times a day people doing this very thing. While I have not blocked any of those names in recent memory, it would be a good idea too. As for the edit reassignment, I have no idea how it would work. User:Zscout370 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced of the need to block them, it seems to be for their own protection rather than any particular WP issue. However I do think whatever we do we should amend MediaWiki:Signupend to make it clearer that either they aren't allowed or are not a good idea. (They text is way at the bottom and I guess not visible for most unless they scroll down on the signup screen). --pgk 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see a need to protect users from themselves by blocking them. Leave them a note or an e-mail, make sure they're aware of possible issues, and let them make up their mind to switch if they so desire. I don't believe policy prohibits people from having bad ideas, yet. Preventing new registrations of such is fine; existing ones should be grandfathered.
    — User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Repmart evading block

    User:Repmart is evading his block to stalk me and leave yet more abusive (and inaccurate) messages on my talk page. He is checking my user contributions and undoing some of my edits -- some giving the reason "editing for the sake of editing". He seems to be editing under a range of dynamic IPs. The user may be familar to some as the author of an threatening email to User:Zoe, which the latter mentioned on here a few days back. The JPS 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Give me some links and I'll be more than happy to block them. User:Zoe| 02:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there's much point; several IPs were used last night, often with only one edit each. User:195.153.183.3; User:86.29.116.166; User:86.29.127.112; User:86.29.117.184. The latter especially illustrates how he's trawled my contribs., The JPS 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    "Broken" pages in the deletion log

    What's with all of the "Broken" User and Talk pages in the Deletion Log? User:Zoe| 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    There's been some funky stuff going on with the database, so who knows. --Woohookitty 06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    For about 40 minutes last night, all activity was going to the wrong database server, and wasn't being recorded by the master database server. That's been fixed, and the article edits during that time have been copied over, but other activity such as creating new accounts and moving pages didn't get copied. I suspect this is cleanup from that. --Carnildo 07:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    A lot of the deletions were of redirects from one User page to another that had been made months, if not years, ago. It seemed like a lot of them were redirects from Lir's sockpuppet pages to Lir's main account. User:Zoe| 19:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    As I already explained at User talk:Titoxd#"Broken" talk pages, these pages are ones which had an invalid title, and were renamed by a maintenance script. I rescued everything useful and deleted the rest. It's not related to database problems; it's instead related to (in some cases very old) bugs in the PHP part of the code which allowed the creation of pages with invalid titles. --cesarb 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Re-opened AfD

    I've re-opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angry Nintendo Nerd as I have concerns that it was improperly closed by a non-admin as "no consensus". The closer simply counted keeps vs. deletes, while I feel that those expressing a "keep" opinion did not have well-founded grounds to do so. Could another admin who has not been part of this AfD please review the debate and close it properly? I am recusing myself from further action here to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Thanks, Gwernol 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    I've never felt that it's the job of an AfD closer to review the reasoning of a given "voter": people believe all kinds of crazy things, generally for bad reasons. It is, however, the job of the AfD closer to check for sock/meat puppetry and votestuffing - of those who voted keep, I can only find MostlyRainy who has a worthwhile wikipedia track record. As to the rest of the "keep"ers, frankly I've no regard whatever for the opinion of someone who has a handful of contributions - theirs is not an informed opinion as to what should or should not be a wikipedia article. On that basis, there's something in the neighbourhood of ten deletes, to one keep. That's a nice solid delete. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks all, much appreciated. Gwernol 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    Pickelbarrel does not seem to understand tha WikiPedia.Org is a real Encyclopædia.

    I am Ŭalabio‽. Unfortunately, I have have much going on in meatspace and another major project in cyberspace, so have not been around here much. I hope to be back to editing soon.

    Unfortunately, I came across evidence that Pickelbarrel does not understand that WikiPedia.Org is a serious project:

    • ⁃

    Pickelbarrel admits to placing nonsense in articles. I suggest that someone explain to Pickelbarrel that WikiPedia.Org is a serious project, point Pickelbarrel to Uncyclopedia.org, and audit the contributions of Pickelbarrel. I have done the first two, but as much as I wish to do the latter myself, I do not currently have the time.

    —

    — Ŭalabio‽ 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Re-opening AfD

    I have re-opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diane Kunz which has been closed as keep twice now by VivianDarkbloom in spite of a clear consensus to delete. VivianDarkbloom has also failed to assume good faith in calling the re-openings vandalism. Perhaps someone here can take a look. Kevin 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Only administrators can close AFDs, from what I know. Is VivianDarkbloom one? -- ReyBrujo 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    There are a limited set of circumstances under which non-admins may close AfD's, however closing a clear delete as keep isn't one of them. Even and admin closing this one as keep would be improper given the clear consensus to delete. Kevin 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Vivian has made it pretty clear on her user page that she is willing to violate the rules to get her way. To that I say oi vey. --Woohookitty 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    (edit conflict, reply to Kevin) I have just received my weekly lesson about Misplaced Pages, thanks :) -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    I went ahead and closed it as delete, article gone. User:Zscout370 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Edit war in the GraalOnline article

    The general consensus has been to remove all links to specific fan sites on the GraalOnline article but a group of people including User:Warcaptain User:Di4gram are reverting all change because they want to put advertising link to a forum (UGCC). But they also use GraalOnline critics section to make personal attacks against some administrator of the game. Lot of work has been made by the company managing graalonline and a group of player to make a good and neutral wikipedia article but this group of people banned from the game for not respect rule of conduct are using wikipedia to take a revange and are vandalizing the article. The war will never finish. Can a neutral admin please look at the article and possibly protect the page so we can engage in discussion? Thanks, Bingolice 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Informal mediation has been offered and accepted by all the currently-online participants, excluding above (as they are offline at present). Killfest2 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:84.169.185.88 - threats, attacks, etc.

    User talk:84.169.185.88, which I just stumbled across in RC patrol, is rather fascinating in its threats, personal attacks and general unpleasantness... should perhaps be looked at. (Yes, I'm a master of understatement. =P ) Tony Fox (speak) 06:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    I removed the attacks from his talk page as that was the only place he/she was posting. Leaving a comment too.--MONGO 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have blocked the account for a week, just in case. Used only for PA abakharev 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Only one week? How understated. User:Zoe| 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    He has continued making comments on his talk page. I therefore took the liberty of semi-protecting it. JoshuaZ 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Philadelphia and other places by User:Kramden4700

    Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) seems to have decided that the longstanding redirect Philadelphia (with over 4000 links to it) should be changed from pointing to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia (disambiguation). Several users (including me) have reverted the edits and attempted to reason with the user. The result has been to expand his/her edits to do the same thing to all the articles that have been used as examples, with no attempt to clean up the thousands of articles that did point (via redirect) to the right article, but would now point to a disambig instead. I have reverted many of these, but seek confirmation if I'm doing the right thing, and what more should be done (by me or others) if it continues. I think the user did not start with intent to vandalise or disrupt, but does not seem to accept reasoned discussion. --Scott Davis 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    The user definitely has an axe to grind with the USA for some reason. I have watchlisted all the redirects mentioned and will revert until a consensus against their current redirect is reached. --mboverload@ 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thankyou. I got involved trying to reason with him before I discovered the extent of the issue. --Scott Davis 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    This user has also been putting speedy deletion tags on articles to which they obviously don't apply. It's a bit of a grey area, though, because some of them do seem to be used appropriately. Ardric47 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    The changing of links is continuing at a rapid-fire pace. Also, his or her talk page has been moved to User talk:Kramden4700/1, and a new one started. Ardric47 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    RegExTypoFix - the precursor to Skynet? John Connor hopes not

    RegExTypoFix (Regular Expression Typographical error Fixer, or WP:RETF) is a set of regular expression strings formatted in the AutoWikiBrowser XML settings style used to automatically fix typos in articles. Anyone who can use AutoWikiBrowser can use RegExTypoFix. It is also easily ported into any application that supports regular expression strings.

    This is the official launch of the project, it's been in development and active use by multiple users. I know a lot of admins use AWB, and fixing spelling problems while you do your admin thing is just efficient. It's easily integrated into your existing AWB settings file. So - yay.

    It's ready for download from sourceforge.net--mboverload@ 11:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    What about when the misspellings are intentional, or not in English, etc.? Ardric47 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    It skips articles with in them, and yes, check before you save. --mboverload@ 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Caution users to carefully check what they're trying to fix before pressing "Save page" Hbdragon88 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    I wish there were a Macintosh version, AWB seems pretty sweet. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Legal threat on Anil Bhoyrul?

    Someone signing as Anil Bhoyrul (IP is from UAE) has issued a legal threat regarding the contents of this article. I noticed it while RC patrolling and reverted it. I thought it was the right thing to do but I do not know what the procedure is to deal with the legal threats issue. Regards, E Asterion 12:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    The same user who is making the threats is the one who's been adding some childish vandalism to the article. Bar the junk added by that IP range, the article is uncontentious and makes claims supported by the cited sources. The contributor can be blocked either for vandalism or making legal threats (but as he's clearly moving between IPs, only short blocks are currently indicated). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. Glad to learn that. E Asterion 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal

    This case has been closed without a decision because the restrictions on Trey Stone expire in a few weeks. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Problem to login

    Hello, I am registered in other Misplaced Pages portals using WikipediaMaster as user name and thought I used the same name in the English portal before, but I don't remember the password, so I tried to get it back by email, but I never get an email with the password and I can't find any other article using this name. What's the reason, and can I or how can I get back into this account? user:WikipediaMaster--217.228.56.168 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Can a admin please check and give me an answer here? Thanks in advance! --217.228.30.190 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    There is no email account specified for this username. (see here). Unfortunately if you cannot remember your password, the only thing that can be done is to create a new account. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    The username arguably falls foul of the username policy in giving the impression of an official capacity, probably best to choose another. --pgk 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    But why is it possible to use this name in other Misplaced Pages portals then? ] --217.228.47.171 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Policy varies from wiki to wiki, they aren't uniform. --pgk 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not only does policy vary, so does the level of enforcement. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:AlexWilkes

    This user is still ignoring messages on his talk page and adding excessive headings to articles. His actions have been brought up before, here and here. Can something be done? I'm getting fed up of reverting him all the time. His talk page has several complaints on it but he continues to ignore them. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Essjay (talk · contribs) block of CovenantD (talk · contribs)

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents##.7B.7BUser.7CEssjay.7D.7D_block_of_.7B.7BUser.7CCovenantD.7D.7D Steve block Talk 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Policy for undeletion of Images

    I was just asked about undeleting an image. As this is a new policy and I have not done this before, I went looking for guidelines for admins about undeleting images. I didn't find any. If this has been discussed, can someone point me to the discussions? I'm assuming for now that if a single admin deleted an image because it was incorrectly tagged and sourced, another admin could undelete the image if presented with the correct tag and source info. I think this should be handled with a template. If someone wants an image undeleted, they could edit the "Image" page and add the correct tags and source information. They would also post a template {{ImageUndeleteRequest}} which would categorized the image into Category:Requests to undelete images. This way any admin could look at the category, examine the tags and source info and undelete images when appropriate. -- Samuel Wantman 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs)

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shougiku Wine (talk • contribs). Circeus 01:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline

    Can you please unprotect User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline, as I (the mediator) am ready to give my mediation statement. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Done. -- Longhair 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    User talk:Dictyosiphonaceae

    User talk:Dictyosiphonaceae was deleted at Dictyosiphonaceae's request. However, user talk pages are not normally deleted. I have seen some exceptions when the editor is being harassed, the editor is a vandal who promises to leave if his or her talk page is deleted, the editor wishes to leave and there are only a couple of posts to the talk page, and when the editor is a long-time contributor and the talk page is deleted, or not recreated if the editor is an admin and deleted it, as a favor. Jimbo or another influential person, or an aggressive admin who is a friend, may get involved in the last one to keep it deleted. See this, this, this and this for vandal, long-time contributor and short-time contributor deletions in no particular order. I know of harassment deletions, but did not list them because there is a small chance that it would aid in harassment. Since Dictyosiphonaceae does not meet any of the criteria, I suggest that the talk page be undeleted. Either that, or we make it fair for those without powerful friends and let user talk pages be deleted upon request, unless there is a good reason not to delete the talk page of a particular editor. -- Kjkolb 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    • It did not even apply for {{db-userreq}} requirements. Maybe this user just didn't know how to archive? Since he hasn't edited since, I am venturing he wanted to erase all tracesof hispassage for whatever reason, which does not seem a good reason either. Circeus 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Open complaint about administrators' rollback tool

    I just have an open, informal complaint over the apparent use of the rollback feature. Accoridng to Misplaced Pages:Administrators, it should only be used in cases of simple vandalism and nothing else. But...however...I've recently begun noticing a misuse of the rollback feature, where the case is not simple vandalism, and which the result leads to more confusion and wasted time.

    • On May 29, 2006, an anon added four userboxes to WP:DRV. Three administrators deleted them three different times, each one using the sterile "reverted by...to this version..." Now, two of those admins had deleted the four userboxes in question, so I was actually tempted to revert as there was no clear reason why they were removed. I asked on T1 and T2 debates and I got the answer, but why didn't they just mention it in the edit summary, so it would be absolutely clear?
    • I added something that I thought was funny to WP:BJAODN. It was reverted by an admin, once again with the sterile rollback summary. When I asked him on his user page, I was told that doing manual rollback took more time and that, because most people didn't ever question his deletsions, that it was a waste of time. Right. It takes like, 15 seconds to write a summary? I think we both wasted more time using the talk page to explain exactly why the edit was removed than if the admin had just taken a few seconds to explain why he didn't think it was funny.
    • {{Mario characters}} was the subject of a brief 3RR war between Xeno-Lord (talk · contribs · count) amd A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count). From Xeno-Lord's (and mine, I suppose) point, the template was suddenly and unfairly halved wholesale. Now that I look into it a bit deeper, I see that somebody else deleted it and there was relevent discussion on the CVG talk page, but there was nothing in that talk discussion to indicate that the characters had been dispersed - just deleted. Had AMIB simply pointed to the direct CVG debate in the edit summary, or started a talk page discussion pertaining to why the template was so radically changed, the 3RR would have stopped, or at least AMIB would have been more justified in his use of the rollback tool.
    • And finally, the ArbCom decision on Guanco and MarkSweep, a vandalism rollback tool revert war, in which Guanco was desysopped and MarkSweeep "strongly cautioned" to only use the rollback on vandalism.

    Hbdragon88 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Only use the default edit summary on vandalism. Anything more and you just need to write a few words saying why. It's simple and very useful for when people look back at the history of an article. Edit summaries are not just some stupid process thing - it actually helps everyone. --mboverload@ 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    The same applies to the pop-up tool - which can be set to ask for a editsummary. Maybe make that the default behaviour? Agathoclea 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not in favor of an intermediate step. If I'm trying to wipe out a prolific vandal's edits, I already am going to have 30 tabs open with rollbacks in them. We just need to make sure that admins use the tool in the right situations...or leave a note on the rollbackee's page. Unlike some editors, I don't place any negative connotation when seeing the rollback summary. Syrthiss 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm. I've been asked about the lack of summaries more than once; maybe there should be additional text (like "using popups", but "using rollback") which links to a description of the feature and why it leaves no summary? Or maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Vast User account creation

    Last 2/3 minutes massive account creation, anyone got tabs on it? (No more bongos 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

    Link spam

    Would these qualify as linkspam? .

    Of the worst sort - it's a useless spammy ad-infested linkfarm. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FurryiamIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Hardvice accidentally gave away his sock FurryiamIAM, who seems to have been engaged in building up an edit count by null edits (and had been warned about this). I've blocked the sock indefinitely and have blocked Hardvice for forty-eight hours, to be lifted if he discloses other socks and promises not to use socks again. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Looking at User:Hardvice's latest edits now that the Encyclopædia Dramatica article has been deleted, he seems to be following the same "null edit" behavior that his sockpuppet User:FurryiamIAM has been demonstrating. Is 48 hours enough? (→Netscott) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Misplaced Pages admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Mostly topics discussed and writing pattern that indicates the sockpuppetry nature of the relationship between the spammer account and Hardvice. One can see that User:Hardvice decided to submit all of those Wiki's for deletion under a sockpuppet as a result of this WP:ANI thread. (→Netscott) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Looking at Hardvice's recent edits, it is clear that he was, as Netscott says, using the same null-edit technique as his sock. I surmise that this was so as to inflate his edit count for unknown reasons--which I think we can safely presume to be nefarious. I suggest that a community ban at this stage would be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    And while we're at it, Donteatmycat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks fishy, too. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Dramatica troll. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Agree with User:Tony Sidaway's community ban proposal. This user is very clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm about to block this user indefinitely. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    None. Okay I'm blocking as a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I debated an image he had posted on his userpage earlier, and never agreed with the evidence, though I let it go when Raul stated the image wasn't a copyvio. It seemed implausible that someone who got out of jail would rush home the same day or even the next day to upload their own image (a mugshot) on wikipedia. Don't expect this will be the last you see of him though. Oh, and yeah, I support the block...no surprise.--MONGO 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support the ban, subject to review if Hardvice ever climbs back off the ceiling over the deletion of ED. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I heartily endorse this product or service. Accidentally signing his sockpuppet's talk page was hilarious. I loved his edit summary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    D'oh!--MONGO 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Will McBride (candidate)

    Someone is looking to make Misplaced Pages a soapbox for their candidate - User:Pcaruso originally put information on this candidate at Will McBride, over-writing without discussion an existing article on a clearly notable award-winning photographer by that name. After I moved what was verifiable and NPOV of this information to a separate article (Will McBride (candidate)), User:Pcaruso quickly restored the POV pro-candidate spin (removing the sourced, verifiable information in the process). The subject of this article, as a serious candidate for a major party Senate nomination, is notable. His poll numbers are above single digits, his leading competitor for the nomination appears to be faltering, and the articles to which I added links indicate that he has some potentially valuable connections. However, I would like to see an informative NPOV article maintained in this space, and not a campaign ad. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Note - User:Pcaruso responded to my admonition with respect to the above with a threat to "end" me. I've blocked him for 24, but I am quite concerned about his tone. bd2412 T 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Alleged Wikistalking (User:Anomicene and User:IronDuke)

    I (User:anomicene) have been accused by admin User:SlimVirgin of wikistalking User:IronDuke, and threatened with being blocked. This is partly based on an alleged incident which occurred over two months ago. However, the "wikistalking" edits have been to only two pages (Mike Hawash and Global Relief Foundation), and the edits have not been challenged as NPOV, nor have there been any allegations of personal attacks, and the pattern of edits has not been heavy: on Mike Hawash, one spate of edits every 10-12 days, and on Global Relief Foundation, only one set of edits, uncontested and uncommented-upon. As an aside, User:IronDuke is supporting User:SlimVirgin in the current ArbCom case against her (and others), and thus it might be suggested that SlimVirgin is not unbiased in this case. My question is whether this pattern of editing really meets the definition of "wikistalking". Please comment. -- Anomicene 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Not mentioned here is Anomicene's vote here against my position on an article he'd had nothing to do with previously. Also not mentioned here is Anomicene's sock puppet that was used to harass me. IronDuke 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    This has been discussed on this page before, so I'll try to find the previous one rather than rehash the details. In brief, Ironduke has been stalked by User:Gnetwerker, User:Anomicene, User:Gomi-no-sensei, and possibly User:BlindVenetian, who are either the same person or (as one of them told me by e-mail) an employer and employee(s). One of them posted some personal details about Ironduke, others created attack accounts, and there have been various shenanigans like constantly reverting his edits, changing his user page, and so on, all very immature behavior. The Gomi-no-sensei and BlindVenetian accounts are currently blocked, and the Gnetwerker account has stayed away from the disputed articles, so the only problem left is Anomicene. I asked him a few weeks ago to stay away from articles he can see Ironduke has recently edited, but he recently followed ID to an article the latter had created, so I've told him if he doesn't stay away from ID, this account will be blocked too. SlimVirgin 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Check user confirmed that Anomicene and Gomi-no-sensei appeared to be the same person. Some details here and at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei. SlimVirgin 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've always been curious about this: There was never a checkuser request (or answer) on WP:RFCU. So there is actually no record of this. While I've stipulated that User:Gomi-no-sensei and I work for the same company, behind the same firewall, so it could easily show the same ip, but that situation smacks of the same lack of process as this one. Also, that situation ocurred months ago, and there is no evidence of any harrasment by me since then.
    This, however, obscures the basic issue: look at my edits. Is there anything wrong with them? Do they add or detract from Misplaced Pages? Are IronDuke's automatic reverts (accompanied by screams of harassment) in good faith? Is SlimVirgin's block threat a good faith attempt to solve an actual problem, or wreak some punishment for alleged activities two months ago? -- Anomicene 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    If you stay away from articles edited by ID, there will be no problem. Please just stop being so interested in him, then he'll stop commenting on your behavior, then I can stop leaving you warnings, then we'll all be a lot happier. SlimVirgin 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Believe me, I couldn't be less interested in IronDuke. As I've pointed out, you're claiming "wikistalking" when I've edited exactly two of his many, many articles. -- Anomicene 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin, can you show some examples of problem edits? There shouldn't be a probelm if Amonicene and IronDuke are just editing some of the same articles as long as the contents of the edits isn't abusive.130.15.164.81 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, Slim is claiming wikistalking on the basis of the edits a group of accounts that have been harassing me, including User:Gnetwerker, User:BlindVenetian and User:Gomi-no-sensei (not to mention countless edits from anonymous IPs all originating from the same area). These are, according to you, your boss and colleagues, respectively. And then you picked up where the anonymous IP's left off after Mike Hawash was sprotected. I really would count yourself lucky there's not been a ban on all those accounts yet. You say you aren't interested in me, and yet you keep following me. It's not hard to avoid articles I'm working on. It really isn't. IronDuke 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also, out of the past 119 edits or so you've made over the last two months, roughly 110 of them have been to articles I've been editing (before you), articles I have created, talk I have participated in (in which you had no interest previously), or you've left messages urging sanctions against me or concerning me. In this time period, you've done little with this account other than harass me with it, roughly %93 of your edits. IronDuke 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    The previous comment is a malicious lie, and should be evidence of IronDuke's vendetta against me, not the other way around. I have made 191 edits since I've been on Misplaced Pages, involving 51 different pages, 41 of them in the main article space, and only 10 in Talk, User, and Misplaced Pages. 45 edits have been made to Mike Hawash, 24 to Talk:Mike Hawash, and 5 edits to Global Relief Foundation, the only pages under question here. The balance of non-article space edits have simply been responding to IronDuke's constant whining to admins about the non-existant "stalking". Get your numbers right. -- Anomicene 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Read my post again, please. "Last two months." IronDuke 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Then let's be accurate. Since June 15, I have edited Mike Hawash, with only minor exceptions, none of them involving you, until July 18, when I made one set of edits to Global Relief Foundation, on which you had not been active for some time. The edits in question are NPOV, and have been retained. The remaining small number of edits were a request for mediation (you refused) and responses to your scurrilous accusations. -- Anomicene 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by "accurate." I wasn't talking about June 15, I was using your edits starting with May 14, when you first left a message on the Gnetwerker account's talk page apprising him that he had "a problem." But fine, let's take June 15. Starting from your date and going to the time I wrote the above numbers, and using my criteria above (all of your edits that stalked/followed/complained about me), the ratio remains the same, this time 106 edits, 8 of which having nothing to do with me: roughly 93% of your edits are focused on me or the work I've done. This is a very, very bad percentage. Even half this number would be cause for grave concern. I also notice that you keep glossing over a telltale edit you made, perhaps you can say what it was that drove you to vote in this renaming poll (with which you had nothing previously to do), and to vote against me? IronDuke 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    You seem to have an aversion to criticism that you wrap in claims of stalking. Your endless commentary continues to try to mask one clear fact: I edited two articles involving you during the period in question. My edits were NPOV, WP:RS, and have withstood scrutiny. Your corresponding edits were mostly blind reverts, with the tag "rv stalker". Your main objection seems to be that I haven't allowed you to WP:OWN those two articles. That you have an admin going along with your outrageous "stalking" claim is what is really absurd. -- Anomicene 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Anomicene, please stop posting about this. ID, it's also a good idea for you not to respond. The point, Anomicene, is that two edits to articles by someone else are not the same as two edits by you. You've been accused of being part of a campaign of harassment. By rights, you shouldn't still be editing. I believe that any innocent editor would stay away from Ironduke in order to make sure they weren't viewed as part of the nonsense. That you keep thrusting yourself into it does not speak well of you. Please stop thinking about, talking about, writing about, and editing with Ironduke. If you think the allegations are unfair and ridiculous, fine, but stay away from him anyway. The longer you stay away, the more people might end up agreeing with you. But the more you go on about it, the more it looks as though are you, indeed, obsessed, so you're shooting yourself in the foot somewhat. SlimVirgin 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Since my name was drug into this above: SlimVirgin, it is one thing to issue a unilateral admin edict that I stay away from "IronDuke's pages" (whatever that means). I have and will do so (for a reasonable period of time, not necessarily defined by you). However, trying to prevent me from seeking the community's (and other admins') opinion on the matter goes too far. I have not been party to harassment of IronDuke, and I'm not interested in your (biased) opinion of what an "innocent editor" would do. At this point I am less interested in IronDuke than in your unilateral and out-of-process actions in support of him (and of course his support of you in the current ArbCom case). -- Gnetwerker 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I see that Anomicene has just posted above as Gnetwerker by mistake. 'Nuff said. SlimVirgin 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    And quickly added "Since my name was drug into this above ..." when he realized his mistake. SlimVirgin 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    While I agree that editing 2 articles with non-abusive edits isn't wiki-stalking. The sockpuppetry used to harrass another user clearly isn't acceptable. He should stay away from IronDuke, but he also shouldn't be called a stalker either, there just isn't enough of a pattern or behaviour in the edits to warrant it unless there is more evidence somewhere. I'd point out that all edits to articles are articles that involve someone else unless you create it.--Crossmr 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    See above for the evidence. Gnetwerker/Anomicene just made the classic sockpuppet mistake of forgetting who he was logged in as. SlimVirgin 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Which is why I think he should stay away from him. But is there actual evidence that he's following him to articles and undoing his edits or otherwise damaging the articles? There is a difference. And if you suspect Gnetworker is a sockpuppet, please follow the proper procedure for verifying it, rather than just making the claim here. I'm not saying he's not. I'd just feel more comfortable with a check user to be sure. And if that is the case, then perhaps some further action may be warranted here.--Crossmr 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Check user has already confirmed that they appear to be the same person, but Gnetwerker insisted that Anomicene was his employee, which explained the IP evidence. However, see above, where one posted as the other by mistake; there's no explaining that away too. This has been going on for months, Crossmr, with multiple accounts and anon IPs and it has to stop. I've blocked Anomicene as a sockpuppet, and Gnetwerker for a violation of WP:SOCK by pretending to be two people. See User_talk:Anomicene#Blocked. SlimVirgin 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ah okay, yes that is rather obvious then. While it may have been on going for months this discussion was new and there seemed to be a lot of information being left out which was why I asked for more information here. --Crossmr 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    No worries. SlimVirgin 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again

    I'd like to get some external input on Talk:Pella Palace. The dispute has to do with his insistent removal of an image caption, as ridiculous as it may sound. I am suspecting that Ghirla is either reverting me out of pure spite for the block I gave him back on July 7 or due to his complete inability to accept that he doesn't have editorial fiat over articles. Note that with this revert (without any given justification whatsoever, too), he has violated the 3RR, too, after reverting my edit 3 times, which has been duely reported. His insistance that I justify my edit with policy is laughable at best, as it is the reverter's duty to provide justification other than the "whimsicality" of the edit. Circeus 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    First of all, there was no 3RR violation, let's just get the facts straight to begin with. Circeus in his "3RR report" lumped up the edits from 4 days to come up with four reverts. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different
    Besides, Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)' summary above is not complete and one-sided. First of all, Ghirla's argument is not laughable, even if Circeus claims so. Second, Circeus forgets to give a full context of their previous skirmish, the edit conflict (not flawless by both parties) which Circeus "won" in the end of the day by simply blocking an opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archive of this board at:
    --Irpen 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, the caption that Circeus wants to add and Ghirlandajo wants to remove is a comment Ghirlandajo added when he uploaded the image in the first place. It is completely beyond me why a text he wrote in the first place would now be unacceptable as a caption, and I think Ghirlandajo is the one that should give a good reason not to include it and not the other way around. Fram 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have admited that the 3RR report was mistakenly done: Ghirla's first revert occured on July 21, although most of the reverting occured today. I will continue tostand by my July 7 block. That Ghirla's attitude can be sanctionned by his edits (the quality and quantity of which I certainly won't deny) is beyond me. He is regurlarly uncivil (when not threading near personal attacks) and constantly maintain strict dogwatch over articles he works on, in adition to his general confrontational attitude. Those are the gripes I have with him, and I am not the only one to have found his a stressful editor to deal with. Circeus 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it might be better to submit such things to a review first. Like Irpen rightfully pointed out in one of his threads, that was considered a good reading by some people, such kind of actions must be reviewed first, preferably by a third party, instead of making a hasty 3RR report that turns out (in good faith of course) to be a simple revert.
    Incidentally, even if the block you're mentioning about is old, it still created a precedent, because it raises the utility of a review. Maybe a review would prevent all this story... :( -- Grafikm 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you think I am seeking third opinions in this matter before it escalates further? Circeus 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    "This is a good thing" (tm) :) -- Grafikm 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Ahrarara = Panairjdde

    User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Misplaced Pages, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Politician editing entry

    Gil_Gutknecht edits, Gutknecht01 (talk · contribs) last edit comment "Edited on the authority of Congressman Gil Gutknecht's Office". Oviosuly POV edits, I don't wanna touch this issue with a 10 ft pole. Can someone step in and revert and leave this guy a good message? -Ravedave 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Jonathunder (talk · contribs) reverted but left no message. Anyone wanna handle that part? I think this matter should be handled with care. -Ravedave 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I left a message. User:Zscout370 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Do we really want to take the word of a newbie that they are whom they claim to be? What if it's Gutknecht's opponents trying to make him and his staff look bad? User:Zoe| 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    WP:AGF, also it can't hurt to treat the person with respect lest they decide they want to sue WP. -Ravedave 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Harassing Anonyous IP

    I have an harassing anonymous IP. It is 152.163.100.72. I have tried to be polite and patient. It has not worked. My patience runs thin. The user has vandalized my talkpage by pictures of penises and anuses. The user is abusive. The user makes false claims that I am an addict. In the interest of not biting the newbies, I tried to engage the user in civil discourse to no avail. The histories of the last week speak for themselves:

    • -
    • -

    ¡Thanks!

    —

    — Ŭalabio‽ 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

    This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above.


    For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Re:T:DYK

    Could an experienced admin update Did You Know? within the next 2 hours, since it is currently 10 hours since the last update? Cheers, Highway 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Okay. BTW, HighwayCello, thanks for helping keeping T:DYKT clean, it's really quite appreciated -- Samir धर्म 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's fine, I have nothing better to do. ;) Highway 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    poke poke. I would, but I've never done it before and my "you'll screw it up" paranoia is kicking my ass. Syrthiss 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    It's fine, it's the middle of the night, no one will notice. ;) BTW, can someone FIupdate DYK again? (Give Samir a break ;) Highway 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Already done. And please... don't feel bad about updating. That's what WP:ERROR is for. Things can always be tweaked or fixed later. Just follow the guide and the instructions at the top of the suggestion page and you'll do fine. :-) --LV 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Is anybody in charge here?

    User:Ferick I need someone to clear my account and unblock me once and for all. I am getting sick and tired of this. Nobody seems to care. I have no been blocked for over a week for no apparent reason pleading my case with administrator after administrator. Is anybody in charge here?24.31.228.254 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Nobody is "in charge". It doesn't work that way. You could try to appeal to User:Jimbo Wales is you would like. --Woohookitty 10:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually it would be better to appeal to the arbitration committee, but since you're unblocked now it seems that the issue is resolved. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Extended block for User:Justforasecond

    I have placed an extended (one month) block on Justforasecond (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for his continued disruption on Kwanzaa and other articles. This user's behavior was first reported at the end of last year on AN/I, and he has continued a low-grade campaign of edit warring and disruption since, incurring regular blocks. In this most recent round, I gave him a clear, blunt warning that continued edit warring would result in an extended block. He continued, and I blocked him for a month. I realize this is a very long block, but this user has shown little to no willingness to cease disrupting the encyclopedia. I am hoping a break will convince him that our rules are not optional.

    I waffled between giving him a shorter block, such as two weeks, and the monthlong block, but finally decided to try to drive the point home sharply once before taking this to Arbcom. I will not reverse any administrator who changes or shortens the block, but I do urge you to look carefully at this user's edit history before doing so. Nandesuka 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Agree with block. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support, this user is highly disruptive. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Considering Justforasecond's repeated harrassment of User:Deeceevoice, one may want to question his agenda. User:Zoe| 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    He's been unblocked by CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after promising to avoid Kwanzaa, but for the looks of this it doesn't look like the block taught him a damned thing. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Too bad. I, for one, am tired of JFAS's antics. IMO, he richly deserved the one-month block. It's amazing that in an exchange w/another admin he portrays himself as the victim of a conspiracy, somehow persecuted by my "supporters" -- when it is quite clear he's the one who stalked me around the website. What's even more amazing is that the admin bought it. deeceevoice 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Justforasecond contacted me via email and asked that his block be lifted, because it was interfering with all of the other employees at his place of work. He pledged in that email that, if he was unblocked, he would abide by the month's block and not edit during that time. I see that, now that he's unblocked, he's editing again and attacking the admin who blocked him. So much for good faith. User:Zoe| 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Socafan

    I have no idea why but Socafan (talk · contribs) is waging a one-man war to spin the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging light possible. He's also intent on stating in David Walsh (sports reporter) that Armstrong lost an appeal to have the Sunday Times publish a rebuttal of the source of an article which the court found to be libellous because it implied that the sources were true. I don't see that appeal as having any relevance unless it would be usual for such a remedy to be granted by the courts; I know of no instance where it has even been asked for but I guess it must be - I know that an apology in the paper is usually as much as you get, as a long-time follower of Private Eye. As stated, it makes it sound as if Armstrong lost the case (and Socafan apparently believes that the case substantially vindicates Walsh, despite his losing the libel suit, see Talk:David Walsh (sports reporter)).

    I am now involved in this, having originally come to it purely as a WP:BLP problem, and I might just be taking against Socafan because he is so relentless in pushing his personal views, including guilt-by-association and other innuendo in the article. Socafan clearly believes that there is only one neutral version: his. I don't think it is neutral, and Armstrong has already successfully sued the Sunday Times for implying that Armstrong is guilty, which worries me quite a bit. SOme extra eyes would be appreciated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    I have been watching the article for quite awhile, you're not alone. --mboverload@ 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Speedy deletion

    Hi all, CAT:CSD is badly backlogged (200+ items), could a few people take a look? Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, like we don't need more admins... =( --mboverload@ 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Copyright backlogs are awful. CSD is nothing in comparison. We need more admins badly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well admins willing to do the shitwork. My RfA failed so you're screwed =D --mboverload@ 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've got a simple way to clear copyright backlogs ... just delete the copyvios on sight. That's what I've started to do. Rather than going through the rigamarole of tagging it and then waiting seven days, I just delete them immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    mboverload@ gives Cyde a Hero button
    Rather than using the copyvio tag I just put it up for speedy saying it's a copyvio. It works. --mboverload@ 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    A8 limtis you to 48 hours for doing that.Geni 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm in the same situation as Mboverload, I'm willing to do that kind of work but with no adminship (and currently nobody volunteering to renom me) I guess you guys are out of luck. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hehe =D. I know someone will renominate me, but right now the last thing I want to go through is another RfA slap-a-thon. --mboverload@ 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Indefinitely banned editors still using email for harassment

    I got an email sent through RogerHorne that was pure harassment. Is there any way to disable the email ability for abusive sockpuppets or other community banned recognized editors?--MONGO 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    It's been suggested, but has yet to be implemented. Can you block his emails from getting through to you, or, failing that (and even if you succeed at that), contact his service provider about harrassment? Be sure to include all of the headers in the email so they'll listen to you. User:Zoe| 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. I simply didn't reply to protect my email address from being reveiled to that person. Maybe I should submit another request with the developers. The email was sent through an anonymous email that can be set up by anyone, but my guess is that since the RogerHorne name was in the email address, it's just willy doing his thing.--MONGO 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    3rd opinion needed

    Hello! Would another admin please review my closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination) per concerns by User:Kusma expressed here? Feel free to revert/undeleted/unprotect my actions without notice. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with Kusma; a {{deletedpage}} is about the worst possible solution to this, replacing a useful selfref with an arcane and confusing selfref. Delete, fine, if that was the consensus, but leave as a redlink (and watchlist, if you're worried about it coming back). I can't conceive of any use for protecting a deleted redirect that isn't speediable (i.e. it's an attack redirect, like nigger music). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    I suppose we could just redlink it and use something like User:Cyde/XNR to track it. But if it keeps getting repeatedly recreated, at some point, it's just a huge waste of time to keep deleting it and the {{deleted page}} needs to come out again. --Cyde↔Weys 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    I have now re-deleted {{deleted}} per request made at WP:DRV. Thanks to all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! If consensus is against CNRs (seems it's going that way), listing the more popular ones on a central page where it's easy to make sure they stay deleted (and warning the people re-creating them) is a good idea. I don't think it will be too much work, and (especially if there is a clear policy to point to) it will die down over time. Kusma (討論) 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Watchlists

    Ok, I remember someone saying that there is some way for admins to tell if an article is on no watch lists. However, I've attempted to figure out how to do this, and have to say I've stumped. I've looked over the admin reading and can't find it there either. Is this a case of stupidity or delusion? If stupidity, I would appreciate being told how to do it. If delusion, then, well, feel free to make fun of me. JoshuaZ 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    <points and laughs> Special:Unwatchedpages </pointing and laughing> I don't believe it supports searching, however, and only lists 1000 pages. The devs could probably be encouraged to make it searchable with a sufficient amount of cookies, however. Essjay (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Restoration of the article "Joe Wood"

    I am an avid contemporary art collector, and also work for the St. Louis Art Museum. One of my late colleages, Ramsey K. Kohlfinger--created the original article entitled "Joe Wood"--which gave a brief and unbiased summary of the Artist/Author Joe Wood, a native of St. Louis, Missouri.

    The article was accurate, informative, and a must for those whom wish to have a general reference on this particular artist, whom has sold his work abroad as far as Sydney, Austrailia, and has his work in galleries from New York to his native St. Louis. As a collector, I too can appreciate the need for in the very least--a short biographical summary for individuals who are not only popular or successful, but create new tangents in the history of art.

    Wood created a new style (a word artists usually hate) by mixing elements of retro 40s Deco, 80s graffiti, and 30s regionalism and incorporating it into a new abstract expressionist AND impressionist STYLE, yet all original.

    A recent statement by a fellow collector/art critic in Brooklyn NY says it all, "Woods art is both homey and intelligent; it says truthful things, and asks hard questions we dont want to ask."

    At the very least, the content of my late friend's article should also compel you of the noteworthiness by its additional and equally valid warrant of Mr. Wood's work in the world of books/African-American Revisionist History. Mr. Wood is also a writer, who has written pieces locally as a freelance editorial columnist, and has brought attention to the subject of lynching in his work, UGLY WATER, 2006--which sheds light on a forgotten lynching in St. Louis, MO, and questions the validity of traditionally taught Afro-American history.

    Mr. Kohlfinger could and probably did do a better job of summing up the subject of the article that was deleted recently from wiki; JOE WOOD. But I am asking that this article be restored, and given proper respect as a valid and credible entry of a contemporary person of considerable merit. Although I don't personally own any of Mr. Wood's pieces, I know that Guy Tozzoli, of the World Trade Center Assoc. and Larry Silverstein Properties--is currently considering pieces from Mr. Wood to be installed in the new WTC site FREEDOM TOWER. I know of many other high-end art dealers who would vouch for this artists ability and note.

    All in all, I ask that the article "Joe Wood" be restored, and if edits need to be done to improve the quality of the article, I can assure you that it will be done, if given the possibility.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Respectfully,


    Qiana Feemster St. Louis Ars Poetica Society


    This is quite confusing indeed. Parisianartcollector (talk · contribs) is the editor who added the following text to the article when it was recreated:
    Joe Wood
    Inventor of the Wiki Administrator


    Born: 1977
    George Bush is a Great President.
    I fail to understand what is the point of the above comment, given Parisianartcollector (talk · contribs)'s above edit to the article. --Ragib 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Qiana Feemster? The only Google hits for "Qiana Feemster" are in association with reviews of "Joe Wood"'s self-published book. And there are Google hits for "Ars Poetica Society", St. Louis or otherwise. User:Zoe| 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Vandalism of my User page by WegianWarrior

    This user continues to place notices on my user page that I am a suspected impersonator of another user. He also makes derogatory comments in violation of wikipedia guidelines against making personal attacks against other users, in the edit descriptions.

    • 1st - Makes comment '(hello sock!)'
    • 2nd - Makes comment '(hello again, sock.)'
    • 3rd - Makes comment '(socks can run, but not hide)'

    User has also been blocked for 3rr and other similar abuse infractions on a number of other occasions.

    Request this user be blocked from making any further edits to my user page. Thank-you.Kjlee 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Request that Lightbringer's latest WP:RFCU be expedited so he can start picking his next open proxy username.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Remove page

    Please remove the page Provincial emergency program. It is a duplicate from the Provincial Emergency Program site.

    I have made a redirect from the former to the latter. However, is this really the only program by the name - what are the other provinces corresponding programs called? Morwen - Talk 09:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Poll Close

    Is there a closing date for the poll on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło? The thing has been going for ages (since June) with pretty much the same result and no-one has come to close it. I asked this on the appropriate page, but no-one answered Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    I closed the poll, moved the article and am in the process of fixing the double redirects. There is a ton of them. -- Kjkolb 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Diana Bianchi

    Should Diana Bianchi be deleted? WAS 4.250 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    In my opinion, yes, it should be deleted. However, it survived an AfD nomination that just closed. I suggest renominating it after a few months, with a refined argument based upon the experience of the first nomination, or when there is a new development that has a significant chance of affecting the outcome. -- Kjkolb 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    CSD I3

    Those admins handling speedy deletions these days have probably noticed a lot of pages tagged with {{db-noncom}} and {{Permission from license selector}}. I just wanted to say, in case anyone wasn't checking, these pages should not be deleted too quickly after they're uploaded: new users uploading an image for the first time will probably take a little while to figure out what to replace the bad license tag with and how to do that. Mangojuice 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Lloyd Monserratt

    Could someone tell me how to deal with the anonymous edits on this page Lloyd Monserratt. --evrik 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Category: