Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WarriorScribe (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 26 September 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:15, 26 September 2006 by WarriorScribe (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
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)

Start a new discussion

George Reeves

Hi. I'm a California-based writer/producer (and whatever), with a journalism background and a pissy attitude at a troll who keeps adding nonsense to one of my favorite topics, George Reeves, the actor who played Superman, and subject of the current film Hollywoodland. This person-- or, heck, at this point, maybe it's persons-- keeps inserting this utter nonsense about Reeves being cast in the Hitchcock film PSYCHO as the detective, only to be replaced when Reeves died. Well, since George Reeves shot himself in June of 1959, and writer Joe Stefano didn't even hand the finished script to Hitchcock until October, and the actors Reeves would have had to had play opposite weren't available or cast until Novemeber, this would be mighty difficult. Author Steve Rubello (who wrote a definitive book on PSYCHO, denies this ever happen (or COULD) happen; authr/writer Jim Beaver (DEADWOOD, among many other credits), who is probably THE authority on Reeves' life and career (and was advisor on HOLLYWOODLAND) has been trying to set this straight on IMDb, and here on Misplaced Pages, to no avail: the troll keeps putting this nonsense back in. The same troll (or maybe even another one) claims to have been on the set at Paramount as a child and saw Reeves performing... which is clearly psychotic fantasy, since Reeves DIDN'T do it, first of all... but also, PSYCHO was not shot at Paramount, but at Universal (although Paramount released it.) > Hallp! Accuracy in these things would be nice-- I know that's what you strive for. Any way to lock a catagory to additions and deletions, so that a troll or mischief-maker has to ask permission to screw with it? > Thanks. > >

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Misplaced Pages first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. Guy 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at Louisiana Baptist University by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change.

During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions. He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. Arbusto 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? Shog5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the same edits as a new user a few months ago. He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit. Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article. Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page. Adding another Gastrich page.

The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. Arbusto 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --Sam Blanning 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). JoshuaZ 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting his presence on metawiki, where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". Arbusto 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ever place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. Guy 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll do it myself (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). JoshuaZ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it already. JoshuaZ 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:Ruth_Ginsling). Harvestdancer 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. Harvestdancer 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich's inability to concede LBU's lack of meaningful accreditation as a problem because of x, y and z (for example, notable guest speakers at LBU); is an unfortunate indication he has firmly held POV's that aren't reconcilable with being a constructive Wikipedian. - Roy Boy 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks at google Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And another sock: Special:Contributions/Hebrews102425. KillerChihuahua 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The community might also want to consider this page, where we read, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Misplaced Pages because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Misplaced Pages. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented." All emphasis added was by me. So, if Misplaced Pages is an "awful place for Christians" such as Gastrich, why would he want to return? Notice that Gastrich implicitely denies using sockpuppets in the same commentary. Regardless, Gastrich has had a few unkind things to say about Misplaced Pages since his expulsion, and that includes recent comments. Those were certainly "sour grapes," but they're enough to bring his sincerity into question. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, wiki4christ.com now redirects to Jason's own ministry. Why am I not surprised. Such issues aside, one of the reasons I supported the final indef ban was the complete unacceptability of using an outside source to attempt to get outside help target and overwhelm articles here. If he has stopped doing so, for whatever reason, that is a good sign. Unfortunately, the reasons he gives for stopping in no way indicate he will be at all a helpful Wikipedian. JoshuaZ 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

During the discussion in arbitration, Gastrich wrote, "I'm going to avoid Misplaced Pages for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them ." The community certainly did hear from "them," didn't it? It might be especially noteworthy that Gastrich denied using sockpuppets during the arbitration discussion, and also on his "response" site, but then seems to tacitly admit doing them, according to what was related by Stifle at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be the first time that Gastrich has changed his story so that he might accomplish whatever it is that he wants to accomplish. What is clear is that he saw the problems at Misplaced Pages as being one of those who believe as he does being in battle with "unbelievers." He's posted that sort of commentary a few times since his expulsion, and it's clear from those comments that he still believes that. That should be taken into consideration during any discussion of a lifting of a ban that was imposed with good cause by the consideration of good evidence. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Jason should undergo some form of mentorship, and agree not to edit the controversial Christian articles - is this a reasonable suggestion?? Also, he'd have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As I noted before, a full apology is unlikely because it means admitting he did something wrong. However if he were to do that, I'd be willing to accept the role of mentor, as unworthy as I am of it. Harvestdancer 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

LiverpoolCommander, Gastrich has been banned from the very articles that are getting hit right now with links to his websites. So what would asking him not to edit those articles do? Also go through his edit history. I have received two or three apologies from him. Yesterday, there was a personal attack on me and others posted on wikipedia and an off-site forum. Your two conditions for including have been met already, and he has not changed. Arbusto 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at yet? A request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist may be overdue. Guy 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich's back posting at meta wiki. See the AfD discussion for his comment on his behavior. Arbusto 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comedy: Gastrich uses puppets on this very page. The reason his "new user" signed up for an account he was angry at links like this being removed. In a strange twist, its Gatrich's page. Arbusto 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, "Rick56505" is Gastrich, as evidenced by the commentary and his edits, as well as the appearance of this article at Gastrich's stolen-domain-name group. Notice that this same material has appeared on Misplaced Pages, and Gastrich was outed as "Fraud Buster" long ago. I would submit that he's none too pleased that his efforts at reinstatement at Misplaced Pages have been rebuffed, and he's back in full-blown revenge mode. Remember, Gastrich sees this whole thing as a war of sorts between himself and "unbelievers." WarriorScribe 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No way should he be allowed back to try and game the system. Something he is still doing. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Good grief. Even though I'm generally a lenient person and prone to wanting to believe second chances, the stir being created at meta (complete with TWO Uncle Daveys!) and of course his fameous "pruning" of his talk page shows not only a lack of repentance, but a lack of learning. The only way I'd change my mind is if he accepted a mentor - not one that he picks, but one picked by administrators. Harvestdancer 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In addition to posting my real name often, now he's posted my address and phone number and encouraged people to contact me. Harvestdancer 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
He's spamming wikipedia with other websites too.Sept 12 Shuples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

adds "Dr. Jason Gastrich". Arbusto 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment What we can read here is probably exactly the sort of thing Gastrich expected when he publicized another editor's address and phone number. WarriorScribe 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Desg

I am sorry, I am very, very green and I doubt I am doing this correctly, but there it is.

This user is a spammer: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Desg

All his contributions are adding his commercial links to Wiki pages.

In particular, on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Stained_glass

He has removed a very valuable link about stained glass restoration and replaced it with a link to his newly formed forum. He has added a very plain stained glass window of his in the middle of the world's best examples, with a link to his commercial site.

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork

He added a link to a tool he sells and did a similar trick with the external links as he did for the page above.

Most importantly, after the pages were restored, he promptly returned to spam the Wiki pages again, and added his spammy links once more.

I understand there is some sort of warning system but I am not confident enough to do this, I cannot be sure I will do it right.

I would appreciate if someone could oversee this matter. Thank you.

Recommend adding downeaststainedglass.com on the spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With spammers, you usually warn them incrementally with templates {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}} each time they return to their activity. Use their talk page for that. If they persist, you report them at WP:AIV. See WP:UTM for other warning templates. Conscious 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He is also spamming with stainedglassville.com and free-recipe-site.com RogerJ 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This person Roger J has a personal hatred for me and is attempting to destroy my credentials. Please call me by phone to discuss further if you have any questions. My phone # is at the bottom of my website Down East Stained Glass I can produce legal harrassment papers to back my claims. DESG

Whether or not this is the case (it is certainly odd that his only contributions here are related to you), for the most part he is correctly interpreting Misplaced Pages standards. Our External links policy strongly discourages editors from adding links to their own sites and/or to commercial sites. FreplySpang 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this user has removed warnings to his talk page with this edit. I have restored the warnings and added {{subst:Wr0}} as appropriate, as it appears this user may not understand our policies regarding talk pages but did not appear to remove the warnings in a botched archiving attempt or as part of a formatting error. Captainktainer * Talk 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Presently he seems to be testing the limits of tolerance of Wikipedians regarding linking to his website. The new strategy involves gratuitious mentions of his website accompanied with a link to some page or other of downeaststainedglass.com ], ], ], ]. Given his past behavior I suspect he is curious as to how many times he can insert his link outside of the "External Links" sections before being warned. I also suspect he is venting his frustration about being caught spamming with a NPOV dispute on this page Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork. It's a lot of work to protect the Wiki pages from his dogged pursuance of a personal and commercial agenda. Assistance from the community would be much appreciated. RogerJ 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. I don't know enough about stained glass to evaluate whether he is an eeeevil spammer or a good-faith contributor with valuable information on the subject. Dispute resolution is the way to bring in people who are experienced with Misplaced Pages (and hopefully even some with stained glass experience) to look over the situation. This page is not for dispute resolution; please do not try to carry out the argument here. FreplySpang 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

SPAMMING: After this spamming incident ], last warning given ], and still spamming continues ]. Please intervene. He won't stop. RogerJ 11:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim has now dealt with this and warned Desg. In fairness the other two links on the page are the same (if not worse) with regard to adverts and I feel that if they are acceptable Desg's site should be as well. --Spartaz 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of Karwynn

I have indefinitely banned Karwynn following recent CheckUser revelations that he was using a slew of sockpuppet accounts for some rather malicious vandalism. The sockpuppet accounts blocked include ShintoSabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rostafar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mai Ling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GomeonaFinnigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Juan Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has become rather obvious that Karwynn is nothing but an ED troll trying to raise a ruckus on Misplaced Pages, and his long good-bye statement from last week where he gave us all the finger and told us to "sit and spin, bitches" is going to be his last statement. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was unfortunately very wrong about this user. Endorse block. JoshuaZ 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, an end to a monumentally huge waste of time. Thanks, Cyde.--MONGO 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, we really shouldn't take sooo long to rid ourselves of patent trolls. As MONGO says, this stuff really does waste the time and patience of good users. --Doc 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. AnnH ♫ 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

~~Block endorsed. Glad it was blocked and the sock farm detected. --LiverpoolCommander 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)~~ indef blocked as sock of User:TheM62Manchester -- Tyrenius 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting how users can show completely different faces depending on what username they're using. Powers 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I always saw the same face from Karwynn. Granted, he was talking out the side of his mouth most of the time, but the horrible visage of a bridge-dweller remained constant throughout. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) Remain Fully Protected?

Approximately ten days ago, I made a request for the unprotection of this page at WP:RFPP so that I could remove comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned, per Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits-- see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. So far, the request has been neither granted nor denied. Since retaining comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned seems to encourage other such users to violate their bans, how would one go about getting this page unprotected? John254 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the disruption from the banned user has already occurred and removing the comments that are integral to an existing archive would cause more disruption than their remaining and would gut the archive. The person already got his laughs; selectively removing the comments isn't going nullify the effect of him violating his ban. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the comments by the banned vandal have already had some effect, but preserving the trolling contained in these comments indefinitely would seem to magnify their impact -- the comments were offered in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages by weakening its defenses against vandalism . Avoidance of future disruption that might flow from these comments seems far more important than preserving the coherence of an archived MFD discussion initiated by a banned user. It might actually be advisable to delete all revisions of the discussion that contain the comments, to prevent them from being reinstated later. In any case, as Centrx protected this page himself, I wanted a "second opinion" on this matter. John254 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could please point to the edits you want removed, that would help someone to give a second opinion. Note also that there's no need to unprotect, you can ask for an {{editprotected}} and if it's necessary an admin can edit the page accordingly. --bainer (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comments by the banned user in this edit. John254 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of those comments are part of discussions with other users. Taking out the comments breaks the discussion and makes it seem as if those other users are talking to themselves, so I don't think removing them would be the best option. --bainer (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just use a placeholder, something like 'comment by banned user removed per banning policy', and the discussion will look fine. --ais523 13:42, 20 September 2006 (U T C)

In which case anyone who actually wants to use the archive will just wants to read it will just go to the history; anyone who doesn't want to use the archive isn't going to read it anyway or care. The reason for removing the edits of banned users is because there is no reason to examine every possible POV pushing, subtle vandalism, etc. edit to articles from such a user to be examined closely, or to bother deciding about borderline personal attacks, but it doesn't mean gutting an entire conversation thread that will otherwise be let remain. —Centrx→talk • 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of this "remove comments by banned users" stuff. I understand what people are saying, but this is tantamount to violating free speech. The implication is that Misplaced Pages users can't think for themselves, and will be 'contaminated' by what banned users say. You really should have more faith in the Wiki process to reject arguments that are wrong. If they are wrong, then people will point out why they are wrong. If they are correct, then the points should remain there, regardless of whether they are by a banned user or not. WP:NOT censorship. I am about to bring up a deletion review based on a similar case. I'll try and remember to add a link here. Carcharoth 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the Giano thread

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano

Split to Giano. This is causing problems to us not on broadband when editing this page. It's huge, so I'm opening a subpage for it. /Giano -- Drini 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but half the thread had already been archived. Since some things in the archived bit are still "hot" and keep being referred to, I'm moving that part to the subpage also. Apologies if that makes the subpage itself problematically long! In that case somebody'd better revert my action. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

The rest of the thread has been moved to the subpage, except for the Arbitration notice below. NoSeptember 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I may, in fact, not be right in the head, but I believe what I'm doing to be the right thing. I've submitted an arbitration case to review the actions surrounding these events. Anyone may view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, tree arbcom members alreayd accepted it? This is legendary. this is like the pedophilia userbox wheel war one. Hbdragon88 07:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Anus

There is an ongoing edit war on the Anus article with people removing an appropriate image repeatedly from the page. The page is supposedly protected, but anons have been editing it. How is this possible? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I found the explanation. It was only protected from page moves. I have now fully protected it for a while. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And how many links do you have to click from that page before you end up with an arsecruft article? I count approximately one... Guy 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Since everyone's got one of their own, just why do we need to see a picture? I'm also wondering if it's appropriate for an admin to protect her preferred version of the article? ("removing an appropriate image") Sandy 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the version prior to the edit war, thank you. Discuss on the Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people can't see theirs? Sorry, this may not have been a particularly helpful comment. . . – Quadell 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion of an image for reasons of "yuck" will always trigger citations to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. See under WP:LAME#Pictures (no worries, not illustrated) for an example. Newyorkbrad 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't wade into this edit war (edit wars over pictures are pretty lame), but that picture almost had me yakking my meal all over the keyboard. Yuck. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, heck, maybe someone can add a photo to Decapitation while we're not censoring. That's one I've never seen. There must be a point at which an image is not needed, helpful, or tasteful. (Sorry about your breakfast, DP.) Sandy 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside - Nick Berg did have a picture of his severed head, although it no longer does, and does have a link to the severing video. Personally I'd caution against ever saying "surely we wouldn't do xxx" out loud as either we already do, or saying so will make someone try it. Our photon torpedo article jumped from a substub to an epic when somone said in VfD "surely there can't be any more to say about this". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a basic part of anatomy qualifies as tasteless and not needed, though. It's true, you really can't see your own anus, and an image does add to the article. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this like how you can't 'see' your own eyes? Funny that, when I look in the mirror, I have no trouble seeing my eyes. Now what is difficult to see is the inside of the body. Yucky imges of the internal anatomy of the body would be a great boon to Misplaced Pages. Sadly, it seems all such images are copyrighted on medical websites. And medical students are probably not allowed to photograph the dissections they do. So most of the Misplaced Pages articles on internal body anatomy have drawings (usually the Grey's Anatomy ones). I did find a labelled sheep's liver though, at liver. Carcharoth 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time imagining the requisite setup of mirrors that would allow one to see one's own anus. I humbly submit that just looking at a picture in a web browser might be easier. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely there are a lot of anuses in the world that look better than the one on the anus page... (tries to look in the mirror)... well, certainly not here. There's gotta be better anuses in the sea. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened with photographs of living models guideline? Are we sure that the anus in question really has released all right to Misplaced Pages? (I kid!!) TheronJ 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya'll should just spend more time changing diapers -- easiest way to see a much cuter anus than that thing in the picture, and won't cost you your breakfast. Sandy 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself on the breakfast, especially if the diaper is being changed out of necessity. I'd much rather see a picture of a clean one than view a dirty one in real life. Powers 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A compromise usually is that the picture is linked to and not shown. The anus pic borders on goatse. Anomo 06:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

or a drawing (medical textbook style). Or at the very least a normal specimen (there is a lot of leeway between a detached anatomic presentation of an average anus and goatse. We should definitely lean towards the former. I don't dare look just now, but I gather the image in question is closer to the goatse end of the scale than it should be). dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not even close. It's a completely normal, if hairy, anus. Powers 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed lots of human anatomy articles, and the general state of the articles is if the object is on the outside of the body and easily photographed, then someone has uploaded a photograph to Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, many of these are of very poor standard, and would be laughed out of any publishing house or professional photography review forum. I would say that drawings are better until people can produce better images (better composition, better lighting, etc). At the moment, it just looks very amateurish. "Look! We can photograph this thing so we have - aren't we clever?" Carcharoth 10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this issue in any way different from images of a penis or of breasts in their respective articles? Anatomy articles generally include an image of the relevant anatomical features. Why does this discussion focus on the correctness of including this image, instead of on the repeated and largely unexplained removal of this image by anonymous editors? The edit war referred to in the title should be the topic of discussion here. Please discuss the quality and nature of the image at Talk:Anus. Thank you. -- Ec5618 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am generalising to try and pin down an "anatomy" policy. It is already obvious that external body shots are included only because it is possible for amateur photographers to do so, with no thoughts for anatomical presentation. They tend to point the camera and click, and then think their pic of whatever is great. Most times the verdict should be "send back to photographer - try harder next time". If you were preparing an anatomy encyclopedia, you would commission a set of consistent pictures of human anatomy, both external and internal. Unfortunately, the Misplaced Pages way is to throw together a hodge-podge of pictures from multiple sources, with precious little organisation.

As for the edit war, yes, that should be addressed, and hopefully an admin will come along and help you. Sorry for going off-topic. Carcharoth 18:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina

I had an old post here (long archived now) requesting that revisions containing the subject's birthday be removed. Some were removed, but most of them weren't, presumably due to GFDL concerns. After asking about it on Jimbo's user talk page, someone posted the solution - simply credit everybody who had worked on the article. So I put everybody's name in two edit smummaries . Done. Now, is it possible to trash all the revisions from July 2 to September 5, or do I have to jump through some more hoops to get this done? Hbdragon88 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, can soemone delete these revisons as well (from talk page): all revisions from 05:52 to 06:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC time). Hbdragon88 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Both have been done. I made another edit summary that tells people that the people mentioned were contributors, since someone who comes along might not know what they mean otherwise. I wish there was a better way to do this, since it comes up every once in a while. -- Kjkolb 12:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...those names that I just listed were only the contributors from July 2 to September 6; I didn't account for the rest of them - the ones who worked on the article from early June to July... Hbdragon88 03:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the edits before and after have been restored, except some edits that added inappropriate links and mean stuff that got removed anyway. -- Kjkolb 09:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Boy did I laugh when I saw this revision - the result of so many lost revisions. Hbdragon88 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

After a period of intense brouhaha including legal threats, forum shopping, WP:OFFICE, indefinite blockings and all the other accoutrements of low drama Misplaced Pages style, we finally have cautious agreement from the Foundation to write a neutral biography on this minor figure in British right-wing politics.

The latest act in this little play, though, is a message to User:Edchilvers stating that the subject is suffering from a very serious illness. Given that the neutral statement of certain facts (check the talk page archive) apparently causes the subject great distress, and taking the information and request at face value, it would seem to be decently respectful to stub or delete the article. Frankly I don't think this person's notability is worth the effort expended and I am all for deleting it anyway, but impassioned defence earlier in its life makes this a controversial move.

So: the matter of principle haivng been settled (yes we should paint the picture warts and all), should the matter of ordinary human decency now come into play here? My immediate reaction is that it should, and Ed Chilvers (who God knows has no reason to love Lauder-Frost) also seems persuaded. I'm somewhat reluctant to make this call on my own, though, being an involved party. Guy 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the previous legal threats and associated other problems, I see no reason why we should believe that the ilness claim isn't just another tactic. It seem well within the junk that we have already gotten from Frost and his compatriots. JoshuaZ 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What he said. That claim ought to be subject to the same standard of verfication/reliable sources as facts put into living person's biography (even if not put into the article). My cursory reading of the talk pages tells me that if these people say/this person says it's raining, look out the window to check. --Calton | Talk 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This information is already in the article (albeit indirectly, it mentions the 1995 accident which led to the illness), and it was added well before Lauder-Frost's people ever mentioned it. The source is a local newspaper (not online) and I don't think there's any reason to think it's a fabrication. --bainer (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this isn't an excuse given their previous behavior. Being sick doesn't mean he is so sick as to treat him as a goseis. Just to clarify since we don't seem to have a wiki article on the term yet (and I'm not convinced its notable enough for me to write a stub about) a goseis(sp? in English) is a person who in halachah is so close to dying to that we don't interfere with them in any way lest we hasten their death. The metaphor might be a bit weak. JoshuaZ 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What does his illness have to do with whether or not we write an accurate biography about him? If he's so sick that he's going to die next week, and wants us to wait until after his death to write the bio, that's one thing, but I don't think that's what he's claiming. --tjstrf 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish Mr. Lauder-Frost a full recovery. In the light of his serious illness, I am surprised that the subject has time or inclination to bother with this article. However, I suggest that he does not read it, if it causes distress to him. If material is in the public domain, then it is too late to put Pandora back into the box. I would also request editors to handle discussions, as on this page, with suitable sensitivity as we are talking about a living person. Tyrenius 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Being ill is bad. It has nothing to do with anything else, though, and his illness would only mean that he personally has trouble editing Misplaced Pages. Since he really shouldn't be editing his own article anyway, the illness is irrelevant to the article. I'm sure that we all wish him well, however. Geogre 09:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning for administrators

It seem that Robert Fuller (and his IP : 154.20.46.132 and 154.20.43.99) is a pure provocative vandal playing with wiki-commons democratic rules. He upload only sex files on commons (In fact probably his own sex).
My own enquiry show that Robert Fuller use at less this 3 "accounts" to spread his dozen of sex pictures accross wikipedias. His contributions are only and at 100% to spread this sex pictures across the wiki en/pt/es/it/fr/ca/vi. Then, he come back to commons-deletion page saying "Look, wikipedians use my pics : you can't delete it." His strategy is pretty good and he will probably do so again.
I have the conviction that this user know what he is doing, play with our rules, and upload such ambigius sex files with the clear aim to launch edition wars and to hurt wikipedia's reputation.
Seeing a strategy like that when many others work to build a good wikipedia, I think this user and his IP have to be block on every wiki, that his pic should be move into the talk_pages, and then let other users peacely choice if these pics are need or not. I encourage administrators to do so (block him + move pics). Do nothing means "Welcome Robert Fuller".
Yug, administrator on commons. 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May be using the username User:Duskanddawn - see this report. CovenantD 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Foo generation Pokémon

Can someone please set a bot on the task of removing ], ], ], and ] from any articles? The Pokémon species template has automatically added these categories to articles for quite a while now, and nobody has gotten around to removing the manually-added links. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All done. :-) the wub "?!" 13:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

On August 21 by community consensus, the remedies in place in this case (article ban and personal attack parole) were extended to Hagiographer (talk · contribs) . Jayjg has determined that Hagiographer is a sockpuppet of MJGR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has indef blocked Hagiographer. Therefore (and with Jayjg's agreement ) I have extended the remedies in this case to MJGR as well. Thatcher131 13:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:External links

Can a few eyes have a look at this. Both me and User:I already forgot have reverted changes made by User:David.Kane, who is blindly reverting. I'm not getting involved in an edit war, so I'm walking away, but I don't think the actions by User:David.Kane are helpful. Steve block Talk 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help: Change a redirect to a rename

I am the editor who created and developed the page "Roe vs. Wade for Men". User:Interlingua found the page and (correctly) tried to change the name to "Roe v. Wade for Men". However, he did this using a redirect rather than a rename. He expresses here his concern that by using the redirect, the history of the page did not move to the new name. I also share that concern because the work I did in creating the page is not listed in the history with the new name. We both would like the change made (see our discussion), but based on what I could determine by reading WP:MOVE, we would need an administrator to do so.

There have only been two edits since the redirect: the adding of italics by Interlingua and one small typo correction. If someone could please remove the current Roe v. Wade for Men and then rename the version of Roe vs. Wade for Men from before the redirect to "Roe v. Wade for Men", it would be very much appreciated, and it would be something over which there is a consensus among everyone involved.

Then, the two edits would have to be made and a redirect from Roe vs. Wade for Men to the renamed Roe v. Wade for Men would have to be created, which I would be happy to do, or you could do, too.

Thanks so much, HalfDome 14:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Uncle G 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! HalfDome 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can some admins keep watch of Habbo Hotel

I can't believe that even with semi-protection, that there was an absolutely ridiculous section on "Habbo Raids". That kind of bullshit is saved for crap like encyclopedia dramatica, they're just forum invasions of a chat room. You have 4chan clowns and YTMND and encyclopedia dramatica people trying to spam their forum invasions, and even the established editors there don't seem to care. I also removed an image advertising 4chan's noble events from the article, that image is Image:Habboraid11sep.PNG. I've tagged it as an orphaned fair use image, but if it could be speedied then that would be great. - Hahnch e n 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion backlog

Hello administrators. There are days worth of Prodded articles which have passed the 5 day mark and are waiting around to be deleted. Please find someone to handle this, or alternatively make me an administrator so I can clean these out. Thank you. Have a nice day. --Xyzzyplugh 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm on it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue -- appropriate use of admin tools?

Hi. I'd like to ask my fellow admins for some advice. It has been demonstrated, after months of discussion and research both here and at Commons, that our reasoning behind Template:PD-USSR was wrong. People interested in the ins and outs of the copyright issue can read the template talk pages here and at Commons. Some of the images so classified are PD for other reasons, some of them we will need to claim Misplaced Pages:Fair use on. The admin issue is that there is a small number of users who believe that the copyright issue is irrelevant and that the cleanup project is politically motivated (as I understand the complaint -- there is an incoherent RfC on the subject). What I want to see happen is that the template be changed to explain the problem, so that we begin resorting all of the effected images and, importantly, not acquire any more of them. Any such change to the template, however, is going to be reverted. Given the situation, should I protect the template on the explanatory version, or do we continue to go on giving bad copyirght information because editors who don't care about the copyright issue have set up camp at the template and will edit war, or do I write a "please come help us" letter to User:Brad Patrick or User:Jimbo Wales? I'd really appreciate some feedback. Jkelly 17:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to copy the Commons version of the template on the EN and then begin the long process of sorting this out. I will also protect it too. User:Zscout370 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Brad is out and Jimbo is in Poland, so they are quite busy now. I went ahead and did what I said above. I still do not think we should go out on a deletion spree, but make this calculated and rational. User:Zscout370 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that deletion is going to be necessary for most of these images. We just need to not make the image cleanup problem worse by acquiring more of them. Jkelly 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I suspect that a significant number of images will need deletion. If the en. images are anything like the Commons ones (I've reviewed a fair number of those) this tag has generally poor sourcing.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that's an entirely separate issue from whether or not we can begin resorting these images. Even if we had originally been right about the copyright issue, unsourced images still need deleting. Jkelly 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid that blunt use of protection is the only way forward. This has been dragged out for months because of historical national grievances that have nothing to do with copyright and license concerns for Wikimedia. Jkelly 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated OrphanBot to deal with new uploads. It will mark them as {{nld}}, and will inform the uploader that the tag is deprecated. --Carnildo 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Carnildo. Jkelly 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait till we have an authoritative legal opinion from the Foundations lawyer before undertaking massive deletions. No harm in that. El_C 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No one at en is talking about "massive deletions". We're talking about resorting images that are currently incorrectly labelled. If you think that you have information about USSR copyright that has not come up in the several-month-long discussion, please feel free to contribute. Jkelly 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my contribution: I want the legal opinion of the Foundation lawyer. El_C 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's not interesting why you want that. Email is probably better than leaving a message at User talk:Brad Patrick. Jkelly 21:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm more interested in public statements than private correspondence. El_C 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You can ask, but there is something that people rarely keep in mind that needs saying. Brad doesn't work for us. He works for Jimbo and the Board, and exists to help keep the Foundation out of legal trouble. There are many legal questions that we could desire to ask him where publicly providing his interpretation of the law, either in support or in opposition, has the potential to expose the Foundation to greater liability than if he simply did not answer. The reason is that providing an opinion pierces the seperation between the Foundation and the community, and it is exactly that seperation that is in many cases the best shield that the Foundation has against suits brought because of editors' actions. If trying to help us could expose the Foundation to greater legal liability, then I have every expectation that he will ignore us (and rightfully so). Hence, while you can ask (and the answer might be informative), I think it is unlikely that Brad will actually step in to try and settle this (or any other) copyright question. Dragons flight 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good answer, so perhaps it's best that I dropped that part altogether. My main concern is not knowing how massive the ultimate deletion is going to be and under which criteria articles are to be included as candidates for said (at some point) image deletion drive. El_C 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Step 1 is definitely not to make the problem any worse, so deprecating the template and claim of PD for future uploads - even if we later reverse that - makes obvious sense. Guy 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to Lupo, Jkelly, Zscout and others for doing something proactive about this. As a general rule, I think we owe it to ourselves and reusers to ensure that copyright tags are unambiguously correct. In my opinion, any tag that draws such protracted dispute should have been taken out of circulation long ago, even before reaching a final conclusion about its objective truth. This goes a small way toward plugging the mess of holes in Misplaced Pages's treatment of foreign copyrights. (Probably the biggest hole is the assumption that being in the public domain in the country of origin is always a sufficient condition to be in the public domain in the US.) Dragons flight 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as there's a sound plan for reusability (under another ©ategory) in the main namespace for those images of historic significance. El_C 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My first suggestions, as what Carnildo has done, is to prevent new images that could be used under this template from being used. My plan of action is to go after the duplicates, the orphans and the clear-cut casses (such as post 1973 images, I found a few of those.) Anything during the GPW should be looked at with care, since there could be PD items and some not free items. I also would begin to get rid of orphans or begin to launch emails to websites. I do not expect this taking a few days, but not everything has to be nuked. User:Zscout370 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Going for duplicates & orphans is of course good, for any set of images. My concern is about reusability. What about reusability? El_C 09:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

Several users are continuously attempting to make far-reaching changes to this important WP guideline, which can have very disruptive effects for Misplaced Pages. While the discussion on the talk page now got difficult to follow for non-participants (and some participants as well), the major problem now is the self-appointed edit by one of the users, which he refuses to revert, and a group of users hampers all effort to restore the original form of the guideline. Therefore, I believe, administrator attention is highly necessary. Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time there's been an edit war on this page. I've protected it until an agreement can be reached. Naconkantari 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Dbiv and replaced with probation

In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.

The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo to the ArbCom! :-) (→Netscott) 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very straightforward move

Would someone mind moving Antonio Prohias to Antonio Prohías? I couldn't do so only because the latter used to be a redirect pointing to itself, but it hardly seems worth listing at Requested moves. Thanks. blameless 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. But next time, still use Requested moves though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. blameless 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can use {{db-move}} - post it to the redirect page. I've done it numerous times, although what seems to happen is that the admin merely deletes the page and lets you mvoe it over. Hbdragon88 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

4 removes of the afd notice

See: Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton) Arbusto 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Left a {{drmafd3}} and will block if removed again. Please use WP:AIV for incidents like this in the future. Thanks, Naconkantari 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with this user? Arbusto 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have left them a final warning. Naconkantari 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Portland Movement

Can an admin take a look at this AfD and make a decision on it? It's a bit of a wild one, with only a few actual votes (most of them for deletion), and a whole ton of followers of the article's subject making long, rambling arguments about how it's notable because of it's growth, and not offering any verfiable evidence on this religious movement's notability. Not sure if the lack of votes means it should be relisted, or if a decision can be made on the article. Just would like to have this matter closed considering it's way past the 5-day period to discuss an AfD. NeoChaosX 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am making a decision now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I made the decision; deletion. I ran Copyscape and it told me that nearly 800 words were lifted from an article at . The problems with this article before was copyvios, so I just nuked it and protected the article from recreation. User:Zscout370 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. NeoChaosX 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My decision (timestamped 3 minutes after ZScouts deletion) stands against the recreation of an original article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why I also locked it, though I should have waited for you to finish your stuff before I used copyscape. User:Zscout370 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Werdnabot — I've recently discovered an issue in a script I used on two archive runs, affecting some 93 edits, which caused Werdnabot to archive pages to the wrong destinations, often taking the whole page. I've temporarily suspended all future Werdnabot runs until the edits have been rectified. The problematic edits are those which are tagged as minor, in the past week. Any assistance would be much much much appreciated. Thanks, — Werdna talk criticism 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rollback? —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot is the only contributor to many of the affected pages. It needs to be a simple revert — but not all of the contribs are on-top, either. — Werdna talk criticism 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:No more anonymous editing - something odd

Something smells funny here. This editor signed up and immediately started going through and reverting anon contributions, all with the edit summary "RV anon". Some of the changes look reasonable, but others are questionable. I've reverted one (at Sequencer - a link to the French article was removed), another, at Backmasking looks borderline (an anon added to one section that didn't look too bad, but I figured I'd get a second look on that one)... this smells of someone making a point in some way. Could someone look this over, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what it is; most of the edits were legitimate, some excellent edits. I have rolled back his edits. I also blocked the account; even if he were to be reformed, and somehow is not a banned user, he would need a new username anyway. —Centrx→talk • 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Urgent block

The user:85.156.136.58 have started to erase information from articles due to his own private political agenda, see his/her contributions. This was posted in the discussion page on the Korsnäs article:

"Korsnäs have a finnish name Ristitaipale, but you dont accept it, because you are swedish bättre folk (english better people). So because you want to destroy finnish names, I will now correct finnish city articles, where swedish name is too noticeable. --85.156.136.58 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)"

please warn or block this user, he/she has already messed up about 20 articles today . MoRsΞ 13:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to stop for now and have suggested that a proposal be made for the changes on the Village Pump. Report back if the changes continue, as I'll be asleep soon. If I understand it correctly, he or she is upset with the prominence given to the Swedish names of Finnish cities and has unbolded or removed them from various articles. I am unfamiliar with the subject. Is there a reason why the Swedish names are included? Are they often used in Finland or in English speaking countries? If there is not a good reason, I think they should be removed. London is known by various names in other languages (see exonym and endonym), but only the English version is given in the article. In other cases, however, the editor is adding the Finnish names to articles on Finnish cities. Do some Finnish cities have foreign names that are more well known than their Finnish names? Is there a movement to rename Finnish cities that have foreign names? This type of change is also being reverted by other editors. -- Kjkolb 13:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a native Swedish minority in Finland and viceversa.--Asterion 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The matter how the information should be included can be discussed. This has to do with the bilinguality of the country (Like in Belgium, where most cities have both French and Flemish names). This user is POV-pushing the sole mentioning of the Finnish names and/or adds false information (as in Seinäjoki and Korsnäs) because of his/her agenda. I managed to revert the damage done, but I fear he will continue when the 2 hour block ends. MoRsΞ 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow moving revert war - Duck Hunt

Some guy with a dynamic IP keeps on trying to spam his webcomic there. Check the history to see what's going on. I can not be bothered to babysit this article, if some admin wants to shoot him down then that would be nice. - Hahnch e n 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I"d love to ask for sprotection, but it looks so slow that I'm sure that the request will be denied. Hbdragon88 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sprotection (at WP:RFPP) or constant vigilance are the only two options available. I'm not an admin, but I'll keep the page on my ever-growing watchlist. I need to prune that soon... Captainktainer * Talk 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

there is another option. List the website on the spam blacklist. pschemp | talk 12:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing

A new article Quebec bashing has appeared recently. I'm not quite sure what to make of it; part of the problem is that it isn't that well written, so I'm having a hard time seeing the point it is trying to make (or even if it is trying to make a point). I've tagged it NPOV a couple of times, but it keeps being deleted - perhaps rightfully so. I think more than anything, this article needs more eyes. If there's anyone who has a good perspective, perhaps they could pop over and give their thoughts. Nfitz 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's complete nonsense. Any article with so many occurrences of "allegedly" and "alleged" is really struggling. Guy 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

UCT causing some problems...

The University of Cape Town has a course called Eco3025: Applied International Trade Bargaining. It is a simulation of a WTO Doha Round negotiation (people are divided into countries and then compete with each other. A little bit like Model UN). (here's a link. I think this is last year's information, but you get the idea). It is a course I've done & tutored and it is extremely competitive (people have stormed out, ended friendships, punched each other etc.).

In any case, I was just chatting to a friend doing the course at the moment & she informs me at least one person (possibly more) have sneakily vandalised a number of countries' articles on Misplaced Pages in order to sabotage their competition (i.e. students rely on the information on Misplaced Pages, so some devious person has deliberately added FALSE information to gain a competitive edge). She adds this guy says the information has not yet been fixed and added that he claims to have edited all the top ten countries by GDP (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)). These edits began sometime in early August.

So... we're looking for anon edits to these articles since August that have altered economic or political aspects on the article of countries that are top ten by GDP. If it helps, I suspect most of these edits would have come from the UCT computer system. Here are some ips I know to originate from that system (as these were my ip edits when I edited from UCT): 155.232.250.19, 155.232.250.51, 155.232.250.35. -- Mikker 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

this and this edit to Economy of Germany and Economy of Japan, respectively, by Subordinate (talk · contribs) looks suspiciously like sneaky vandalism (compare and ). Although, both of these have been fixed as far as I can tell... Mikker 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the leading edge of what will be a growing problem in the future... people vandalizing Misplaced Pages to try to gain an advantage in some competition or other that involves knowledge of facts or trivia. *Dan T.* 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Howard-Browne

Could someone please look at this article: different versions of it appear to either extol or condemn its subject, without any verifiable sources. I think some serious WP:BLP enforcement is needed here, but I'm not an expert on handling BLP problems... -- The Anome 13:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

After some digging, I've dealt with this by doing a bunch of reverts and issued a warning about NPOV and BLP to User:GEORGEWATTS. -- The Anome 13:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over the 9/11 set of articles

I'm not sure where to express my concerns, so am choosing here.

Inspection of the suite of articles showing the various theories, counter theories, conspiracy theories etc will show a hugely controversial area of accusations of propaganda, calls for the truth to be heard, and much "oddness" which is more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia.

Examples include:

and their corresponding deletion discussion pages.

To me it seems odd that this appears to be a partisan issue, human nature apart, since the various theories, counter theories and conspiracy theories are all a legitimate part of the same phenomenon, thus all within scope for encyclopaedic and neutral documentation.

I have no idea if there is a process for uninvolved admins to review both the actions of the participants and the various deletion review pages to ensure that guidance is given, where appropriate, to heavily involved editors on topics ranging from civility to editing and opining within the various Misplaced Pages policies, and also to ensuring that the closing admin (or admins) is (are) completely non-partisan in this set of issues when a deletion has been requested.

Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This subject is understandably a contentious one and would benefit from some fresh participants, not involved in the existing confrontations, to help maintain policy and standards of behaviour. Tyrenius 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps ongoing administrator oversight would be helpful to ensure that no one is allowed to import any partisan or nationalistic edits to these articles? The edit histories as well as the comments on the various AfDs are littered with what appear to be extremely nationalistic reasonings, which have no place. · XP · 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious situation that I tried to do something about, it has created a huge mess. Something needs to be done and I'm afraid it is beyond the user level at this point. The whole situation involves multiple users including some admins and is in violation of almost every policy out there and makes Misplaced Pages as a whole worse off. Shortfuse 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to be very clear, here. In this issue I think neither "side" is blameless. Indeed some of us who have attempted simply to take a policy based and neutral view are probably not blameless either. By raising this here I have hoped to highlight this to our most experienced and impartial admins, knowing that I also may have made contentious comments. My entire point is that we must all be open to community scrutiny, and the article(s) are the better for it if we are correctly scrutinised.

I believe we have a large enough pool of admins who both have sufficient experience of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and who have absolutely no interest in the subject matter of these articles in order to bring some order to what is currently a battleground

The most important thing in this discussion is to take a step back and look at our own comments with care, despite what we may perceive as provocation. We have metrics to judge what should and should not be included, and I believe we must stick to the wholeheartedly. The current situation simply saddens me. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

undelete article on schlogger

Please undelete the article on schlogger. It is much more noticable than some other sites on the list of social networking sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romney (talk • contribs) .

I've discussed this with Romney on his user talk page, and pointed him to WP:DRV. FreplySpang 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclosed Vote for Deletion from November 2004

I happened to stumble upon the VfD for Chet Anekwe today. The concensus points to delete but it was never closed and deleted. Shoudl an admin carry out that concensus or should a new AfD be made? Metros232 14:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you linked to was created 17:05, July 23, 2005, after the VfD - I doubt the person who created it even knew the article was deleted. However, all of the arguments for deletion seem to still apply to the current article. In any case, I just redirected it to Dream Job. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that's odd, I didn't notice the creation date. I had looked in the deletion log and didn't see it in there. Are deletions from "way back when" not logged? Metros232 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats what it looks like. Syrthiss 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking back through the deletion logs of old VfDs that ended in "delete", it looks like the Deletion log goes back to sometime in December 2004. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no entries in Special:Log/delete for the page (log was introduced December 23, 2004), although there are four deleted edits which are listed at Special:Undelete/Chet Anekwe. A manual log was kept before the automatic log was introduced, that's archived at Misplaced Pages:Deletion log. --bainer (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anekwe has appeared recently in the lead in a Nigerian film called 30 Days, and has also appeared in a production of August Wilson's "Real Black Men Don't Sit Cross-legged on the Floor: A Collage in Blues", which was reviewed in the New York Times . The current redirect is fine but somebody might want to expand to a stub some time in the near future. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved in from WP:VPP

This was originally posted to WP:ANI, then moved to the Policy Pump. The discussion has grown markedly in the last day, and has involved many users.

Admins who don't edit articles

Removed cut+pasted discussion on this subject. Please keep the discussion in one place so that it doesn't develop forks. It is now at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Admins who don't edit articles, continuing into Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Some of the related ideas. FreplySpang 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(Situation resolved.) Korean War Article has been massivly vandalized.

Korean War

Please look this over and compair it to earlier edits. The entire top has been destroyed and the nice table that was on the right side is totally gone. I think this is a major priority for revert.

magnumserpentine9-24-06

So revert it. —Centrx→talk • 17:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

was not sure I had authorization to do so. But someone else has and all is well I apologize for any problems MagnumSerpentine 9-24-06

anyone whether logged in or not can revert in good faith obvious vandalism. Reverting content once is OK if that content is not supported by a reliable source or is otherwise unencyclopedic. However, please comply with ] as that is a blockable offense. Check out the for more tips. --Richard 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Trevor Saline

Trevor Saline (talk · contribs) has created a slew of sub-sub articles and is arguing at greatg lenght about their deletion at WP:DRV. Something about this behaviour feels familiar. Can anybody spot a parallel? Guy 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also about to leave a message regarding this. Before tempers start to fray from the frustration of dealing with this chap, it would be helpful if more people were to express their opinion. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22. Thryduulf 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

He's nearly as bloody annoying as Jon Awbrey. We have many paragraphs and days of debate over a series of articles not one of which achieved the giddy heights of a second sentence. Guy 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks

Following a question on the reference desk by a user blocked for having a non-Latin-character username, can I remind admins to make the reason for blocks clear to the blocked user, to avoid biting the newbies. (In this particular case, the user was User:人, and the only information they were given as to why was the rather cryptic "user..." as the blocking reason.) Thanks. -- AJR | Talk 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP

I have no idea if this (link removed) information is true or not, but should the version be deleted from the history regardless? --After Midnight 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, an Admin should delete. We also need to come up with a better procedure for dealing with this type of problem than posting to this board, as at the moment such posts, while necessary, wind up publicizing the existence of the very information that should be deleted. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight and Misplaced Pages:Oversight. It's handled by email to a list of trusted users. FreplySpang 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent it in. --After Midnight 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, FreplySpang. I was familiar with the existence of Oversight, but not that specific page. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose

I'd appreciate it if an admin would take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose. This article was closed September 24 by CharlotteWebb, who is a non-admin. As the discussion had a relatively even number of "keep" and "merge" votes, I reopened the AfD so that an admin could make a decision between those two choices. CharlotteWebb has reacted unpleasantly to this, posting a profanity-laden demand for an explanation on the Afd's talk page (which I gave her, even though I clearly explained my reasoning in the AfD itself) and a statement at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#WP:AFD.2FJessica_Lee_Rose_.28talk.29 accusing me of "misus AFD to create a binding decision in a content dispute" and requesting that an admin take some sort of action against me. So, if anyone has the time, could you please: 1) Check the AfD and either give it a thumbs up for a few days' more discussion or make a decision and close it (it was originally listed September 20); and 2) Let me know whether I did the right thing here or not. If the closing admin says the decision is to "merge", then that's a binding decision, isn't it? And thus, by her closure, did she not nullify all the "merge" votes in that AfD out-of-process? Thanks, --Aaron 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I forgot to add: I voted merge in the original AfD and have made no edits to the article itself or the article to which the merger has been proposed. Also, I can find no evidence that CharlotteWebb was in any way involved in either article or the AfD, except to close it. --Aaron 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the main issue aside for a moment, my eyesight must be failing me - could you link to the "profanity-laden" demand from Charlotteweb? --Charlesknight 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For a low-moderate threshold of "profanity-laden": AnonEMouse 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting is an administrative process. Merging is an editorial process. AFD is designed to address an administrative question, namely "Should this article be deleted?" Merge decisions are not binding in AFD, simply because merge decisions are editorial rather than administrative, and AFD is not intended to address editorial questions. When I close AFD discussions which have a consensus of "Merge," my closing note is always something to the effect of "The consensus is to not delete this article. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge this article with any other relevant articles as the mood strikes them." or something of that nature. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's about what I was trying to explain. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Evrik

Alex Bakharev has blocked Evrik for removing warnings from his user page. I went through his contributions and he was not one engaging in personal attacks. I feel this is a case of mistaken identity. Can someone else check this and see if this user can be unblocked. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with unblock. I've left a message with Alex -- Samir धर्म 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with unblock as well. I was reviewing the AIV report and would have not have blocked Evrik. This issue would best have been reported on AN or ANI, not AIV. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I have unblocked him. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason #736 to abolish that 'edit war to restore warnings' practice... even if it is used 'properly' all it accomplishes in most cases is to inflame the situation further. --CBD 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New buttons in edit window?

What's up with all these new buttons in the edit window above the Subject/headline? Have I missed the discussion somewhere? I looked on the MediaWiki All pages list and couldn't find the place where these are added. Help would be appreciated! --Spangineer (háblame) 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Monobook.js / Mediawiki talk:Monobook.js is the place. Some of them may be useful but some also feel like overkill to me. For example, who really needs a button that adds "::"? Dragons flight 05:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have been removed already, including the "::" one. Perhaps a cache purge would do? Tito xd 05:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come across a few places (, , ) where it seems users have hit the "insert gallery" button by accident and left the result there. In anycase it needs to use Image:Example.jpg rather than Image:FileName.jpg within the pasted text... /wangi 05:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have the Sam Vaknin Wiki entry back please ?

Zeraeph is currently under suspension and will probably be permanently banned for constant Wiki violations and verbally attacking others. She has a long known history for persecuting and ridiculing experts. She herself is a malignant narcissist. She and her sockpuppets are very poisonous. She obviously worked Sam Vaknin up into a frenzy as he got to perceive Misplaced Pages in general in the same way as Zeraeph as for a while Zeraeph had full backing from Misplaced Pages.

I am not in Sam Vaknin's fan club. My website barely even mentions him. He is a self professed narcissist but not a malignant one. He still runs two support groups for victims of narcissism and is generally respected on the internet. Like him or loathe him he is an important authority in the field of narcissism. I am trying to make improvements to the Workplace Bullying and related Wiki entries. There are a variety of experts relevant to this but I really find it necessary to refer to Sam Vaknin's work as one such expert. To be consistent with the way the other experts are treated (such as Robert Hare, Heinz Leymann and Tim Field with their own Wiki entries) it is not consistent for Sam Vaknin not to have his own page. NPOV in itself would be enough reason for Sam Vaknin to have his page back.

Is any mention of Sam Vaknin automatically forbidden in a Wiki entry even if a reference to his work is justifed in context, say, in bullying or narcissism Wiki entries ?

Has no-one worked out yet that what Zeraeph claimed were Sam Vaknin's sockpuppets were most likely Zeraeph's own sockpuppets ? --Penbat 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The AfD is here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin. And the page you want is deletion review, which is over there --->. Drop me a note on my Talk page if you have trouble working out how to ask for deletion review. Guy 15:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Practical process

User:David Gerard/Process essay is nearly finished; probably to be moved to "Misplaced Pages:Practical process" fairly soon, relinquishing all ownership and leaving it to the community's tender mercies.

I'd most welcome you all looking over it and letting me know of:

Anything that's clearly missing from what it says about how to do process on Misplaced Pages. This is supposed to be a usable guide.
Anything that makes you cough up a hairball.
- and this is the good bit - anything you spot that you think will make any other particular editor cough up a hairball. It shouldn't actually piss people off.

Talk page or hack on the essay or email to me. Thank you! - David Gerard 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD needs closed

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Floru. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Joelito (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator help needed

A complicated situation has arisen with Ian White which needs admin tools of deleting to sort out. See my talk page for the background, but basically what needs to be done is:

Delete Ian White (Ice hockey player)
Move Ian White (licensing agent) to Ian White (Ice hockey player)

Thanks. David | Talk 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. >Radiant< 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

- Thanks Radiant. David | Talk 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Old Revision Of Image/Copyright Violation

I need help from an Admin. to delete the old revision of the image on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:UEIN_Crest.png

The current revision of the image is the correct crest for St. Christopher's Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, as can be seen on the school's main webpage: http://www.stchrisimd.com

The old revision was a prototype that was never authorized for release to the general public by its creator and isn’t nor ever was the school crest so the copyright status on the page doesn't cover that image. It was a privately commissioned work and I would like it to be removed from Misplaced Pages. SpikeyPsyche 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) SpikeyPsyche 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jkelly 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III

User:Nandesuka is posting this request here on behalf of the blocked user

Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Misplaced Pages by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This user's massive fraud is outlined in painful detail at User:Nandesuka/Young_Zaphod_Sockpuppetry. I welcome any independent review of my actions in this matter. Herb Gilliland is welcome back as an editor at any time, as long as he promises to stop spamming Misplaced Pages with self-promoting (and inaccurate) material about himself. To date he has been unwilling to make such a commitment. I sincerely believe that preventing him from editing until such time as he is able to do so in a way that doesn't involve unhealthy and grandiose self-promotion is not merely in Misplaced Pages's best interests, but in this user's best interests as well. Nandesuka 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, OKmrGhey, using sockpuppets to evade a ban is prohibited, so no one is forcing them to do that. There's proper channels to appeal a block and it's not using sockpuppets. Also, if you want any sympathy, accusing admins of sockpuppetry is not the way to go. If people act similarly, they're not neccesarily sockpuppets, they could also be (more likely in this case) all be looking out for Misplaced Pages's well-being. Also, there's the difference that Herbert's sockpuppetry was proven through technical means. - Mgm| 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi guys! I just unblocked User:Miskin who recently received a 24 hour block from User:FayssalF for moving two pages without consensus. The discussion can be found here. I was first made aware of the incident on IRC in the #wikipedia channel when Mikskin, who goes as "dion" on IRC, asked for some admin help in the channel. He is not a vandal and he did not violate 3RR or anything while conducting page moves. The diff I provided shows that FayssallF might have been a bit misguided, as one doesn't need consensus to move a page. I'm aware that there's a dispute as to the page move, but Miskin seems to be very reasonable and let me know that he will attempt to work with his fellow Wikipedians on this. I just wanted to post here, as it's the first time I've undid another admin's actions and want to make sure that other admins have the opportunity to view the situation (also, feel free to revert me in this situation or in any other situation if you feel I've made a mistake). Cheers hoopydink 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss the issue with User:FayssalF first? My first port of call would be with the blocking admin. Some moves can be part of an attempt to insert a POV, and some pages are subject to move warring. A look at User:Miskin's move logs show a lot of recent page moves , which do seem to give some cause for concern. Note that controversial moves do need to be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Steve block Talk 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this page was moved without consensus sometime ago and me and other 2 editors agreed to move it back, as per wp:name and related conventions. A specific user (whose name is of no importance) kept reverting and "removing" in a troll-like manner, and familiar with a trick which blocked a page once it had been moved (by inserting a tag or something like that). Once this was performed several times, we couldn't move the page back without an admin's assistance. The same person who was responsible for blocking all possible article names, reported the incident and the admin involved gave out blocks in a blind and irresponsible manner that I have never encountered before. There was no policy violated, no POV-pushing and definitely not vandalism involved (which was the actual accusation). You can verify all of the above for yourself. Regards. Miskin 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "recent page moves" being subject to concern. The few moves I have performed in 2 years have preserved the names I (slash consensus) gave them. This fact alone proves that the moves I have performed so far were actual contributions. This will soon become evident for the article in question as well. Miskin 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was giving my comments on how to handle the situation to User:Hoopydink rather than commenting on your contributions. Your recent moving of pages over the last couple of weeks would have concerned me and therefore I would have investigated the reasons to ascertain any POV issues. As I am sure you can appreciate, the pages in question are related to what can be seen as sensitive issues. You seem to have taken offence at comments which were offered in a manner not intended to be judgemental to you but rather outline the thinking one would have to undertake when unblocking a user. I would hope you can appreciate almost every blocked editor requests to be unblocked, and so we need to be fully aware of why they were blocked. Page moving can sometimes lead to a block being issued. Blocked users will often describe blocks as being issued "in a blind and irresponsible manner". Steve block Talk 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You also judged my editing behaviour hence I was obliged to defend myself. Administrators are only privileged users, and like all users they have to follow rules, which can be familiar even to a common editor. What I know is that there was someone out there who did a move&lock pattern and was found "innocent", yet my logs are a subject of suspicion here. If you really continue to believe that this was a wise admin judgement, then I honestly have nothing more to say to you. Anything else stated in the defence of such an incident gives a bad image to the wikipedian administration. Miskin 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading me completely. Hopefully you can accept that. I never questioned your editing history, I said your move logs gave cause for concern. I'm sorry if you see that as a statement on your editing, it was rather a statement on the moving of those pages and that there was an underlying issue which needing resolving, something with which you agree. At no point have I condoned the block you were given or defended this incident. I have rather outlined to User:Hoopydink some areas of investigation it may be wise to look at before repealing a block. I hope you can assume good faith in my intentions. Steve block Talk 15:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Both users are now unblocked. Please note that blocking users is not our objective. It is not executed just for the sake of blocking people. If the block was meant to sort an issue out than i believe that this was achieved in our case. With respect due to Miskin intentions and Hoopydink's unblocking, please note that unilateral moves (twice or threeshold) may not be considered vandalism but it deserves the block. The block was not misguided. I also share most of Steve's opinions. Cheers. -- Szvest 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

What I know is this: There are two editors trying to move an article while a third editor is opposing them by applying a move&lock trick, forcing the two former to choose different names (actually my move was realised due to a typo), resulting on all possible names to be locked by him (except the one he wanted). Then it is required to ask for administrator assistance, and just because the third person happens to be the one who contacts User:FayssalF, he choses to block the two others without asking any questions. WP:NAME is a POLICY, and if you're not sure what the dispute is about, you don't have the right to give blocks around, let alone call it an act of "vandalism". Despite what you preach in here, what you did back there was nothing but plain irresponsibility and abuse of admin privileges. But what do I know, I'm just a simple editor. Miskin 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed at Talk:Oscar Nunez

If some uninvolved admins with a firm grasp of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability could take a look at Talk:Oscar Nunez, that would be swell.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already listed at WP:RQM. --Asterion 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock locator

I'm having problems using the tool to find autoblocks. I've used this thing a hundred times before but now I can't find any blocks that I know to be operating. Is the autoblock locating tool lagging behind? Non-functional? Though the thing is really easy to use, I should note that I am suffering the tail end of a migraine and sometimes my brain doesn't work properly then. That said, I have been able to find old non-active autoblocks. --Yamla 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of downtime on the toolserver it wasn't updating until a few minutes ago when I restarted it. --pgk 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Laeding authorities

I have been asked by Leading_Authorities (talk · contribs) why I removed the links they added. I think that's pretty obvious from the contributions (I blocked the account a few days ago as a single purpose account and spammer). Several articles have links to leadingauthorities.com added by other editors, and I am removing them because these are not neutral biographies which can be cited as a source, they are promotional bios on a commercial website promoting the individuals as public speakers; as far as I am concerned this is not a reliable source and goes against the the external links guideline. I trust this is not controversial. Guy 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to say put it on the blacklist, but I'm a jack-booted squasher of spam links. - brenneman 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jawohl, herr Oberlinkspammenenführer :-) Guy 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking persistant POV-pusher/sock?

I read on the signpost that two of the arbitrators on the ArbCom have resigned. This will probably slow the whole arbitration processes down. I want to ask the community, if someone can look through Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Evidence, an arbitration case against a user related to Kven-articles and his multiple socks? This user should perhaps have been blocked a long time ago, and should maybe not have gone to arbitration. One of his socks were actually blocked at one time: User:Digi Wiki. Note: in the arbitration case, the user has chosen not to respond.

Is it OK to block the user and all his socks indefinitely?

Fred-Chess 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the value of his long-standing contribution to the project (i.e. tons of disruption and nothing of any objective merit I can see) I support this. Guy 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:George Macaca Allen

I have several problems with this user. It mimics the name of a real living person, it appears to have the sole purpose of attacking this living person, and it has posted anti-semitic comments on the talk page of the article about said living person. , , edit history. Crockspot 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Already indefblocked. Syrthiss 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, forgot to check the block log. Crockspot 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

well to be fair, they weren't blocked when you made this note. ;) Syrthiss 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-admins closing AfD as "keep"

Malber (talk · contribs) brought it to my attention that non-admin Parsssseltongue (talk · contribs) closed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Womyn as "keep." The deletion policy appears ambiguous as to whether a non-admin can close discussions as "keep." If Parssseltongue's closure of the discussion is improper, should the discussion simply be reopened? Thoughts are requested. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that non admins can close any non-contraversial discussion (as that one looks to be), and are only discouraged from closing afd's that end in delete because they don't have the way to follow through. Syrthiss 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the same impression as Syrthiss. In fact, I know that future admins are encouraged to gain experience by closing non-controversial AfD's (only "keeps", though). It should be noted that the closing remarks (citing WP:SNOW and the assumption of a bad faith nomination) are a bit concerning, but it seems to be a proper closing in that consensus was upheld. hoopydink 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have liked to see the discussion open at least one more day before assuming WP:SNOW. In the first day of an AfD you always get editors who have watchlisted the article and have an interest in voting keep. IMO the article has had issues with verifiability of the importance of the neologism since its creation, is a source of original research, and even if properly cleaned may never be more than a dictdef. It's not as if this isn't a controversial issue: the article itself claims the term is contraversial. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions: Closing decisions are subject to review and may be reopened. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought. So if you're truly uncomfortable with the fast close, you can open it back up again. Just be sure to follow WP:DPR#Relisting_debates so the AfD logs don't get messed up. --Aaron 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have, but because there was an accusation of bad faith I didn't want to appear as if I was being disruptive. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions. So long as he's making the call correctly, he's fine. --tjstrf 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can invoke the Snowball clause and anyone can close an obvious keeper as a keep. A bad SNOW call or a bad keep can be reversed. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and relisted it. Use of WP:SNOW in this case may be justified (no "votes" to delete other than the nominator); however the bad faith accusation on the part of the closing user (stating that Malber nominated the article in bad faith) was inappropriate. Also, the article was up for only 'bout a day. Still, I'm expecting a second SNOW keep soon. --EngineerScotty 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And you've got it. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fast, friendly service. :) --EngineerScotty 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  - That's what you always get at your fast, friendly, cheap Misplaced Pages. --Woohookitty 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    - I want a cookie. --Aaron 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin vs. Librarian

I just had this thought and would like some feedback. In the Spanish wiki, admins are called bibliotecarios, meaning "librarians". I somehow prefer the term Librarian over Administrator, as I associate the latter more with bureaucrat tasks than with working towards improving an encyclopedia by different means (fighting vandalism, safeguarding NPOV, etc). It is true that neither term is completely accurate, as librarian seems to exclude intrinsecally administrative tasks, emphasising the content management aspect instead. Personally, I find the idea of Librarian more profound and poetic. Do not understand this as a call to change policy or anything. It is just something that crossed my mind and wanted to know whether I am alone on this. Regards, Asterion 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Librarian is a cool term for what we do...but...lots and lots of admins fight vandalism and safeguard NPOV too. --Woohookitty 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

May be a neat idea over at Wikibooks. Did anyone else think this thread was about a rogue admin blocking a library? Naconkantari 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Many aspects of Misplaced Pages involve editors contributing in a Librarian capacity; sourcing articles, providing references and checking facts. Other related tasks are putting the books in order on the shelves - i.e. categorising, stub sorting, etc. Editors and admins differ from Librarians in that they get involved with the data that they present to other users, whereas Librarians as impartial, fulfilling the requirements of the enquiry without bias and to the best of their ability. Librarian also connotes a professional relationship with information, one that requires a postgraduate degree/diploma in order to satify entry requirements in to bodies such as the ALA (American Library Association) and CILIP (Chartered Institute of Librarians and Information Professionals). To call admins Librarians may well be poetic but it isn't entirely fair to hang a professional tag on those who have not earned it in the same way as those who worked for their degrees in Information Science did. You can call me either, as I have both tags! Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I understand. Asterion 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spam/misuse?

I was using using Lupin's filter vandalism tool and I came across this page: User talk:Evilsai . I have no idea of what to do or how to approach this. It looks like the user and the IPs who are editing it use it like a noticeboard or chat site. Please reply here or on my talk page with some help or assistance on how to deal with this. I've asked Ta bu shi da yu about this, and he advised me to post here. Thanks -huntersquid 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards