Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coredesat (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 3 December 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DM Ashura). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

User:Durin out of control (edit stalking/unrealistic copyright requests)

Original complaint

I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user. The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

• Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles .
• Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph . In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Misplaced Pages.
• Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with . (Also See:User:Durin/Husnock images).
• Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game . I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking.
• Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page . I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
• Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Misplaced Pages for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame . He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" . I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm increasingly concerned about the matter of an image with personally-identifiable information being left undeleted after attention has been drawn to it. While I think it was a mistake (though a well-meaning one) to draw attention to it through the talk page instead of by private e-mail, I'm puzzled that Husnock did not delete it immediately when he was made aware of it (especially since Durin was kind enough to make an identical but safe image for him at Image:HusnockMidway1.jpg), but instead drew further attention to it, while complaining about someone having discovered his last name. I have decided to go ahead and delete it myself. If Husnock decides that he is, after all, comfortable with having a photo at Misplaced Pages that can lead to his identity being made public, then, well, he's an admin and it will take just three seconds for him to undelete it. I'll post something to him later. Going to lunch now. AnnH ♫ 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• • My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on User:Husnock/Travel. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -Husnock 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Misplaced Pages? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Misplaced Pages, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to m:OTRS when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --Durin 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' here. But I tend to agree that this edit of his wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Two gold pips Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's.
• As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --Durin 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated four times now, I am at present in the Middle East and could lose access to Misplaced Pages tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -Husnock 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. yandman 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --Durin 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Husnock on deployment: That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Misplaced Pages. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is.
• Re: RfC I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Misplaced Pages from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --Durin 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the WP:RFC with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. Durova 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Durova 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this dispute

I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an RfC would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process.

As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so Durin stops direct activity on any and all Husnock's images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (Geni comes straight to my mind for example) to look over Husnock's existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per WP:CSD then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.)

I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts?  Glen  18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Misplaced Pages which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Misplaced Pages and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Misplaced Pages...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -Husnock 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via Special:Contributions/Husnock.
• 2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced.
• 3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) Misplaced Pages:Harassment where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such.
• 4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Misplaced Pages must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment.
• 5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources.
• 6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled.
• I recommend you accept the proposal by User:Glen S and the proposed mediation by User:Zscout370. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment is the next step. --Durin 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, also Zscout370 comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :)  Glen  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at User:Durin/Husnock_images but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. User:Zscout370 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to m:OTRS with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --Durin 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved Glen 00:10, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see User:Husnock/Durinharrass#Privacy_concerns. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --Durin 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I was the third party mentioned by User:Husnock in the Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game)#Fair use images discussions that had developed about those images and additionally I have already offered to review any images. If User:Husnock User:Durin and User:Geni agree I'll act as an independant 3rd party to resolve these image issues. By this Durin and Geni list the images with the issues, I'll assess whats required to comply with the license and talk directly with Husnock. In the event of Husnock becoming unavailable the issues are still being addressed, where because of Husnocks unavailability the only option is to delete I'll organise it to be deleted and fix any affected articles including User pages. Gnangarra 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to target me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Misplaced Pages when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who assured me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I DID give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a word about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -Husnock 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - Taxman 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion Nil Einne 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). User:Zscout370 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Begging for help

On 22 November 2006, User:Taxman and User:Mindspillage left notes on User:Husnock's talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" . Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger (, third paragraph and second to last paragraph).

This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis.

Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace.

I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC.

I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --Durin 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for months been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a very small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Misplaced Pages, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour off Misplaced Pages, he has not, as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you might have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you", so what are you worrying about?

Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could easily have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is. An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and then complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has not deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned.

Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is not harassment or stalking.

A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Misplaced Pages? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source?

I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. AnnH ♫ 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase someone had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Misplaced Pages" and "wanted to find me". I NEVER said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page User:Husnock/Durinconcerns removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it:

"You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Misplaced Pages and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Misplaced Pages that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Misplaced Pages."

Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -Husnock 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That being the case, then you should find no problem removing a number of entries you have made since they have nothing to do with me yet you've tied them to me. In particular you should remove:

• Elements of item #9 from User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions, beginning with "quite possibly".
• Everthing in paragraph 3 of beginning from "Rather the opposite".
• The last two sentences of paragraph #5 of .

Since these things have nothing to do with me, per your assertions above, then continuing to allow their presence here does not make any sense, would you not agree? --Durin 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock's accusations against me continue apace . --Durin 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is getting silly. He has no right to make accusations like that against you. I hope the e-mail Cool Cat sent calmed things down. Husnock also seems unable to admit that he might have been wrong, instead saying things like: "much to my horror his activites were backed by a large number of well established users. It makes one wonder." It certainly makes me wonder, but not in the way Husnock might think. Carcharoth 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ecopave Australia nonsense

There is an editor on several IP addresses blanking Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ecopave Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Misplaced Pages:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) of all mention of Ecopave Australia, obviously to whitewash their history of their edits. The relevant discussions are obviously Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled garden / spammers, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16#Ecopave, and the AFD discussion. I have requested offwiki that Khoikhoi sprotect the pages, but the IPs used should probably be checked for open proxies as these are their only edits.

• 58.166.253.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.71.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 144.131.164.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.85.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All protected, all blocked. I don't think they're proxies, however. All the IPs are located in the same city (Melbourne). Khoikhoi 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's probably User:Fact Finder, who was blocked a couple of days ago for the above concerns. There's some other links on the user talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And Fact Finder can, to be blunt, fuck off, for the reasons I stated on his Talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the unintended consequences of spamming Misplaced Pages. Ironically, the sooner it's caught, the better for a spammer's reputation, since Misplaced Pages's high Google ranking means that spam notices, AFD discussions, and talk page warnings bubble up to the top of Google hits. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Ecopave spammer's actions will have elevated our debates about the Ecopave spamming to the top of the Google results fior Ecopave, GEO320 and mastic roller hybrid? How terrible. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this article in the Misplaced Pages deleted articles archives and being an investigative journalist and a reporter for a major newspaper, I thought that its only fair to show the other side of this story to this article titled Ecopave Australia nonsense, For what I can gather after reading the Misplaced Pages guidelines, is that the above administrator Guy may also be taking part in Flaming (internet) against Ecopave. It also appears that this article is in response to the evidence that was presented by a Misplaced Pages user (Fact Finder) who was later permanently blocked and their user talk pages deleted by Mr Chapman. I have read the Ecopave response and you can read about it here Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard Susanfg 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact Finder has been making semi-literate rants, frivolous legal threats, and personal attacks for a while, and showed no sign of participating in the creation of an encyclopedia. At one point when I was engaging him in discussion, he noticed somewhere in my user page or personal website that I'm a member of Mensa, and started insinuating that I was lying about this. He's also accused an administrator of abuse for having more than one IP address from which he logs in (as most people do, if they participate from both home and work, for instance), and even alleged that Wikipedians were sending computer viruses to his company. He has the preposterous idea that simply mentioning his company/product name, Ecopave, without obfuscating it in SCR1PT K1DDI3 manner, is somehow a trademark violation. *Dan T.* 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Skulltag AfD

Would a few admins take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skulltag? The article about a source port of Doom that (from my research) is non-notable, but it seems Skulltag's community picked up on the deletion and a number of it's members are protesting. There have been no votes in the deletion discussion despite it running for almost five days, so I'd like to ask if it at least one admin could keep their eye on it. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, the AFD has now been overrun by meatpuppets vying to keep the article intact. Hbdragon88 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, now that there's been several votes, can someone (who hasn't yet participated in the discussion) close this AfD before it really gets out of control? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. A lovely little thread they set up on their forums about Misplaced Pages and its' users, as well. Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What the devil is going on here? Goading them probably isn't the best idea ever. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. As there isn't already enough trouble already...really don't need this headache. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...well, it wasn't me, and by the sounds of things it wasn't either of you two, I seriously doubt it was Hamedog (the closer). There's a couple of other editors, although they seem well-respected enough. The only other "Delete" !voter is an IP, so I can't verify whether he/she would do such a thing by determinance of their reputation. Nonetheless, whoever did it should quit, and pronto - this is bad enough, without inciting further hatred. Please, whoever it was (if you are reading this), stop. Daniel.Bryant 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: AFD is not a vote. That some 'voters' are biased, new, or socks of unbanned users does not matter, so long as the closing admin does their job properly. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about the IP address is that IP addresses can't create articles anymore, so I was wondering if that 4.*.*.* was going to go through with his promise of recreating the article every single time it was deleted. Anyway, I voted delete, but I didn't registern an account to goad them, though I was tempted to. Hbdragon88 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted out of process, and has been restored. The final count was 4 keep, 5 delete, which is not nearly a consensus to delete. Owen 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you wish to challenge the closer's decision you should take it to DRV instead of wheel-warring to restore the page. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't wheel-warring, I was exercising WP:IAR in response to administrative actions that bypassed policy. I fully intended to take the more bureaucratic approach if another administrator intervened, as you have. Owen 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice how the four keep votes came from users from the Skulltag who registered only to vote keep. I thought that sysops had the power to discard such meatpuppet votes? Hbdragon88 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How to get an archived article deleted

How can I get deleted the following articles, I have had discussions with people concerned in regards to these three article and their contents, and apparently because these articles have been edited to the extent that they are no longer factual but distorted and out of context they should be therefore deleted. Also because these three pages serves no real purpose in Misplaced Pages other than paint the ECOPAVE company and its trademark protected words Trademark dilution in bad light bad faith,Fact Finder2 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Miscellaneous/2006_October_16#Ecopave
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws

Fact Finder2 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are archives of discussion pages, and should not be deleted. They are preserved as records of prior discussion. Prodego 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several threads relevant to this near the bottom of the Help Desk. --ais523 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely. If he wants to appeal his block there are ways of doing so, but this is mere block evasion. Chick Bowen 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet more bollocks from this bunch of spammers. I have also had a threatening email, stating that unless we excise all mention of Ecopave's spamming then the "truth" about our appalling abuse of Ecopave (read: reversion of their spamming campaign and good-faith attempts to get their employees to contribute productively) will be published on the Ecopave Australia website. Only it was written EC0PAVE AUSTRAL1A, an obscurantism for ECOPAVE AUSTRALIA, despite the fact that (as a private email) it stands no chance of being placed on the web where it can damage Ecopave's Google results. I'd say that Fact Finder (and the associated Ecopave spam accounts) shows evidence of ridiculous levels of obsession and we need to be on the lookout for more of this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admitted stalking

Following opening an RfC against me, User:A Link to the Past has begun sifting through every edit I make on a daily basis and leaving little notes on my talk page about what I need to stop doing. He's already admitted to it and rebuffed several polite requests to stop, so I'd really like it if someone else would take action here. --InShaneee 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Classic case of ALTTP being a dick, if you ask me. --172.191.198.107 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke

Okay, here's the scoop: RobJ1981 came to me requesting help regarding edits made by TJ Spyke. He made allegations that the user was reverting other people's edits for no good reason, and that he was violating 3RR by using a sockpuppet (Edgecution). This was proven by Essjay at WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke and despite this verification, Spyke stated that it was his brother who was on the other account. I find this hard to believe as they appeared to be defending the same edits in the article WWE New Year's Revolution. A CheckUser clerk, Daniel.Bryant, also pointed this out stating that he couldn't believe that these two accounts were being used by different people. Judging from the article history of WWE New Year's Revolution, it does appear that TJ Spyke has been reverting many user's edits to the page without discussing or contacting the users he reverted. Anyway, as per the RFCU, Essjay requested the admin body to overview the decision and do whatever they please. I'm personally involved in this matter, so I am refraining from doing anything in this matter. I'd also like to point out that TJ Spyke has violated 3RR on multiple occasions, and I speculated he was using the sockpuppet to avoid a block. Nishkid64 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ tends to control articles, in my opinion. New Year's Revolution is just the most recent one. I remember at WWE Cyber Sunday, he would remove the official name of a match. After many reverts and a discussion at the talk page, it was finally left alone by TJ. How exactly can others help on wrestling articles, if edits just get reverted with little to no explanation? Misplaced Pages articles are for everyone to edit, not for one user to control an article and revert anything he sees fit with no good reasons. RobJ1981 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked TJ Spyke for 48 hours for continuing to edit war on that WWE page. Edgecution is more likely a meatpuppet if anything as opposed to a sockpuppet. Not sure what people want to do about him. -- Steel 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The argument might be moot - Image:Newyears2007.jpg and Image:Newyearsrevolution07.jpg are going to be deleted as unsourced here within the next few days - I already deleted Image:Newyears2007.jpg. --humblefool® 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out TJ Spyke CONTINUES to revert the poster. I noticed when he was blocked, there wasn't trouble with the article (that I noticed at least). Then he comes back and causes revert issues once again. The poster doesn't hurt the article, but for whatever reason TJ thinks it does. RobJ1981 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Newyearsrevolution07.jpg has been deleted for having no source. Hopefully this will be the end of the dispute. -- Steel 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh joy, the image is also under a different name which does have a source (Image:New Years Revolution 2007 poster.JPG). Ok, page protected. No more reverting from anyone. -- Steel 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Two technical questions

1. What is currently the first page at Special:Unwatchedpages? and 2. How do I edit the text at Special:Specialpages? I think it's about time Special:Ancientpages had a more accurate description. But I can't find a MediaWiki page that has that text. Chick Bowen 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first page is ], for some reason (yes, I just typed ] there, because it is a page with the Empty Title; this is probably a software fluke). Regarding ancientpages, the text is here: MediaWiki:Ancientpages-summary. (Radiant) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh. Well, thanks, but I still don't get it, so I guess that indicates this is over my head technically and I shouldn't worry about it. Chick Bowen 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New {{COI}} template

I just created (okay, copied and modified another template to make) a "conflict of interest" clean-up template. Feedback is not only desired, but begged for. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. However, when will it exactly be used? I mean if it's used right when an article is about to be speedied, there seems to be no point for it. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Nishkid64 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's for the cases where the subject is slightly too notable, or potentially too notable, to speedy. Sometimes we WP:PROD these or slap notability tags on them, but a tag referencing WP:COI may be more precise. Sometimes the problematic article is not vanity per se, but the author did all the original research on the subject, and published it in a vanity press or a website somewhere. Anyone remember Leonardo Ciampa and Lorenzo Perosi? I like the tag; it may be the best way to approach this problem (which is a huge problem, for those of us who do newpage or recent changes patrol). Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is too specific of a tag. If it's a speedy candidate, the creator of the page is not supposed to remove the tag. Anybody can remove a PROD tag. Concerns about original research, references, etc. should be tagged with existing templates and a possible conflict of interest (if there is one) to be described as so. I really don't see the need for a special template... Hbdragon88 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's intended as a more specific version of {{advert}} and/or the {{vanity}} tag but applied to non-bios, as in "This subject might be worth an article but maybe it shouldn't be you writing it." This article created by A Greater Gift (talk · contribs) -- note the name of the parent organization of the article subject -- was what prompted this. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since NN vanity articles can already be handled under WP:CSD, it would seem this template is only useful on notable subjects that happen to have a "COI". Accordingly, maybe you should remove all the talk of deletion and rephrase it more like "someone else should rewrite this, previous author, please make suggestions on the talk page". --Dgies 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's less WP:BITEy than {{advert}}, and that is good. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive Image Deletion

An admin, User:Betacommand, today deleted several hundred fair use images, including many that were marked with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. There is no indication that User:Betacommand considered any of the reasons for the disputes on the images talk pages before proceeding with what looks to be a blanket torching of these images. Now, many of these images had, I think it's fair to say, fair use issues... but many were entirely appropriately sourced, tagged, with copyright and source information, etc. My question: Is this deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy? Jenolen 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how that giant backlog got cleared so fast. I commend him for deleting the non-disputed ones but I wouldn't have deleted the disputed ones without reviewing the reasoning, which I doubt he could have done in the amount of time those were all deleted. VegaDark 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at the delete log, it might have been possible to open them in tabs and then take a couple second glance over each one. In some cases it's obvious enough to do it, in others it's not. In terms of official policy, I hate to say it, but the backlog is massively massive, things seem to be tuned for speed more than detailed looks. If you have any tips on how to make it work better, it might help things out :) -- Tawker 08:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The criterion allows for a full week before deletion, giving ample time for anyone who wants to dispute that an image is replaceable to mount their argument. I only found one example where someone had disputed whether the image was replaceable, Image talk:Wayne McCullough.jpg, which really isn't reasoning at all. Did you find any other examples? --bainer (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have (now dead) links to several images - and the associated talk pages wherein I'd made my fair use cases -- listed on my user page. Jenolen 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The question now is did the admin use a deletion bot? I ask that since I saw this on the blocking log: "01:17, 28 November 2006 Dragons flight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Betacommand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Using an unauthorized deletion bot)." User:Zscout370 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, adminbots get shunned by the community, I guess it could be a peice of javascript though, one button to do the work of 3. Really, I have no idea - -Tawker 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had placed a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg and provided a rationale in the tag. I'm not sure the fair use claim was ironclad, but it probably at least warranted a few seconds of thought by an admin. --Dgies

I have blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as Zscout370 noted before I got here. His deletion log demonstrates that he deleted >1500 images in less than 2 hours, which amounts to less than 5 seconds per image (actually its even less because of a couple gaps of ~10 minutes). Regardless of how he accomplished this, any process that acts with bot like speed requires a bot approval. Since I can find no evidence of any such approval (and would be very surprised to see it since I7 requires human attention to identify and resolve disputes), I have acted on the assumption that this behavior is unapproved and blocked Betacommand for a week for operating an unapproved admin bot. Dragons flight 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to note that his bot appears to have made no notice of {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} or any accommanying talk page discussion, so I expect there are more than a few people who have been upset to have their arguments ignored. A few of these have already commented at Betacommand's talk page. Dragons flight 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

deletetion every 5 seconds is manualy posible. But for 2 hours?Geni 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder blocking an admin does not restrict their admin abilities - kind of an interesting thing to note -- Tawker 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

certianly used to limit them somewhat.12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Well I did ask for help with the backlog, carefull what you wish for I guess... The place is ready to blow over this issue already. Just flat out automated deletion of everyting tagged was probably not the wisest move. I think we just proved everyone who has been complaining that reasonable complaints are ignored right. I'm all for enforcing this, but let's try not to turn the entire comunity against it in the process shall we. --Sherool (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had an image that I had contested the delete of image deleted by Betacommand without comment in this recent set. I have been involved in the discussions about the use of promotional tagged images at some length in the last two days. I resposted another image to the same page, and it was immediately marked by User:Abu_badali for deletion. The same user then has attacked dozens of images uploaded with a promotional tag in only a few minutes, using the argument that any image marked with a promotional tag should be deleted because it could hypothetically be subsititued with a free image as long as the person is living - in this case many of the images marked were provided by the artists to me directly, inclusing some because no free or even promotional image existed. User:Abu_badali then began marking other images such as CD covers I have posted with the so-called rationale they should be deleted because few pages linked to them, which would delete 99% of the album cover images on Misplaced Pages, as well as likely 98% of all images. This is an obvious personal attack, and yet another example of editors gone wild, which I am now expected to spend hours contesting every one of these CSD's or have someone destroy hours and hours of legitmate work and Misplaced Pages page layouts to match. I ask for admin assistance on this issue, please, this type of stuff is getting insane on here. A review of User_talk:Abu_badali, and now comments being posted on my page, indicate this user engages in this kind of behavior on a repeated basis. I have never asked for an Rfc before, but there is certainly a need for one here, in addition to a block. The timing of the original issue might also suggest a sockpuppet relationship between Betacommand and Abu badali. And as a Misplaced Pages user and professional journalist, is it just me, or is there a motto on Misplaced Pages that for every person engaging in this kind of attack behavior there are a dozen apologists? Tvccs 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay admins and apologists - if there was any question about intent, harassment, legitimacy, use of a CSD bot, etc. regarding User:Abu badali - in the middle of his dozens of CSD requets in a few minute span of my images was an image he deleted from the Cadillac Catera page. This was not an image I'd created, it was a free image from another user and marked as such, it was simply one I'd replaced with a promtionally tagged image at one point, which was then reverted, and which I'd subsequently left alone. Abu badali removed a completely free image from a page, the same type of image used to illustrate hundreds of cars on Misplaced Pages, using the rationale "23:04, November 27, 2006 Abu badali (Talk | contribs) m (rm purely illustrative use of unfree image per WP:FUC#8)". I am completely sick of this stuff, and of the people that apologize for the type of behavior exhibited by this and similar users. Is there anyone sane that has a bot thay can remove his CSD's? Tvccs 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And now I get to offer a clarification/correction - it appears the image that was removed from Cadillac Catera was the one referenced below - not the free image at the top of the page, which I thought was the case as in checking the top image tag, it indicated it was no longer linked to any page, and I thought I was seeing a cached page version which still had the image after deletion. Everything else I stated stands, and that was hopefully the only image I've uploaded without a totally clear source. I'm so glad NOT to be dealing with this. Tvccs 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See my note on your talk page: if you can't manage to comply with the requirements of a tag which you yourself selected to place on the image when you uploaded it, your case is thinner than Janet Jackson's excuse. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen and replied - I see the image had already been removed before I even had time to clarify the tag - see if you like the clarification, as the image still exists in an orphaned state, and if so, restore it please. Tvccs 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've deleted that image under CSD I6, since you didn't provide a detailed fair use rationale. Like it or not, we haven't accepted with permission images for a long time, unless a valid fair use claim is made, and at least since 4 May this year we haven't accepted images tagged only with a generic fair use template and no detailed fair use rationale. These requirements are not hard to meet, and were in place long before you uploaded that image. And even though it's deleted now, we have image undeletion so if you can provide a detailed fair use rationale (and proper sourcing information too, Yahoo Groups doesn't count), I can undelete the image and we can all be happy. --bainer (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear what Betacommand has to say about this accusation, although I'll admit it looks pretty serious. He was only recently granted adminship, so if he is misusing it, perhaps those powers should be revoked. A bot with admin powers would be strictly regulated and unlikely to be approved and he would know that. He is also a member of BAG so I think this probably has implications for that as well. His talk page has a concern about blocking misuse as well. Apparently he blocked an ISP proxy calling it an open proxy. I don't know much about this case but thought I'd bring it to attention here. -- RM 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interiot once clocked me doing image deletions at 7.3 seconds, but I'd already checked each one and opened a billion tabs. That's not sustainable, of course, because you have to go through and get another batch ready. This has to have been bot-assisted in some fashion, if he kept up that rate for two hours. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well at 5 seconds per edit, that isn't so fast as to necessarily require bot approval. And if it was manual-assisted bot, then it doesn't strictly need bot approval either. The issue here was that a bot was possibly used with a) administrator access and b) that the actions performed were not correct. The latter action perhaps requires a hand slapping and a warning, but running a bot with administrator access performing an administrator function, even if assisted, is questionable at best. Nevertheless, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if nothing went wrong. Still, at minimum the block was justified. -- RM 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well for one minute I managed to get down to one delete ever 2.4 seconds but there is no way to keep that up. Especialy if you are dealing with challanges.Geni 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's think about this logically then. Clearly he wasn't dealing with challenges, as is well evidenced. So if one were to simply be misusing admin tools, you could easily maintain a fast deletion rate without the use of a bot. Perhaps that is the case here? We're making the assumption that a fast edit rate is not possible without the support of a bot, but that's assuming proper deletions, which clearly did not happen here. It would seem then that a bot may not have been used, but only a misuse of administrator tools. Still a serious problem of course. -- RM 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no you can't mentain a deletion rate that high for any length of time (I just deleted 30 images in under a minute but only because I spent the previous few minutes doing setup) and physicaly it will start to hurnt after a while (blisters pain in joints whatever). For long term sustained rates you do less preloading which slows the deletion rate. If it posible to delete once every 5 seconds without prep that is right on the edge of what is posible (I'll run some tests shortly) which means there is no way you could keep it up.Geni 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we simply ask him how he did that instead of speculating? He appears to be around now. (Radiant) 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But then we miss the chance to start up competative speed deleting which might keep our backlogs clear once and for all.Geni 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I assumed that since the Images in question were in the category, and that it was backloged I assumed that the disputes for wether or not the image should be deleted had been resolved. I modified my version of firefox, for a short time to allow for clearing this backlog. I set it up so that if I middle clicked a link it would open up the deletion page with the Image and the preset summary. I also had it set to autosave, and close the tab. That is how I mananaged to get the speed. Looking back of the Incident that was not a smart idea. The reason that I set that up was because of the massive backlog. But I see that i should have been more careful. Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? Betacommand 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) quoted from his talk page. (Radiant) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since BC states he was not using a bot and admits his mistake, I think we should unblock him so that he can help fixing it. Thoughts please? (Radiant) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the block so long as discussion happens here dealing with the issue. I'm not sure what is meant by the comment "Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete?" Does this mean to imply that it wasn't a big deal since only a few may have been incorrect or is this an honest question for some other purpose? -- RM 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant "mis-delete", not "missed deleting". (Radiant) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

going by follow up comments probably not. I've pulled the block. I can't cheack for autoblocks though.Geni 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering how many Images that I had made an error on. Betacommand 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? -- Well, if you didn't look at the disputes going on on any of the image talk pages, then, technically, 1500. I'm not sure why we're supposed to do your job of going back and looking at all 1500 images, and finding the ones that were inappropriately deleted, when this should have been done the first time. They all need to be looked at, and for more than an average of five seconds. Look, I don't mean this to be snippy, but it is very frustrating to play by the rules, learn about all the image tags, upload some images that do make articles better for Misplaced Pages users, work with admins to get the image tagging and licensing issues all settled... then have the whole thing blow up because a few Wikipedians decide to change the policy on promophotos. Very, very disheartening, and like I said, I don't mean to be a downer about this, but today, Misplaced Pages is NOT as good as it was before the promophoto jihad began. Also -- NONE of the images I uploaded, that you deleted, have been restored, even though I am one of the editors who left a message on your talk page. You can find of list of the images in question on my talk page or by using your bot. Jenolen 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Images that were brought to my attention. Betacommand 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A good many actually, it appears you didn't check for disputed tags, which actually say to keep the other tag as well. I reuploaded the only one on my watchlist no problem, but as not being an admin able to check the tags on the deleted files I can't really give you an exact number --T-rex 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a few of these a while ago, the ratios were actually pretty high for disputed tags, of those not all actually had any dispute, but even then a good amount did. I would be uncomfortable giving exact percentages though. If you feel like a dispute was deleted before being resolved, or even if one was resolved to keep and then deleted anyway, bring it up at WP:MCQ and someone will fix it for you. 1500 might be too many for betacommand to do all alone. Does anyone think there needs to be an improvement in the dispute procedure? Currently most of the disputes are just 2 people arguing back and forth until an admin deletes, at which time no one is informed of the decision. This has to be balanced with the fact that any additional steps will only increase the already high backlog on this section. - cohesion 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, now, I've noticed at least one of the orphaned image talk pages -- wherein the case for keeping the image was made -- has been deleted by another admin, because, you know, it's a talk page with no "article." Which is, of course, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. Sigh... So can we be bring back these ~1500 images, and their associated talk pages? Or has this ship sailed into Wiki-seas from which there is no return? Jenolen 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fast action by User:Metros232 restored the specific talk page I referred to above, but I still fear that much has been lost. Metros suggested a temporary hold on {{db-talk}} activity, but we're well beyond my level of Wiki-comprehension. Jenolen 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G8 says an exception to the deletion of orphaned talk pages is made for "talk pages of images on Commons". This won't be the case here, as these are fair-use images on Misplaced Pages (I think). But just in case this does apply, I thought I'd point it out, as these exceptions to the rules are easy to miss sometimes. Carcharoth 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about user talk pages/Rfc's? I have a fair use image that was being compared and dicussed to a free image that was removed from a Rfc Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok page beacuse it "no longer linked to any page". Thank you. Tvccs 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism going on

There's someone patiently vandalising Anton Chekhov today (and other articles, it looks like). I'm loathe to tackle him myself in case he starts sabotaging my userpages. Would appreciate an intervention, preferably final. Cheers. qp10qp 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Many thanks. qp10qp 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD

Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you. NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) NinaEliza

I've contacted Hkelkar about this. I have the feeling that he just got the datesmixed up, as he has declared in email to his advocates (myself and User:TheronJ) that he is on a wikibreak until 19 December from today. I'd therefore request that if any action is to be taken, we leave it until tomorrow (UTC), and if Hkekar is still editing, he should be warned before any other action is taken. I think the allegations of Hkelkar not actually taking his finals are a bit out of order, as I have no doubt that he is, and we need to WP:AGF in any case. Another admin will want to review this, I'm sure, as I'm implicitly involved in this case, but I thought I'd offer what I've been told to the discussion :) Martinp23 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The message by NinaEliza here was also posted here. Martinp23 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no administrative action to take as the motion for a continuance has not been voted out yet, therefore it is not in effect. However, continued editing may indicate that the request was not made in good faith. I have called Arbitrator Fred Bauder's attention to the matter. In the mean time, if you believe Hkelkar is impersonating someone else, you may wish to add evidence to the evidence page. However, the real life identity of the editor doesn't really have bearing on any possible sanctions or remedies in the case. (It may, however, be related to the method he used to "prove" his innocence of sockpuppetry charges. If you believe this is not sufficiently addressed in the case, please add evidence to the evidence page or a proposed finding of fact to the workshop page.) Thatcher131 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar was actively editing today even. BhaiSaab 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User continuously repeating same edits

In Goldfrapp article user Samuel.hinch@hotmail.com‎ endlessly repeats same edits (changes genres, and also some images), despite being reverted all the time, with general consensus not on his side. He also has very bad editing style (apparently he does not use preview) with up to 10 edits following in rapid succession. I request ban of user Samuel.hinch@hotmail.com‎ from editing the article.

P.S. Sorry for using URL to link to his user page - because of @ in his username, normal linking does not work! Futurix 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the User name. They have been asked twice now to pick another one, but haven't. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New guideline Misplaced Pages:Version to protect

This subject has caused much aggravation on Misplaced Pages, and if you know of any previous attempts for solving it (other than "Wrong Version", which I think is unhelpful), please let me know. Otherwise, please try to find some holes in it. If you find that you agree with the proposal, let's try to make this a guideline. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a proposal to find "the right version" to protect. It's foolhardy. All it does it add ammunition to people involved in the edit war. I don't want to know what would happen if this was used during a heated debate. It'd be bedlam. We already have people who don't believe that admins are ever neutral. This just adds fuel to that fire. --Woohookitty 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to these concerns on the talk page of the proposal, where a healthy discussion is in swing concerning this proposal. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk pages

I found this Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion that says "a bot will begin blanking these pages per the discussion". That was in March, and the category now contains several hundreds of IP addresses. Does anybody know the point of this? (Radiant) 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive9#IP_talk_pages, looks like it ended up being a "meh don't delete them, just blank them"...so we should prolly either blank the talk pages and decat them or maybe just decat them. Syrthiss 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can set a bot up to blank these if you want.Betacommand 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose then that we should get rid of the category. Since that involves editing all those pages anyway, we might as well use a bot to blank them once. Doing this on a regular basis doesn't appear to be worth the trouble. (Radiant) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I thought one of the Tawkerbots was doing this, but if not, then yes, someone should do it. Chick Bowen 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam socks

There's a list of single purpose accounts at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#Spam only accounts. The contributions are clearly part of a coordinated spam campaign. Apparently abandoned and no immediate danger, but they might be sleepers. What is the procedure to deal with those? Am I right to assume they may be blocked indefinitely without needing further warnings? (excluding the IPs of course) If so, should I add a (not quite appropriate) {{spam5i}} or would a simple "spam only account" in the block summary suffice? Femto 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support blocking entire bunch of them as spam-only accounts as soon as each account does the same spam routine. Kimchi.sg 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, cleaned them up. Femto 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee

This user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Misplaced Pages violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. He currently has been adopted by The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if that is enough. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages. ----Maniwar (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see here and here . --Maniwar (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery IP

I'm not certain where to post this, but an IP registered to the National Portrait Gallery (London), 217.207.85.50 (talk · contribs), seems to pop up every few months to slap on a copyright violation directly at the top of certain articles ( ), most recently yesterday at William Herschel (as such). This strikes me as extremely unprofessional if, in fact, the person really does represent the NPG. I left a note, but I believe this calls for direct attention by admins, if for the copyright question if nothing else. Thank you. --CalendarWatcher 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as something Wikimedia needs to deal with directly, and not for admins. - hahnchen 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:BradPatrick. Chick Bowen 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of thing crops up from time to time. Galleries and libraries who own paintings may mistakenly claim they hold copyright to any images of the works of art or claim that they must give permission for those images to be used. However, many countries uphold the idea that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional works of art are public domain themselves. Aside from trying to educate them (which likely won't go over well), there's not much we can do other than remove these notices. Shell 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many museums (at least in the U.S.) do own the copyright on images of their objects. They limit photography, let individuals use the photos for their stated project (book or whatever) and retain copyright over any use beyond that. I am not familiar with UK law at all, but the gallery's website states the following: "We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with the us and that any further reproduction deriving from the resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission." link to relevant page I'm not saying this person is right about these photos, but they certainly could be. I'm far from an expert in copyright law, but I am pursuing graduate studies in museum studies and this subject came up recently in one of my classes. Of course, they can claim that they have copyright and not actually have it as well. But they frequently do. Dina 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. For the US see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In the case of artwork that is public domain, images that merely reproduce the artwork can not be copyrighted because copyright protects creativity and there is nothing creative about making a reproduction. The purpose of limiting reproduction is to maintain the market for their own reproductions, of course, but while reproducing an image might violate the museum's agreement with whomever made the original photograph, its not a copyright violation on our part to host the image. I don't know about the UK. Thatcher131 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UK law is irrelavant as the Foundation has no presence in the UK. Raul654 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Without endorsing Raul654's comment, this has come up before. No action has been taken by the Foundation in this regard.--Brad Patrick 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Law school must have entire courses devoted to teaching how to write sentences like that. Thatcher131 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery are big enough and scary enough to take on Misplaced Pages if this were serious. They will have taken legal advice already. This is a token protest, they are probably advised not to risk a test case. The British Galleries collectively would not want to risk an outcome similar to the "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp" they prefer things left as vague as they are. Giano 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I take Brad's statement, deliberately content-free as it may have been, to suggest a reasonable course of action when this sort of thing arises--i.e., remove the notice as CalendarWatcher did and do nothing else. Certainly we cannot threaten institutions and we should not invoke the Foundation in doing so. Chick Bowen 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:12.154.254.227

This ip is vandalising those articles: Agim Ceku and Kosovo Protection Corps

I checked up on the history, and it looks like a content dispute to me. Also, f I could advise, when you revert, please leave in other people's changes in the meantime (e.g., you reverted this one too) - the undo button does well for this situation. -Patstuart 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Review of Indef block of SuperDeng

SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked, apparently without consultation. After a series of blocks for personal attacks and other bad behavior he was finally banned for one month with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng_II.

The ban was extended to two months for sockpuppetry. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as Lokqs (talk · contribs) (only after the ban) but also as The Green Fish (talk · contribs) (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation.

SuperDeng has e-mailed and posted numerous editors asking for the indef ban to be lifted. I think it should at least be reviewed. The choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (If he can't stop using sockpuppets, a rolling series of one month bans would amount to an indef ban anyway.) I don't have a strong opinion either way as I have never encountered him outside of my role as checkuser clerk. I think his complaint that an admin has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior, and the fact that his sockpuppets are so easily detected shows he hasn't yet learned how to work within our system. Thatcher131 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of much disruption from this user, therefore blocking him indefinitely without prior consultation was harsh. His habit of sockpuppeteering is ridiculous and even harmless, as he is dyslexic and easily recognizable. I urged him to stop using sockpuppets for no apparent reason. If he perseveres, I will support an indefinite ban. So far, I am inclined to give him another chance, as his behaviour is not really disruptive (if I don't ignore some compelling diffs, of course). --Ghirla 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not banned, only proscribed. I would suggest that if puppetry is the full extent of the problem then ArbCom is the logical step, and a request for an emergency injunction to use a single account pending what would presumably be a final resolution to the same effect, but I have not yet gone through the contribs in detail (I bet puppetry is not the only problem). For those others who wish to do so, these are the identified socks:

• Beenhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cvaltnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klingoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bignra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gipornm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fgbvnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mblafg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nickmolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toadfootre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be others. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. well, if those are socks, then I'd say he's a bit obsessive but not a vandal. Some of the edits are completely sound, others need taking to Talk, but there is some evidence of engagement in Talk - this does not look like your run-of-the-mill POV pusher, more like an editor with strong opinions. I'll go through the edits of the main account as well, I think, but there is nothing obviously wrong with several of the edits of the sock accounts, and none of them are self-evident vandalism or trolling. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture yet. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. Look at his block log. It's about a heck alot more than just using sockpuppets. Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1. If he doesn't deserve an indefinite block, no one does. He's written alot of people. And? And I'm sure he's given the same song and dance he has on his RfCU page, about how I'm biased and he's done nothing wrong. Um. 3RR vio. Wikistalking. Disruption. Sockpuppetry. There aren't alot of policies that he has NOT violated. So let's say someone ends the ban or shortens it. Looking at that block log and his talk page, does anyone seriously think that he's going to change? Mentorship will not work on someone who isn't willing to change and Deng has shown 0 inkling to change. He thinks that what he does is right. Look at his RfCU page. In late October, he actually claimed that he'd never used socks despite the numerous pieces of evidence. He has spent most of his time on the project blocked. I think that says it all. As for his socks, it's a continuation of what he's done in the past. He blanks other people's contribs. He refuses to take anyone else's thoughts into consideration. He stalked another user (Kurt Leyman) for a full 2 months, reverting every edit he could. He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution. He's called users stupid. He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes. That was during the spring. And this is the tip of the iceberg. "Go to ArbCom". WHY? So they can just confirm what I've said? There are clear cut cases where someone should be blocked indefinitely. This is one of those cases. --Woohookitty 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, found that, didn't get round to coming back and commenting (my bad). He can fuck off, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I mean, if this was just one vio and then sockpuppet use, I could see unblocking and giving him another shot. But he's been at this for a year now and yet he just continues on his merry way. He isn't going to change. --Woohookitty 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• (outdent) Deng is agitating for an unblock. The more I look at this, the more justified I think the block is. If anyone whats to help him get to ArbCom they are welcome, but I don't see much likelihood of any outcome other than a ban. As my friend Mr Larrington would have it: shoot him and burn the body. I'd link you to the source of that quote but due to an outbreak of frightfulness in the BRITONS' England, The Weekly is currently devoid of its illuminating and civilising content. Bah! Guy (Help!) 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I share the same view. As I stated above, some (including dmcdevit, who I respect greatly) have suggested arbcom but why waste their time on this? --Woohookitty 12:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really our call, IMO. They can, if they choose, dismiss the case as a righteous block - they have done that before. Little time is wasted in that case, and we have made every effort to be fair. If, on the other hand, ArbCom decide that there might be some merit in considering the case, that's their prerogative (yes that will suck in some of our time as well, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I somehow doubt they will accept, but I have not yet seen anything like a neutral statement of Deng's grievances. Maybe if he can document calmly what his problem is, he will be on the way to fixing the problem. And pigs might fly. In the end, though, I see not much to be lost and some to be gained from allowing Deng his day in court, even if the case is thrown out on day 1. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeals

It seems to me that a blocked or banned user has very limited means at their disposal to appeal the block or ban. If they want to go to ArbCom to appeal it, they will have to use a tedious mechanism of edits-by-proxy via email. The vast majority of bans are entirely uncontroversial, unambiguous trolls or other abusers of the project, but there are some users who get caught up in disputes which perhaps escalate beyond the point of no return, to the regret of all. I have now had two or three users email me about this kind of thing, and there is a discussion on WikiEN-L at the moment as well.

It seems to me that we have three ways of dealing with this:

1. Unblock the account on the strict understanding that it is used solely for the purpose of appealing the ban
2. Allow the person to edit anonymously or (for privacy) through an openly declared alternate account, again solely for the purposes of appealing the ban
3. Do nothing.

Or maybe some other option I haven't thought of (quite likely). I have to say that option 2 looks a bit contrived, but I also think that simply unblocking indef-blocked accounts is likely to be perceived as asking for trouble. If an account is restricted to WP:AMA and WP:RFAR, for example, I don't see it matters much either way whether it's a role account or the main one. That said, a carefully-worded exception to the ban evasion clause of WP:SOCK would not, in my view, expose the project to much risk, as the mechanism for dismissing frivolous cases at ArbCom appears to be reasonably effective.

Clearly this is not intended for the unambiguous cases, but for those where there is a decent history of productive edits with perhaps one spectacular piece of foolishness which is regretted in hindsight. nobs01 (talk · contribs) is an example: I believe he has a sincere desire to contribute to the project (and yes, he could always wait a month), but has discussed the issue in perfectly civil terms on WikiEN-l; it may be that a request to ArbCom would convert the ban to a topical ban or parole. Or I could just be falling prey to Mary Poppinsism again, who knows. Anyway, I thought I'd start a debate because it seems to me that we ought at least to think about it. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any examples offhand, but I thought historically this was handled by unblocking the account and limiting their participation like you suggested. I would think they could easily be blocked again if they didn't keep to the arbitration and advocate pages (or perhaps there talk page also) or if they continued whatever foolishness got them to this point in the first place. Its also possible that some of the folks over at WP:AMA might be willing to devote time to acting as proxy in the case that someone wasn't able to be unblocked for whatever reason. Shell 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding #2, beat to a pulp then beat the pulp. The last thing we need is official sockpuppets (no matter what the stated reason).

I would go with #1 or with #4, they post their arguments on their user talk page and ask another editor to post them here. This would only apply to community bans; arbcom bans must be appealed to arbcom. And regarding nobs specifically, his one year block expires on Christmas Eve eve (or Boxing Day minus 3, depending on your continent), which is way sooner than any arb proceeding is likely to take. Thatcher131 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, some requests are turned round pretty quickly. Cases not so, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is similar to that of Shell. The blocked editor can request arbitration through (ideally) an arbitrator or (if absolutely necessary) through some other trusted proxy individual. They can either request at the same time that they be unblocked for the purposes of participating in the arbitration (usually the Arbs are amenable to considering such requests, and I've seen Arbs make specific conditional unblock recommendations in their case acceptance statements) or request an injunction to that effect as soon as the arbitration case is opened (I've never seen such a request denied without very strong grounds).

In cases where an editor would like to have the length of his ban reduced, I would think that emailing an Arb requesting that a Motion in a Prior Case be filed would be sufficient; there's not necessarily a need for an entirely new Arb case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some banned editors have made it clear that they are not interested in participating in the dispute resolution process in any way except disruption. Others, yes, need ways to appeal, but those can usually be arranged either through their talk page or through e-mail. I do not see this as a major problem. Chick Bowen 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Need review of endless ongoing situation

The failure of an administrator to enforce an arbitration has resulted in a situation where a user keeps making edits, posting POV flags, and engaging in endless circular and idiosyncratic claims regarding the classification of far right groups.

See the recent request for enforcement and the long discussion which went nowhere here

See the requestr for another aDMIN TO REVIEW here

See the post today which is the exact claim that was refuted in arbitration and for which the user was placed on probation here

What is it going to take to enforce this arbitration? This is an enormous waste of editing time and energy.--Cberlet 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From a quick review, it looks to me like Intangible's edits on Far right have become disruptive. He has repeatedly added pov tags, seemingly on the theory that it is in principle impossible for Misplaced Pages to assemble a list of far-right or far-left groups. Tomorrow I will apply the arbcom remedy and ban him from the page for a week, unless I have misunderstood what is going on. Comments invited. Tom Harrison 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of arbcom decision might be one. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Intangible 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this list was absent from the far right article for almost five months, until User:Cberlet seemingly thought it was necessary to add it again to the article. I removed the sort-like list from far left after discussion on that article's talk page . Intangible 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else want to speak up? Tom Harrison 15:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have previously commented extensively at Talk:Far right, Talk:Progress Party (Norway) and Arbitration enforcement (the current as well as archived Intangible threads). You are free to consult any of my prior comments. However, since I am wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed, I've decided to sit this one out. Thatcher131 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think your analysis was well-informed, neutral and, um, adequate. At least adequete; maybe better. But I do think Intangible's work on Far right has become disruptive. His demand for a universally-agreed-upon definition is unreasonable, and his use of pov tags has had the effect of holding the page hostage to an impossible demand. I am banning him from Far right for one week under terms of his probation. Tom Harrison 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom campaigning images

T-shirts? --Ars Scriptor 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a premium Cafepress account; it could happen very, very easily. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I'll take 3 Tawkerbot for ArbCom t-shirts, size medium.

Seriously, so long as the campaign ads aren't giant signature banners or WP:NPA violations, I don't see any harm in it. --tjstrf talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and give me your credit card number while I print them up... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Political banners and slogans should be prohibited. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Like tjstrf said, as long as they aren't breaking actual rules, I don't have a problem with them. If they bleed over into other namespaces, it'd be a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx. This isn't the attitude that we want to foster: we want a healthy, co-operative community, not political parties and factions. Snoutwood (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If we start seeing banners that say "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" or something similar, then I'd agree that it runs counter to a co-operative community. Multiple users vying for a single position doesn't quite count (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's Australian, right? God only knows what he eats. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine_of_Australia#Unique_and_Iconic_Australian_foods - what the hell are those little '?' symbols against Vegemite and Marmite? Carcharoth 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against the election (that is, multiple users vying for a single position), I'm against people declaring political allegiances. Snoutwood (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just don't feel that declaring support for an ArbCom candidate is as decisive as declaring political allegiances (an admittedly US-centric attitude). I also just wanted to use "foo eats puppies" in a sentence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is internal advertising. "As long as they aren't breaking actual rules" is a meaningless reference to 'the rulebook', when the question at hand is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of advertisements. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The question, as you stated, is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of ads. My answer is no; the "they aren't breaking actual rules" bit is the rationale for my answer, not my answer out-and-out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that these should be deleted as per CSD T1: Templates of a divisive nature, but am refraining from doing so until there;s been some discussion. By their very essence, they promote campaigning and factioning, which shouldn't be the point of the election. This is a bad idea, and shouldn't continue. For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. Snoutwood (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah rulecreep. OK, this is how mine is used. Divisive? Bishonen | talk 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages cannot have political parties, just individuals. There's a difference between campaigning for a person and campaigning for a platform, and no sufficiently divisive issues have come up (which revolved around the arbcom at least) to be the basis for such a thing. The only thing even close to a party philosophy is deletionism/inclusionism, and those have nothing to do with arbcom. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hasten to point you to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion (et al.) and Misplaced Pages:Esperanza to give you two quick examples of Wikipedian political parties. They are certainly possible here, and very much exist: after all, all a party is made of individuals... The point is, having a big "VOTE FOR X" stamp promotes the idea that Misplaced Pages is about competing philosophies, not about writing an awesome collaborative encyclopedia. We are, or we should be, about consensus and common ground, not bickering, infighting, and creating divisions in the way that a "FloNight Party" or a "Daniel.Bryant Party" does. Snoutwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how ArbCom elections are run the probability of factions forming based on this is fairly small. They strike me as humorous boxes not doing any harm. If in the future there becomes a problem we can deal with it then. JoshuaZ 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

images != templates, so they can't be speedily deleted. You could run an IfD on them, though I doubt it'd pass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote myself several inches up this page: For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. To put it otherwise: if I take a photograph of a userbox, upload it, and transclude it on my userpage, does it magically cease to be a template because it's not in the same namespace anymore? Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh pshaw, that assumes that I'm going to actually read this thread. ;P

I still don't feel that it should be deleted as T1. If I happened across it (hypothetical situation, assuming this entire discussion hadn't happened), I wouldn't hesitate to remove the db tag and tell the user to send it through IfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm failing to see much of a problem with this at the moment.Geni 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Given their licensing, shouldn't they be on the commons? Steve block Talk 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These were clearly intended quasi-humorously, have had extremely limited dissemination, and probably more people are aware of them as a result of this thread on the noticeboard than were previously. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment was also clearly intended quasi-humorously. Steve block Talk 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, what about heading off the inevitable placement of these sort of endorsements in signatures. Even a seemingly innocuous "vote in the ArbCom elections" trailed in someone's signature could get lots of exposure, and could lead the unwary to a page endorsing various candidates and suggesting who to vote for. That would be something to stamp on. Hard.

I say limit such things to people's userspaces. Allow voters and candidates to have a notice on their talk page, and a page in their userspace to comment on the candidates and who they intend to vote for, but no campaigning on article talk pages. User talk pages only. Carcharoth 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting a link in a signature is a totally different issue and, I agree, should be prohibited.

Same with actively putting this on other people's talk pages (or anywhere else); the caveat for my opinion of keeping these images is that they are applied to a user's page only by that user. If I got one of these slapped somewhere (either as a false show of support or by someone trying to curry my support), I'd have a totally different attitude. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear up one or two things: firstly, I did not create any "bumpersticker", nor had any knowledge of such doing until someone posted on my user talk page. Although I did have the chance to say "no" to having mine used, I saw no real reason not to. The question here is "will these create divisions etc. within the community, therefore be a (loosely-interpreted) T1". My question to you is "how are these more divisive than any userbox that states your political affiliation/religious views"? Really... Daniel.Bryant 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Extension of response (I really should learn to read the whole thread before responding...): I totally agree with the stance of prohibiting placing these anywhere bar the userspace, and for this to occur, it must be the "owner" *cough* of the userspace who does it. Otherwise, as someone rightfully put, that is pushing your opinion onto someone else, and should be viewed with the same contempt as spam-canvassing messages to other users' page for XfD's etc. And, although I have no idea what my food of preference has to do with any of this, lets just say I don't eat puppies...nor Vegemite, for that matter :) Daniel.Bryant 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously we need a userbox to declare whether one is or is not in favour of arbcom election bumper stickers. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are at least four of these so far: Category:ArbCom bumper stickers. There are 34 candidates at the time of writing, so maybe we can look forward to another 30 of these. I'll vote for the one with the most inventive design... Carcharoth 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A genuine concern though. If people put these stickers on their pages to show who they intend to vote for, then the image page (which shows where the images are being used) becomes a "endorsement page" by the back door. Judging from the bad stories I heard about this last time, this might be a bad idea. Carcharoth 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: what parties? I don't see a huge partisan split among the candidates. Ok, so I'm known for being one way, but a half dozen other candidates are in general agreement with me on the critical matters. Phil Sandifer, for example, is known for being the other way. There are perhaps three or four other candidates who would agree on the practices. I don't see where any of the candidates has grandstanded on a wiki-political issue, so I don't see where we can really get parties forming. I don't see the "deletionist/inclusionist" split operative on ArbCom selection, and we don't have folks who "lost" a divisive RFAR swearing vengeance, so I'm not sure that this particular election can, at least with the present prominent candidates, generate much heat.

Then again, the bumperstickers are parodies. The people who have made the ones I've seen have been joking, both about the idea of "campaigning" and the idea of there being political parties at Misplaced Pages. People can take those jokes the wrong way, infamously so, but none of the bumpersticker creators, that I know of, has been guilty of anything but puckishness. Geogre 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite. And if they get deleted I will climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to protest. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a small sidebet on Guy shoehorning WP:NCR into fifteen more threads before Christmas :) Proto::type 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Phil Sandifer is known for being the other way" - sorry, but I had a real Allo! Allo! moment when you said that - flashback to the "Is he one of us?" "No, he's one of them!" scene in a very early episode :-). --Sam Blanning 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I created Category:ArbCom bumper stickers to start tracking these. Personally, I think they're a bad idea and I'd prefer they all went away. I don't think we should add !campaign to !vote in the Misplaced Pages lexicon. —Doug Bell  10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that category is a bad idea. These images were supposed to be mostly harmless fun, now your category makes them look like an official part of the election, not like the bumper sticker parodies they really are. Kusma (討論) 11:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if all the images get deleted, you can speedy the category. :-) I don't see where the category makes them official more than someone encountering one on a user page, which is how the vast majority of people will encounter them. Delete 'em all. —Doug Bell  11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there's so much fuzz about so trivial a matter. All Wikipedians have the right to voice their opinions on their talk pages, which they do by posting stickers. This is a very small scale development which needs not be discussed at such a length. When you started a category, you lumped all of these individual things together, representing them as a sort of "phenomenon", which is plain wrong. I would rather address the issue of massive campaigning on IRC, as it seems to be more annoying and divisive. --Ghirla 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine if people want to express their opinion on their user page. However, how about we give opinions a chance instead of starting down the road to slogans. Next thing you know we'll have sound bites and animated GIFs. —Doug Bell  13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I like the images as parody, I don't like them as a campaigning tool, that is people using them on userpages to show who they support. I don't like the idea of the Arbcom elections becoming associated with the adversarial, negative campaigning style of political elections (particularly American ones). There may be people running for the same position, but we aren't running against each other in the same way that politicians are. Whereas political elections are generally about ideology, our elections are more about experience, judgement and other qualifications - or at least they were. --Sam Blanning 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Secret ballot, anyone? ;-) Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone so rightfully mentioned above with the "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" example, I reckon these are just a little bit of "quasi-humour" (NYB), and provided they don't change from this into what could broadly interpreted as a personal attack against other candidates, this intent won't change. Daniel.Bryant 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyrights

This page has (as of right now) the wording:

"In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)."

Someone pointed out the inconsistency with WP:FUC and recent enforcement efforts, and I figured it was a simple matter of fixing this to refeer to the state of the actual fair use policy itself. But after a couple objections I was reverted because aparently this "unilateral policy change" had not been debated at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights itself. Pointing to miles of debates elsewhere and pointing out that WP:FUC and WP:CSD disagree with the wording on the page had no effect and they insist that this is not sufficient consensus to change such a central policy page and so forth... I was half way though writing a lengtgy sarcastic rant about how silly it is to insist that one our of 3 policy pages remain unchanged and "out of step" with the other two pending further disuccsion, all the while the two oher policy pages are the ones that are beeing actively enforced, but I though better of it and descided it may be more productive to see if anyone else have any ideas on how to resolve this without causing more drama. --Sherool (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone can tell me how these recent enforcements came about, please let me know on my talk page. I don't understand why fair use images used in the proper articles and the correct templates and rationales are suddenly being deleted either. - Mgm| 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Stbalbach

User:Stbalbach has threatened to "complain loudly across boards and mailing lists" about my "BS" with regard to Template:Cquote, on which I am purportedly "playing games" and "not operating in good faith", but like "a 2 year old". I would be happy to reverse these changes to a protected high-use template—which were the result of unanimous agreement on Template talk:Cquote—on reasonable request, but threats do not a reasonable request make, and these threats have not been accompanied by any explanation of why the decision in the discussion on the talk page be wrong. I don't think threats and insults like this are appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for seven days. Appropriate? -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is excessive. The user appears to be a productive contributor, though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others and is ironically fitting with respect to the sort of threat. —Centrx→talk • 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright; I've shortened it to fifty hours. Sorry, my judgment on block lengths in not-so-straightforward situations may be imperfect. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I am also in - hopefully polite - disagreement with Centrx about Cquote). While I agree User:Stbalbach has gone a bit overboard, I don't think a block for his behaviour is warranted, especially since he wasn't warned. Besides, I see nothing in WP:BLOCK that allows a user to be blocked for a threat to complain. Note well: complain... not sue, or physically attack. Mikker 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agh... I'll leave to you all to decide. You do have a point though, Mikk, but I don't want to tweak the block again. -- tariqabjotu 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are personal attack/assuming bad faith issues separate from any threats about complaining. Regarding complaints, he was threatening to raise all hell upon me over the matter. He had already stated in a previous comment that he would bring the matter up with other administrators if need be; the subsequent comment is above and beyond that, specifically in order to intimidate me into doing what he wanted (restore it or else). I think it is borderline whether this warranted a block, but it is unequivocally wrong behavior. —Centrx→talk • 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Centrx, Stbalbach's behaviour was "unequivocally wrong", but blocking him for it is also unquestionably not in line with policy. WP:BLOCK allows blocks for those who enagage in "personal attacks which place users in danger" or engage in "persistent personal attacks" . Stbalbach didn't place you in danger, nor did he persist in violating NPA after being warned. Ergo he should be unblocked. Mikker 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocking policy is to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and contains specific examples for that purpose. These are personal attacks and disruption, conduct that is "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". A block does serve the purpose of preventing such infractions temporarily and discouraging them in the future. The question of whether a block is warranted is whether that same purpose could have been served as well or better by a simple warning. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; but I still disagree with the block. Anyhow, I've said my piece - it's up to others to decide. Mikker 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't behaviour that merits a block. Neither you nor Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu appear to be displaying much sense of proportion. Stbalbach has contributed since 2004 without being blocked, including on controversial articles like Movement to impeach George W. Bush, so snide asides like "though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others" are quite unnecessary, and more than likely entirely mistaken. They certainly are in my limited experience of the editor in question. Your own behaviour, making non-trivial edits to a protected template, and then ignoring the complaints from mere editors, is not such as to get any sympathy from me. Edit summaries like "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia as opposed to a children's television program" aren't best designed to avoid conflict either. There's a depressingly familiar air about the whole thing. Certainly no editor would have been blocked had the recipient of the comments complained of not been an admin, of that I am certain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu hey, hey! not necessary! -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no snide comments, I made the change after it had been brought up over the course of months by a dozen editors, in which time no one at all objected, and I reverted it back when a second editor requested it without being vicious. It is really quite that simple and requires none of the wild presumptions you are making. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The one-week block of a prolific editor in good standing was appalling, however. --Ghirla 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I get it. -- tariqabjotu 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dermo and User:Dermo69

These two accounts are apparently operated by the same user. Dermo69 edits while the user and talk pages are redirected to Dermo which makes checking contributions more difficult and seems a little out of step with WP:USERNAME. I've noticed several of Dermo69's recent edits that have raised eyebrows, e.g. an undiscussed move of Nirvana (band) and insisting on the inclusion of unsourced material on Scanger. I've dropped him a note about editing under one account, but am not entirely sure of precedent / exact procedure on this. Thoughts? Deizio talk 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "dermo" means "shit" in Russian. Just in case. --Ghirla 08:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• They appear to be Irish, so the username is probably just an unfortunate mishap. I've seen a lot of trouble on his talk, but I'd wait a few hours to see if he complies before blocking about the double account thing. - Mgm| 13:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Merchant again

Well, I will continue to post this here until someone decides to check the page out :-P I just need a quick answer: if the information about the artist's husband name and daughter is public (as in, already published in a reliable site, check here), can the information be reproduced in Misplaced Pages? As I am involved in the reverting process (I do think it is correct to include such information, as it has no birth date), I can't semi protect the page. And since I just gave him a 3RR warning (which looks pretty much like any of the warnings he has received this month), he cannot be blocked due 3RR (although he reverted the article 9 times in the last two days). Advice? And yes, I have already reported this to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but I don't have any hopes of getting help from there as they are backlogged as no other noticeboard. Tried to get him to discuss, but he apparently is not interested. Reporting this to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection would not help because he is not interested in discussing.

Unluckily, with no real solution, I would leave the article war edit for a couple of weeks and then full protect it to force him sit down and discuss. And in case you haven't heard from my previous posts here, the article has been in edit war for 7 months by now under different users, with this ip this month. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's done on another site doesn't mean it's appropriate. The primary point is: does it serve the article? My belief is that it doesn't. Furthermore, it could encourage stalking - or at least gawking - by people who go to school with the girl, etc. That information may sorta be public now, but not as public as it would be on Misplaced Pages.

On a side note, Jimbo has some very pointed statements about this on the talk page of the article about him. He makes general statements about this information being actually a form of original research. He's just another editor and his opinion doesn't have any more weight than any other, but I found this statement to be pretty insightful.NinaEliza 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)PS - I'm not an admin, so take my statements with a grain of salt:).NinaEliza 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with including the names. I'd be more careful with information about where they live. I have this information for the person I created an article on, but I am not including it on purpose because it could encourage stalkers and other troublemakers to seek them out. I'm actually surprised my source gave the information. If it's a large city like Kyoto, it's okay. I'd avoid the small villages. - Mgm| 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations backlog

Where's Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations is excellent for spotting obvious copyvios, but if anybody can lend a hand, I need some help keeping the backlog cleared up. --Interiot 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the page went out of my watch list. Giving a hand now. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Username with non-Latin characters

Found this new user ﾗｺﾘﾆﾋﾆﾗﾐ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) watching Naruto-related articles. While the name already is a violation of WP:USERNAME, I've had to revert some vandalism () and spam (, ) from this user. Should anything be done with him? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(S)he should be warned, both about the vandalism and about the username. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reporting to AIV, seems like she should get immediate block. -Patstuart 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked per violation of WP:USERNAME. --physicq (c) 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Usernames containing non-Latin characters

This user has been told several times to change his username, due to the non-Latin characters that exist in it. However, he has repeatedly refused to do so, noting in September 2006 that "Thank you for your concern, but this is my name and I have no intentions of changing it." About two weeks ago, Mets501 apparently offered up a compromise (which he presumably accepted) whereby the user would register User:Yamaguchi and just redirect that to his page. However, I'm unsure whether that solves the issue; the non-Latin characters still appear in the article histories, among other places. So, is that compromise sufficient, or must Yamaguchi change his/her username? -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to only be a redirect, no real user exists by "Yamaguchi". I'd say do a username change to the all-latin one, he can continue to sign with "先生" if he wishes. – Chacor 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered explaining to him that he can edit his "signature" to his hearts content? I bet he's seen it on other people's posts. That might get him to change his name....just a thoughtNinaEliza 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that I have had this account many months before any such Euro-centric policy was put in place. If it comes down to these type of threats despite my long service to Misplaced Pages, I will have no regrets leaving this project. Yamaguchi先生 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have such an aversion to change usernames. You can change it to Yamaguchi, and still maintain your signature. -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good example for why we may need to rethink this policy. JoshuaZ 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason a valid and long term contributor to wikipedia should be forced to comply with a policy enacted AFTER he came to wiki ... thats simply unfair.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. There is no reason to force a name change, at minimum this should allowed until after the single login process is complete to see if policy changes at that time. VegaDark 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If people can now register meta-wiki accounts that are valid across all the WP projects and languages, how can en.wikipedia maintain this rule? Anchoress 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi,

I'm a black girl in the ole' US of A, so please believe me when I say I understand the concept of Eurocentric bias. However, I don't think that's the case here. For one thing, no-one can read your non-latin additions - or at least I can't, I just see two little boxes. The second thing is that your signature could be totally non-latin, if you wished it (I've seen that, at least). I don't know what the policy is exactly, but I'm sure the admins could weigh in. Just please consider it - I hope you don't leave Misplaced Pages over this (or anything else).NinaEliza 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Though the reason for the policy may be technical, the technical limitation itself represents a bias. It's one thing to ask new users to change their username, but longstanding users should not be required to do so. Chick Bowen 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should probably consider deprecating this portion of policy, as it runs contrary to meta:Single login specifications (SUL) and does not address the grandfathering of accounts registered prior to March 15, 2006 when this policy change was made. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This section above is the perfect reason why the policy should exist. How the heck are we supposed to differentiate between two people with different Japanese characters? Forgive me (and my English, euro-centered thinking, honestly), but I have no Japanese experience, and honestly, I don't think I should need it, seeing as this is the English Misplaced Pages. -Patstuart 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. If we ignore the "bias" here, and the SUL issue, there is good reason for having this rule for the English Misplaced Pages (and for most Wikipedias). If I'm engaging in discussion with Patstuart, I'll just say his name, or maybe Pat. But with an all-Japanese, all-Korean, all-Arabic, etc. username, that's not so easy. It would be nice if some sort of transliteration could be associated with usernames under SUL to make things easier for those Wikipedias unlikely to have many users with keyboards that can handle non-Latin characters. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a really easy and friendly solution to this; instead of asking for roman characters in the user's name and then telling them they can use non-roman in their signatures, why not the other way around? Ask users with non-roman usernames to use roman (or romanesque lol) signatures, for ease of communication with other editors. Anchoress 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not a bad idea (does SUL have single-signature?). -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Dammit, edit conflicted with Anchoress and he said close to what I was going to say: While I'd prefer the rule for convenience at least in its current form it is going to run afoul of the SUL when that's implemented. I strongly suggest we at least for now drop the policy and discuss a better one. Possibly we can add a policy encouraging such users to have signatures which include a transliteration of their usernames? JoshuaZ 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The idea of using roman-alphabet signatures when an editor has a non-roman-alphabet username works for talk pages and places where people sign their signature. It doesn't work when you are looking at a history page or recent changes, as those pages show the username, not what appears in the signature. Carcharoth 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think people will be throwing hints at racism in a few minutes. This bit is about the English Misplaced Pages and not about any euro-centric biases or anything. I live in India, and I do not have any kind of Hindi/Urdu symbol in my username. Why? I understand it causes difficulties, to users and administrators; and that is the reason why we have the WP:USERNAME policy. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and not to fulfill our fantasies. It is a project where we don't derieve anything but self-satisfaction. Arguing that this policy did not exist when the user joined the project is lame and ludicrous. I honestly don't want this user to go, I think she's a fabulous user; but in no way I will accept this policy and possibly give an upper hand to vandals and problem users who will exploit this loophole to vandalise / troll a minute or more further. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to decide on the SUL issue, this should go to Meta. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend allowing this specific user to keep their name as a "grandfather clause", due their choosing this handle before policy was enacted. That would not allow new users or vandals to make similar names. AnonEMouse 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the rule could be changed so that usernames require 75% or more latin characters. It would allow Yamaguchi to keep his name, and would allow people to identify users based on the latin characters. VegaDark 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask. Why does anyone care, why are we making an issue out of nothing? Does it really matter that you can't see Yamaguchi's 先生? Sure, some usernames are impossible to get at, and impossibly to refer to, and if the user wasn't an active constructive editor, I wouldn't mind. But when you get absolutely stupid needless blocks such as for User:° based on this stupid application of twatty rules, something is wrong, the pencil pushers have taken over. - hahnchen 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is given on the WP:USERNAME page. For many people those character don't render (me included) coming out as little boxes or question marks (i.e. each character is indistinguishable), look at an article history and see the list of authors as indistinguishable, not too useful. That is why there is no issue with these in signatures where it is little more than an incovenience if it doesn't render, since you can still see the underlying username by "hovering" over the link. "based on this stupid application of twatty rules" - the kind of quality argument I would hope most people gave up years ago, this is the school playground argument every rule I disagree with it "twatty". We are a project to build an encyclopedia, we put all sorts of practical restrictions in place to meet that goal, this is no different, if you want a place to show off your artistic ability or cleverness in picking a username there are plenty of other sites which exist to let you do that. --pgk 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I envisaged that anyone reading my previous statement would have a sense of humour or some sense of imagination. Maybe pedantic would have been a better word, or turning a blind eye a better phrase. But I fail to see how indef-blocking a constructive user such as User:° is of benefit to the encyclopedia. I know we all love bureaucracy and doing things by the book, but some discretion really wouldn't hurt. If your browser cannot display the degree symbol, then something is wrong with your browser. Sure, it might be a little harder to navigate to their user page, but was that even a big problem? - hahnchen 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My sense of humour is fine thanks, though maybe I should get that checked since I can't see anything vaguely humorous in your comment, nor do I see where imagination comes into it. Your point here is far nearer my own view on the subject, apply some common sense if someone has made numerous good edits then jumping in and blocking is foolish as is the start of this "they have been told" (again perhaps to the playground, the prefects have told you...). Hopefully we are all trying to reach the same goal and some reasonable discussion will resolve the position or we have RFCs specifically for username issues. As above I agree with the policy and for the issue it would be better if the software stopped those names being entered or we block them at creation, the reasoning being as above and for the other WP:BEANS reason. --pgk 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests

CAT:PER has been backlogged for over 48 hours now, and it has 16 items now (so the number is growing). --ais523 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trial in DYK

If any admins have fancied updating the Did you know section of the Main Page but haven't been able to find the full 30+ mins to go through the entire procedure, a trial is currently being carried out to make the job of updating a bit easier. Rather than browsing through the list of suggestions and evaluating each one individually, the template is now being prepared beforehand at Template:Did you know/Next update. Just paste the new template over the last when updating is required, make sure the image is protected, and add the talk page notices. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If this system is implemented, there should be strict control over T:TDYK. There is a lot of trash here which the updaters decide not to promote in each individual case. Grammatical mistakes, typos and "4th century" should be rooted out. It would be embarrassing to see them on Main Page. --Ghirla 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what's the problem with "4th century"? I know it's tied to one culture's dating system, but what's a better alternative? Or is your point that it should be "Fourth Century"? Newyorkbrad 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that for the moment, the "next update" template isn't protected. Part of the idea was that anyone can fix errors on it before the entries hit the Main Page. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Still, a pretty good idea. Picking the items before hand cuts down a lot on the time you spend updating. In fact I was wondering about such a system myself. -- 131.211.210.16 12:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfair and biased deletion notice

Gang, I seriously am sorry for putting this on the noticeboard, but I did not see any other place for it. I really have to say that this deletion notice is turning into what appears to be a heavily biased, unfair group of people who want this article deleted simply becuase they dont like it. The entire nomination was started by someone who was upset that Warrant Officer (Star Trek) had been undeleted and stated that "this had prompted him" to nominte the "parent article" for deletion . The nominator and voters to date are saying "its original research", "its not sourced", "it doesnt belong on Misplaced Pages". The article could use a cleanup, BUT- it is extremely well referenced and has been written and worked on for over a year. It contains very valid sources and references to live action productions and other estalished, referenced material. I simply do not understand why this many people would come out of the woodwork this quickly (I count at least 7 or 8 in the past hour) to try thier damnest to delete this article. SO- what am I asking? If it is possible- lets put a stop to this VfD. The comments on the page are biased and unfair and are dismissing the work and research into this article. I would say, what for deletion review, bu the same people will visit that page and express thier views there as well. This is a well referenced article that doesnt deserve to simply be wiped off Misplaced Pages. Someone put a stop to this, before its too late. Thank you. -Husnock 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I see the problem. This appears to be a debate about the reliability of the sources. At first glance I can't see anything wrong with them, so if I remember I'll take a further look (MacGyverMagic - too lazy to login) = 131.211.210.16 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would delete this post if I weren't the AFD nominator Husnock is complaining about, as AN is really, really not the place for such a discussion. There is an AFD on the article, and discussions should take place there. Please don't spam other boards because you dislike the way an AFD seems to be going. Proto::type 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • EC, agree with Proto. Settle it at AfD. Deizio talk 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with spamming boards. I looked for an appropriate board to post this at but couldn't find one. Where does one go when there appears to be an unfair VfD in progress? And this does seems to be an unfair VfD based on conflicting motivations, especially with the admission that the undeletion of the Warrant Officer rank article is the primary reason that its parent article was nominated for deletion. I am asking admins look into this, since te group voting appears to be completely dismissing the sources of the article and I'm trying to stop the deletion of a heavily researched and well referenced article. -Husnock 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So everyone except you is wrong and has a hidden, possibly evil, agenda?  :) In all seriousness, the AFD (nb, not VFD) really is the place for these discussions. If the closing administrator believes any nominations or AFD contributions are in bad faith, or biased, they can - and do - discount those peoples' arguments. The process to discuss an AFD if you believe there were procedural errors after it has run its course is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Proto::type 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm wrong alot too. I'm just saying there should be some path for those who feel an article has been unfairly nominated. I mean, when you get right down it, whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Misplaced Pages as a prank one Saturday night? I recall Jesus Christ was almost nominated for deletion once. This article will probably be killed, sadly, but it deserves better. I am going to try and rebuild it into a much better article. A cleanup notice would have been nicer that a deletion tag, especially with the work that has gone into this article. -Husnock 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Misplaced Pages as a prank one Saturday night? Well, for one thing, AfDs run for 5 days. For another, AfDs are NOT decided by majority vote. For a third, if there is evidence of mass collusion that involves vandalism (as is certainly the case were a BUNCH of good articles to be proposed for deletion by a GROUP of novice editors), then administrators would certainly step in, and this might be a good place - hypothetically - to bring such a situation to administrator attention.

More constructively: it's perfectly okay to improve an article in the middle of an AfD, even if it's just putting up a few more links, and to mention that in the AfD process.

The system for deleting articles isn't perfect, but it's absolutely necessary, and it generally works well - and that system includes deletion review, as noted above, so an incorrect AfD decision can be reversed. And as you note, the article can always be revised/rewritten to a better version and reposted; but do make sure it's REALLY much better before it goes back up. John Broughton | Talk 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, a checkuser could step in and range-block the dorm. It wouldn't be the first time either. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, by posting here an in the tone that you have, Husnock, you basically are claiming that the nominator and anyone voting delete on the article is acting in bad faith. You claim the AfD is "unfair". And how, exactly, did you determine that? If an article is nominated for AfD, then it should be judged on the merits of the article. If the article can be cleaned up, it's contengent upon those who wish to keep it to clean it up, source it, etc. If the consensus is to delete, then it's deleted, otherwise it's kept. If there are 500 baseless delete votes based on "Ihateit" and 2 keep votes with solid policy backing them, the article should be kept. By bringing this to AN you are suggesting that this article (and by extension anything you feel should not be deleted) should be exempted from the normal way of handling business on WP. Contemptible. --Elaragirl 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My main intent here was to discover what one could do while the vote is going on to stop an unfair AfD. My judgement of unfair was that the article was totally sourced with references and was marked for deletion by others anyway. I even posted to the talk page of the AfD page so those voting could come here and respond to this to be fair to them. I have my answer now, though, and its sad. The article will die but I will try and rebuilt it later. -Husnock 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 - if you choose to do so, you will need to ensure that it is not substantially similar to the deleted content. Proto::type 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a good idea of how to proceed. And how do I get my own Attack page! Can I sick it on vandals? -Husnock 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Elara hit the nail on the head- "contemptible." Husnock, if your RfA was right now instead of many months ago, I would have written something along the lines of "strongest possible oppose." This AfD- like 99.9% of AfDs- has nothing to do with "fairness". There's no vast conspiracy, there are no editors going behind your back to get rid of your work, and you should be ashamed for 1) claiming ownership of an article and 2) claiming other editors are acting in bad faith without any support for that claim (besides disagreeing with them). -- Kicking222 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know anything about an RfA coming up, mine was over a year ago, and I never claimed ownership of the article. I was just fighting to defend it and, as explained many times, I posted here becuase I didn't know where else to go and was wondering what recourse one had if an article was unfairly nominated for deletion. I also never abused my admin powers and didnt block voters and won't recreate the article. I did put some of it on my user page to save the images and will try and rebuild it into a better article. I am ashamed of nothing, not my contributions to Misplaced Pages nor my life in the real world. -Husnock 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The images will not be fair use on a subpage your user space. As an administrator, again, you should know this. And the pedant in me has to point out your RFA was in January, not over a year ago. Proto::type 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not displaying any of those images on my user page, since I am very aware of the regs about that (had another huge disute about that one, but thank goodness it has quieted down). And, okay, it was 11 months ago, excuse my bad math and poor memory, I thought it was longer. -Husnock 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, sorry - was about to amend my comment as I did notice you had just inlined the images, which is okay, I believe. Although there are users with a better crasp of fair use than I who can say whether or not it's ok to keep the images stored in a big gallery if the article they are hosted on were deleted. Proto::type 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, I suspect by now that you realise you have made a bit of a fool of yourself. That's no big deal, I don't think I've done that for - oh, at least several hours. I suspect, too, that you now see that your action was quite likely counter-productive, since a number of us who went to the AfD from here have read the article and find it - problematic, to say the least. Fancruft is another term which, I think, expresses precisely how a number of us feel about conjectural articles on minor facets of fictional subjects which are essentially undocumented outside of the fan community. I thought there was a Star Trek wiki somewhere for this kind of stuff? It certainly does not fit within our policies, and the purported basis for bringing it here is, to my reading, misguided at best. Not that I blame you for working to keep an article you've put effort into, but you really should be more willing to accept the actions of others at face value rather than trying to read something into it, and comparing this article to Jesus Christ, as you appear to do in the AfD, is absurd to say the least. I'm sorry this thread got resurrected, I deleted it because I thought it was going to end up with you digging your own hole deeper, and I believe that is exactly what happened. Not an edifying debate. And now, friends, I suggest we walk away and leave our comrade to ponder the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No I dont think I made a fool of myself. I defended an article to the best of my ability and will write a better one that will be able to withstand a VfD. As for the Jesus Christ reference, I never compared my article to Christ, I said that there had once been a nomination for deletion on Jesus Christ and I was asking what course was there to have the validity of an AfD reviewed while the vote was still going on. I stand by every action and defend every word. -Husnock 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand just closed the AfD as a bad faith nom. This seems incorrect and uneccessarily out of process. JoshuaZ 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm sad but it does seem strange. I thought for sure the article was a goner and had made plans for a complete re-write. -Husnock 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the early closure was a bizarrely bad idea. A few people mentioned this to Betacommand but he seems to be sticking to his guns. Friday (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And now an edit war has broken out over the closure. I wasn't going to vote, but I agree with Joshua and Friday that the early closure seems out of process and bizarrre. AnnH ♫ 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop closing this discussion early. The guidelines for early discussion closure can be found at Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep, none of which apply to the discussion. There is clearly an on-going discussion that will require more than a mere 4 hours to achieve consensus and to cover the points raised. AFD has minimum 5 day discussion period for a reason, and the presumption of a "keep" result by Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bastique (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after 4 hours is just as bad as the presumption by Husnock (talk · contribs) of a "delete" result after 2 hours. Please follow the guidelines and let the discussion proceed normally. All of the discussion about the closure is taking the debate away from what it should be about: the article, its sources, and how our policies apply. Uncle G 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I concur: this is not a speedy keep (and I'm not sure that anything needs to be a speedy keep in the first place). If a bad faith nomination were to occur, it would mean that a person did not believe that an article violated the deletion guidelines but nominated anyway, simply to harm another user. If that were to occur, the "voters" wouldn't go along with it. Removing nominations is shady business. By the way, the Star Trek wiki or site is Memory Alpha, isn't it? Geogre 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• They would if the users dislike material of a certain fictional universe. - Mgm| 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Do you really think that the voters, and enough of them to get preponderance, would act so reflexively? Even if they did, the closer should be reading the arguments rather than the votes, and if people only "vote" with "Star Trek? Pbbbt! B5 rules," then it will be a clear keep. It didn't look like that was the case, here. Geogre 11:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Illustrative comics

There is a new WikiProject dedicated to creating illustrative comics for articles, such as the one on the right. An editor on the Village Pump disputes this practice, calling it clutter. Do we like this idea or is it not encyclopedic? Please respond on the wikiproject's talk page. (Radiant) 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they're brilliant. I'd like to see an illustrated version of WP:NOT. Proto::type 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very clever. I'm sure that will impress our critics. Thatcher131 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

They're brilliant, high-quality, inspired, clever illustrations—that belong in some other project. They really are superb, but I don't think that they suit our encyclopedic style. I wish the artist the best of luck with his Wikibook or other publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm racking my brains to justify how they could fit in. After all, we do have spoken word versions of articles, although that's more of an "access for all" thing. They certainly could go on Wikibooks but be linked to on via a little template on their 'parent articles'. Proto::type 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This may make more sense to bring up somewhere on meta. JoshuaZ 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely a link on the talk page is enough. Martin 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a custom drawing in a comic-related article like Hammerspace might be defensible; after all, the illustrations in science articles are often conceptual illustrations, and regarding Hammerspace specifically, any actual image will be copyrighted and fair use, so a non-fair use image might be preferable. However, I can not see any value in an article about non-comic related topics. Is there a kids wikipedia or wikipedia junior? Thatcher131 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely with TenOfAllTrades says. Delightful, well done, and not suitible for Misplaced Pages articles. -- Infrogmation 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I raised 5 points on the village pump (not just "calling it clutter"), I'll add them here.

1. The images are just not right for encyclopedic articles, even just as links (they are cartoons after all).
2. The template used to distribute the images is clearly a self reference.
3. The whole idea seems very spammy/self promotion.
4. The idea does seem to have been discussed at all.
5. We already have too much template clutter as it is.

Maybe the community can consider links on talk pages, or even a new illustrated wiki or something. Martin 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If all of the illustrative comics tend to be of the same quality as the image to the right then they surely will be brillant additions to the project. Bravo! (→Netscott) 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mightn't it be possible to put them on Commons (where they surely fit the inclusion guidelines), and then link to them with a sister-project template? --ais523 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a well-recognized panelological genre and is not limited to children's literature (see for example The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick. Whether this format is suited for Misplaced Pages articles is a separate question, of course, but the intellectual level or complexity of the contribution doesn't correllate to the format. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't spammy/self promotional at all since if you notice it isn't the author who is inserting them. I think they are fine to be linked to, and where it fits, added fully.pschemp | talk 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll notice, the author is repeatedly inserting the images. Regardless, the main question is are they suitable. Martin 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NOT comment (which I understand was intended to be sarcastic) actually got me thinking. Using comics as illustrations will usually be inappropriate in an encyclopedia (except in an article on a comic), but, if done right, they could be appropriate in WP space to illustrate policy, guidelines, etc. JChap2007 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Commons does this on their image licencing page:Image:BD-propagande colour en.jpg. 68.39.174.238 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comics have the problem that the text in them is not editable. This creates an encyclopedia anyone can edit, except for text that has been cleverly made read-only by burning it into an image. Not good for finding consensus. Weregerbil 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the comic above is pretty boring, this kind of simple illustrated example would work well on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. - hahnchen 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Eek! Lordamighty, the last thing we need to do is try to take our articles more toward the Classics Illustrated mode. It's wonderful that people like drawing pictures, and a fully graphic encyclopedia somewhere else is an idea. It is NOT right. This is such a prima facia bad idea that we really shouldn't have to debate it. Geogre 02:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting these on simple, or creating a wikia or somesuch to host an illustrated encyclopedia, could provide a nice home for these. If this had just been proposed in text, without an example, I would've said it was a terrible idea, but the illustrations are just too well-done not to use them somewhere. The popularity of the cartoon guide to... series (I've heard of Cartoon Guide to Genetics being used as a high school textbook!) indicates an existing market for this sort of thing. Also nth-ing the idea of doing similar things for policies and guidelines in wikipedia space, or corresponding dicta on meta. Opabinia regalis 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page says "In cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation". Is it? The guy is Tampa-based, so it seems probable.

Maybe it doesn't belong on "en.wikipedia.org", but as an experiment, I can see trying out a "cartoon.wikipedia.org" space. Creating the policy pages, as someone put it, would be a bear, though I look forward to seeing how he'd handle WP:3RR. --Calton | Talk 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that his cartoons would work great as a WikiReader type project on Misplaced Pages. - hahnchen 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Caricatures instead

What would people say to the suggestion that we ask the artist in question to perhaps create caricatures of people for whom finding free to use photo's is hard? This would allow us a free to use image and make sure any copyrighted images of such people were used only when fair use really did apply, for example when discussing a particular image or where the image illustrates a point. Any thoughts? Steve block Talk 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but could have NPOV issues based on how the people were depicte. For example, if Ross Perot's ears were shown as larger than they are would that be an issue? How close to actual proportions should they be? etc. However, it is an interesting idea. JoshuaZ 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone did a sketch based on an unfree image, but releasd the sketch via GFDL (or the appropriate CC one for Misplaced Pages), would we be allowed to use this image? Proto::type 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of an old discussion. We have consistently favored line art for things that we either cannot or should not present photographs of (various anatomical features and organs, e.g.), and this would be little different. It would be a neat thing, as a stop-gap, if a skilled free hand depiction were used. As for the copyright status, I am no lawyer, but I really, really doubt that it would stick, if this were a wholly new, though "inspired" portrait. After all, most paintings are based on previous paintings, photographs, etc. If a portrait painter did the work from a photo instead of making the sitter pose for days at a time (as is usually the case these days), that painter would be unable to claim copyright of the painting, unless it were the case that working from the photo did not carry with it rights to the photographer. Geogre 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Legally, I think caricature is protected from defamation law by being for the purposes of satire. Regarding the NPOV point, maybe it would inspire people to get Misplaced Pages compatible images? Going a little further though, we used to, in the UK, have a programme called Spitting Image, which used puppetry to caricature, and politicians and celebrities actually felt honoured to have been caricatured in such a manner. There will always be the danger of NPOV debate about images on some scale, for example if we illustrate an article on Ross Perot showing him doing something illegal, even if that's the only free to use image we have? Steve block Talk 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The artist insists his name be on the images so the images are not free enough for wikipedia. How many useful images have been deleted because they were not free enough? And now this with the guy's name on each one??? Take it to Wikia. It will fit in nicely between two advertizements. 4.250.198.224 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The license is suitable, why should we remove his name from the artwork? It's a Creative Commons license which asks for attribution, even if you removed his name from the image, you'd still have to let people know who drew it. Hence, why remove the name? - hahnchen 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's got a fairly good, secure job as a newspaper layout designer, he's not using this to promote himself and become a fulltime cartoonist, a very unguaranteed profession. -- Zanimum 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea, if it is not compatible with Misplaced Pages, contact me and I will personally set up a private Wiki running MediaWiki for this project. HighInBC 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proxy vandals?

Wikibooks has had troubles in the last few days with multi-IP vandalism attacks which include full or partial page blanking and nonsense insertion. Misplaced Pages has at least one of these listed as anon proxy (see User_talk:213.81.187.141). Could someone fill me in on how this was discovered? If that's the case, then we (wikibooks admins) have a good record of a large number of IPs exhibiting this behavior.

Adding/clarifying: we don't have a big vandalism problem like wikipedia does, so things like this stick out a little more. --SB_Johnny||_books 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are running a proxy scanner, which is the best way, one of the quickest ways to determine if it is an open proxy is to google the IP. If it shows up on lists of proxies and blacklists, and also if the same vandalism comes from IPs which are widely separated geographically (e.g. one is in Brazil, the next in Thailand, ...) then that's a pretty good duck test for a proxy. Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Would y'all like to be notified when we find them? --SB_Johnny||_books 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't hurt. You might also check out Misplaced Pages:No_open_proxies and the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_on_open_proxies. Good luck! Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL... we check it all the time, and are quite grateful that you guys do all that good work for us :). --SB_Johnny||_books 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Roller Coaster Legalities

It has come to my attention that on several wiki pages having to do with roller coasters and amusement rides there are links to websites with Point of View footage of aforementioned rides. The POV videos are EXTREMELY illegal and putting them on this site only endorses breaking state and federal laws. In some cases, such as disney rides and attractions, the information on the videos are coprighted. I am wondering what can be done about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs)

Links to sites which violate copyright are forbidden, and should be removed when found. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, could someone explain why these videos would be illegal? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I expect that Disney et al will claim that photographing inside their indoor rides (Pirates of the Caribbean etc.) violates their copyright on the artistic depictions inside. This may be true, but then (particularly for an encyclopedia article about that ride) there's a moderate fair-use claim to be made. Even for rollercoasters there's (in theory) an issue, as Freedom of panorama probably doesn't apply, as the photos are taken from inside the park and inside the rollercoaster car (private property both). At least for rollercoasters this seems like copyright paranoia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The fair use claim isn't relevant since these are outside sites. Maybe someone should go bug Brad. JoshuaZ 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this is one of those weird areas in US law, where even though taking the photos might be a crime in some jurisdictions (e.g. trespass) if they have signs and the like saying no photography, that nonetheless distributing photos that you took is not generally a crime (absent some more specific copyright or false light issue). However, I'm not entirely sure about that. I know there are detailed discussions of this online. Dragons flight 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't use a picture of a person without a model release, except in some situations (usually "editorial use", which probably doesn't apply to an encyclopedia). Ditto for physical stuff like an amusement ride or a museum: one needs to obtain a property release in these cases. See http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/ and others. If the source of an image can't produce a necessary release, then even if the copyright is solid, the image should be nixed. Whether or not linking to such images is in itself a bad thing is unknown to me. Vicarious liability? mdf 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A) In the US, model releases are generally not needed in noncommercial contexts (i.e. Misplaced Pages). B) As your own reference acknowledges, there has never been a case where the failure to have a property release resulted in any legal liability. They are a feel good measure to insure against the possible but uncertain risk that such liability could exist. C) Any releases would be the responsibility of the photographer. I don't see it as realistic for Misplaced Pages to ask every site we link to for documented release forms (that may not even be necessary) before choosing to link to that site. Contributory infringment in copyright law only attaches if we know (or a reasonable person should have known) that the linked to material was a violation. There may be some gray here, but I note that major sites devoted to rollercoasters include these sorts of user submitted videos, and absent some more definitive resolution I would assume it is okay for us to link to them as well. Dragons flight 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Model releases are not required for editorial use -- last I checked, most newspapers, magazines, etc, are intensely commercial enterprises, and regularly use non-released images of people and things under this rubric. Would Misplaced Pages qualify? Maybe, maybe not: I have no idea. And if Misplaced Pages is willing to entertain the risk of using an image without a "property release" in hand, what can I say? It's your risk, not mine. And finally, while the responsibility of collecting the releases is on the photographer, virtually all users of images today demand these releases from the photographer because they know there can be no valid license to use the image without a valid release. Whether or not it is "realistic" for Misplaced Pages to do this is completely beside the point: this is how the Real World works at this time. Looking at all of this, I'd focus more on the editorial use stuff. Is an encyclopedia similar enough to (say) a newspaper? Does Britannica obtain releases for identifiable people/property in images they use? mdf 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant: non-commercial use. Model releases are not usually needed in either non-commercial or editoral uses. And keep in mind, we are talking about links to other sites, not images on our site. Dragons flight 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How it is a trespass? You paid the admissiont icket and there isn't a "no trespassing" sign or anything like that: they want you there. Hbdragon88 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how the law is written. In some jurisdictions it is trespass (or some similar crime) to do things while on private property which you were explicitly told you couldn't do while there. Dragons flight 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it is possible that someone could claim that a photograph, or video, of an amusement park ride is a derivative work, and maybe someone already has, but, frankly, I think this outside the scope of our unwillingness to promote sites that infringe on copyright (and, incidentally, our ability to reasonably police). We also don't need to worry about property releases, which are the responsibility of the photographer to acquire, usually as a defence against some future claim of wrongdoing on their part in order to have gotten the shot. As Zoe said, if you find some site that is infringing on copyright, remove the link, but it isn't obvious what is special about amusement park rides or how what the original poster appears to be discussing is "extremely illegal". Jkelly 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights aside for a second, I'm interested in what the poster means by POV footage. Could you clarify what's POV about it? --tjstrf talk 00:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh I am guessing you have the wrong meaning of POV. It doesn't mean biased, it means actually from the point of view of someone on the roller coaster, like a first-person shooter (FPS) is from the point of view of the shooter. If that makes any sense. --W.marsh 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He used the abbreviation POV, I would assume that referred to the Misplaced Pages policy or at least points of view in the philosophical rather than physical sense. Using the abbreviation POV to mean physical point of reference is rather non-standard and ambiguous to say the least. --tjstrf talk 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, this is you being parochial: our usage of POV is the non-standard usage, which is why—if you hadn't noticed—we have to explain it to visitors here. Also, if you had actually read the original comment, it's reasonably clear that "POV" was being used to abbreviate "Point of View" to avoid spelling it out in full each time. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the normal term be first person if he meant that? Well, I guess we won't know unless he tells us. --tjstrf talk 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It is clear from the context (at least for those of us who have taken media studies classes) what POV means here. Catchpole 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a newbie. I'm pretty sure he does mean it in the real world, first person perspective sense. Dragons flight 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "POV footage" means videos taken while on the ride, showing the riders' point of view. The danger of a heavy camera flying off into an amusement park would explain why such videotaping would be prohibited. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UBX help

I'd like to ask an admin to go the undelete page for User:Llama man/Userboxes/HTML-2, and copy its content to Template:User html-2. I moved the HTML userboxes back to template form from my userspace, but I forgot to do so for html-2. I then put a speedy deletion tag on the page in my userspace, forgetting that I forgot to copy and paste the content to the template. —The Great Llama 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. _└  / _talk  20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —The Great Llama 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

The IP address 12.26.6.2 has been used repeated by vandals over a long period. Temporary blocks have not solved the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.142.56 (talk • contribs)

Please use WP:AIV for vandalism reports - they're often faster to respond than when posting here. In this case, the IP has already been blocked; it's a school IP, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Weatherman5000

User:Weatherman5000 who was blocked for 3 months (to see previous discussion go here) is now editing as an IP on his userpage re-inserting the content. Can we please revert to the previous version and block the page from editing by IP users, if not a full protection? -- UKPhoenix79 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Chick Bowen 02:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reason prevails at last. Durova 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Can someone please explain why this is deleted? I can't find an AFD that allowed it. If none occured, please undelete it, and please ask the deleting admin to stop being disruptive. Sorry - I'm about to get married and I haven't got time to fix this issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). Wait...18th nom? You must be kidding me. --physicq (c) 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:DRV#Gay Nigger Association of America. Khoikhoi 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This was not disruption; it was a good-faith deletion. Those who object may log their opinions at the DRV Khoikhoi links above. Meanwhile, congratulations and good luck to you, Ta bu. Chick Bowen 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good faith or not, speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden by WP:SPEEDY, and WP:SNOW is restricted to non-controversial decisions. This needs to be overturned. --tjstrf talk 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden Except it wasn't "speedy deleted": note the reference to

"Needs" is a strong word. Take it to DRV if you want; there's little to discuss here. -GTBacchus 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So a few policy pages overrule Jimbo? Thankfully most people seem to realize process for the sake of process is a mistake in at least this once case. Sometimes rules need to be ignored. --W.marsh 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In either case, the relevant policy says to take it to DRV, where it currently is... Titoxd 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't override always. When he is acting ex cathedra he generally makes it clear. In this case, if he were acting as such he would have closed the DRV. JoshuaZ 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Archiving to prevent redundant discussion on multiple boards. This is under discussion on DRV, please direct your comments there. (Radiant) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New block reason template: {{schoolblock}}

Hi everyone, we now have a new template for "anonymous only" blocks on School IP addresses. Feel free to improve on it. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Wow! That's really cool! I wish we had one of those before. Patstuart 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, can you please add it to WP:TM, I use that all the time and would find it usefull to have it there. Viridae 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ew, I like it. It's attractive, polite, informative, concise and useful—everything a template should be. Nice job. —Doug Bell  07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks Netsnipe! Very clean, friendly, and to the point. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I think softblocks are a good solution, and hopefully this template will make their use more popular (hint). yandman 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Will this mean more anon-only blocking of school IP ranges? If so, I declare this a Good Thing. Proto::type 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See WT:AIV#Vandalism_from_School_IPs - I think this is fantastic. Thank you. --Dweller 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice. It manages to be polite and informative, and the youngsters shouldn't be offended by it. Well done. Geogre 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yup, quality job. And if WP:RFCU ever identifies the teenaged chat-girls' school I'll be doing the needful myself :-) Guy (Help!) 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said above. This is an excellent template. It encourages positive contributions to WP, does not BITE, and says everything it needs to say in a very clear and concise fashion. Well done. -- Kicking222 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't go adding it to a boarding school's IP(s), or the instructions will be about useless ;D! 68.39.174.238 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

As a new admin I have a couple of technical questions. They may be covered elsewhere - if so, tell me where and I'll read that.

1. Can we view deleted images - I was looking at DRV and there are a couple of images there that have been deleted (they may of course have been uploaded before the time images could be restored) and when I clicked on the image link it took me to the upload page.
   • Yes, but only directly. They won't show up say when viewing the page they were deleted from. —Doug Bell  11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. How can we view deleted pages or previous incarnations of pages when something new has gone over the top? Ie it has been salted or similar. Viridae 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Use Special:Log. —Doug Bell  11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just answered the first question myself. Still trying to work out the second. Viridae 10:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And the second. Thanks for your time everyone :P Viridae 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice you had already figured them out. I answered because I had to figure out both those things as well recently.  ;-) —Doug Bell  11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply though :) Viridae 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Glad to hear you both figured it out :) in the spirit of helping future admins, would you consider adding a line or two to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide to clarify the things you found unclear? (Radiant) 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion, will do. Viridae 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV/CAT:CSD

Someone care to take a look at these - i'm going to bed. Viridae 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Registration: "too similar" usernames - option to request review by admin

This is a technical suggestion but I raise it here because if implemented it would give an additional task to administrators.

It comes out of a frustrating experience with the system which detects whether the username you are trying to register for is too similar to an existing one. The algorithm does not always make decisions which a human being would consider sensible; for example "-Alan-" was rejected because it was too similar to "A$ian". As the number of existing accounts grows, this problem would seem set to get worse.

In the situation I describe, I think it would be good to give people the option of having it manually reviewed. So for example, what about making it respond along these lines:

Your proposed username, "-Alan-" has been identified via an automated system as being similar to the following existing username(s): "A$ian", ... .

To safeguard against possible confusion or impersonation, the requested account has not been created.

• To choose a different username instead, click here.

• It is possible that a human reader may consider that the usernames are not likely to be confused, so you have the option of requesting creation of the account "-Alan-", and an administrator will make the decision. To request this, click here. Note that you will be asked to provide an email address on which you can be informed of the decision, and that your IP address will be included in the email which is sent.

Hopefully not too big an extra admin task, but what are your feelings?

Thanks. — Alan 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given the sheer amount of usernames we have that are registered by sockpuppeteers or pranksters, I'm afraid that this feature would quickly be flooded under them. (Radiant) 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible for an admin to override the system at the moment; if an admin goes to Special:Userlogin whilst logged in and creates an account, I think it gets round AntiSpoof (and IIRC this has happened before). The obvious problem here is that the admin has the password, rather than the user trying to create the account, so some secure means must be needed to distribute the password. --ais523 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been done by having the target creating a temporary account - the admin sending the password by email - after which the target changes the password. Agathoclea 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, it is definitely possible. You just create an account, which is then tagged as "created" by some other user, like I did here. However, getting an admin to not block it as a reflex is another thing, though... Titoxd 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody like to merge some history from a c/p move?

While reverting some page move vandalism , I took a look at the user's contributions and noticed that he/she apparantly moved Tekken (Video game) to Tekken 1, then copied/pasted the content of Tekken 1 onto Tekken (Video game) and changed Tekken 1 into a redirect. Tekken (Video game) now has the content, but Tekken 1 has the history. BigDT 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Any particular reason this wasn't at Tekken (video game) (note capitalization)? If not, I'll move it once things get resorted. -- nae'blis 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast work. I don't see any reason for the capitalization either. Looking at the infobox, I think Tekken 1 could make sense, but I guess the game was just called Tekken since nobody knew at the time that there would be a second one. So really, either Tekken (video game) or Tekken 1 is fine as far as I can see. There's a Tekken 2, Tekken 3, etc. I have no real preference in the matter, though - I only noticed it because I looked at the user's contribution when reverting unrelated page move vandalism. BigDT 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the parenthetical form since there's no "1" on the first game's cover, but that's up to editorial decision, not me (I was just being bold in getting rid of the miscap). Also fixed Tekken (Series). -- nae'blis 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tud123 just came back and redid a bunch of his edits (though not the page moves, at least not yet). I have to leave and brave the drive home, can someone explain to him/her why this is a bad idea? -- nae'blis 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about checkuser from fairly newbie admin

I have a couple users that I'm pretty sure (but not certain) are the same person. They make the same edits and their accounts were created one day apart. They have both voted in the same AfDs on two separate occasions, but their votes didn't (in the first case) and won't (in the second) affect the outcome of the vote. I haven't yet noticed their use in a 3RR violation either. So there's nothing to warrant a checkuser under any of the categories. WP:RFCU suggests it be taken to WP:AN/I, but what use would that be? I left a note on the userpage of the user who makes more of the edits, speaking authoritatively about my knowledge that he is the same person, but he flat out denied it (and accused me of being the same person as someone else he’s in a conflict with). Do I just have to wait until he slips up further? _└  / _talk  20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on him, but in the meantime, I recommend following WP:AGF--Vercalos 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice for future reference: If a user hasn't yet justified a checkuser to tell if they are the same editor then it is often best not to alert them until you can justify a checkuser request. They will now be more likely to be careful about making more subtle socks. JoshuaZ 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by another user.

User:Dionyseus has been posting "sockpuppetproven" templates on my user page all day, and although one check came back as conclusive and I was blocked for 3 days for edit wars, a second check (also requested by Dionyseus) was inconclusive. I am not a sockpuppet, but I have a different opinion over one article, and Dionyseus has reverted every single thing I ever wrote, along with his good buddy, User:Skinny_McGee a proven sockpuppet who has 3 additional names. I feel I am being singled out by Dionyseus because he just doesn't like that I am trying to write a factual article about a band, and he and Skinny McGee happen to hate one of the members. The template he keeps putting on my page says "Libel." I think that's a really harsh thing for a stupid edit war. Can you please get Dionyseus off my back. And also, you should block Skinny McGee for being a sockpuppet. I got blocked and he did not because Dionyseus made reverts for him and then claimed that Skinny did nothing wrong. Also, Skinny is strongly believed to be, Edward Douglas, a subject of the article itself, and every single edit he's made to date is a HUGE self-promo. Also, I have never made any vandalization or misuse, and that template is for abusive socks. My only fault is edit wars and I am trying to compromise with the other people but they make zero attempts to meet me halfway. Thanks for looking into it. GuardianZ 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all the second check was a check to see if User:Peacekpr was your sockpuppet, the result of that check was inconclusive. Second, the sockpuppeteerproven tag must remain because you used your sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Third, User:Skinny_Mcgee's sockpuppet User:Defender99 only made one edit, and the user explained that it is her husband. Dionyseus 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that GuardianZ intends to stick around and be a useful contributor, there is no need to make him wear a Scarlet letter for some indefinite period. The checkuser request is on file and comments are in the history of his talk page. That's enough, unless he becomes a persistent long term source of trouble. Of course, we wish him well and hope he becomes a productive and useful editor, right? Thatcher131 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the tag was required for those who have used sockpuppets for disrupting Misplaced Pages. If I understand you correctly, you are saying this is not so. And yes, of course I would love for User:GuardianZ to become a productive and useful Misplaced Pages editor. Dionyseus 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag is available but you don't have to use it, and placing an embarrassing sign on someone's user page will conflict with the goal of retaining a (hopefully) good editor. As long as he is willing to make an effort to be part of the group, we can politely ignore a little past indiscretion. Thatcher131 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Dionyseus 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Simple Request

Could an administrator please check the AutoWikiBrowser page Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser regarding the requests there that need an administrator to approve. Thanks :)!! SkierRMH 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

Just want opinions before I block. Have a look at User talk:Jonsiker and tell me what you would do. Although it is quite a sob story, wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. I am also inclined to disbelieve the claim that wiki is the only free site he can get too (apart from the other mentioned one) its more likely that he doesn't know anywhere else. Viridae 02:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, isn't young love cute (not to mention pornographic) these days? I'm with you on this one, its likely convenience that leads them to use WP for their lusty chats. You are probably doing them a favour anyway, she'll just break his heart one day or he'll give her an STD he caught in Spain... ;) Rockpocket 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Viridae 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked and protected. Also left a message on the talk page of the "girlfriend" to notify her the account had been blocked. Just as a courtesy. Viridae 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting more of people misusing Misplaced Pages as personal chat pages. another recent example-- see the page history. We need to keep an eye out for this sort of thing. -- Infrogmation 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I find their reactions very ammusing when we blank the page. "What was that? Didi you do that?" etc. Viridae 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to reprotect. Deletion undoes protection.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Viridae 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldnt find a better template than that one - the user talk page protection one talks about constant vandalism, which i thought was a bit harsh. Viridae 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon and new editor issue on Dell Schanze

Could I ask someone to take a look at this article and consider the repeated changes that have been made to it in the last day or so? Someone has been pasting a massive, unencyclopedic and unsourced chunk of text in over the sourced article; I bagged it on RC patrol last night a couple of times and left a message for the anon, and other editors have been reverting it as well, but a new user has started on it now, and I'm at three reverts and don't want to break it. The anon and the new user appear to be working on trying to provide a glowing view of the subject with their changes, including changing the labeling of the image in the article, from a look at the user's contribs. Much appreciate the assistance. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected; the new editor worked on the article a week ago as well, making changes to remove discussion of controversy regarding the subject before being reverted. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and sprotected it. Viridae 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

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

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Joeyramoney

This user seems to either have decided to become a vandal, or has allowed the account to be taken over. I have given it a 1 day block to prevent damage to the account, and will look back before then. What do others think? HighInBC 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. Perhaps a vandal has temporary access via an auto login. Rockpocket 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No e-mail address set up. Odd--seems to be generally a productive sort and limited to one, non-controversial subject area (albums/bands)--not the type to turn sour (though I do remember his unfortunate sense of humor in connection with the February wheel war). Perhaps it's--as Rockpocket suggests--the "drunken roommate syndrome." Chick Bowen 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How should I confirm he has control of the accoun again if there is no e-mail? Should I just let the 24 hour block expire then check back, or should I extend it? My instinct tells me that if the account has lost control for more than a couple days that I should just block the account indefinetly until evidence is provided. HighInBC 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Wiki Stalker who is actively engaged on a serious campaign of Misplaced Pages:Harassment and provocation towards editors that he disagrees with . User:BhaiSaab has by his own admission gone as far as calling the real life work place of other Misplaced Pages editors to harass them , which I consider to be psychotic and dangerous behavior and which could lead to serious confrontations with those editors. Rather than engaging other editors he disagrees with User:BhaiSaab consistently stalks them in Misplaced Pages and tries to build some sort of case against them to try to get them blocked or worse. For those who wish to read more about User Bhaisaab they can go here.

User:BhaiSaab is a very disruptive user, who is under a pending 1 year block and pending a 1 year block for editing religion related articles continues to edit war and try to provoke 3RRs ,,.

User:BhaiSaab is tying up administrator time with his continuous Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering trying to rope other editors he disagrees with into arbitration and wiki proceedings.

Can anything be done to deal with this disruptive editor?--CltFn 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an ArbCom case dealing with this issue. I don't know why you have brought up the issue again. Is there any specific incident that you want administrators to look at? If not, then you too are tying up administrator time. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to waste your time, just asking for help on this.--CltFn 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is seriously old news which CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bringing up merely as a defense technique in response to this user RfC that User:BhaiSaab initiated over CltFn's behavior. (→Netscott) 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Netscott , It would be appreciated if you did not jump to conclusions, I brought this up because User:BhaiSaab is stalking my edits as you can see here. --CltFn 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalking your edits? And you provide a link to the history of Portal:Islam/Did you know where BhaiSaab is editing in response to your edits there? Sorry but that is a rather ridiculous thing to pin your accusations of stalking on. Most any editor (and particularly Muslims) editing on Islam topics are likely to have the portal pages watchlisted and respond to edits there accordingly. (→Netscott) 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why the unhelpful response, but thanks anyway.--CltFn 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some evidence that substantiate CltFn's claim that BhaiSaab's Wiki-stalking him here, and if we look at the history of the "did you know.." template that CltFn now mention, then it is even more clear that we are talking about a case of ongoing Wiki stalking and not an old or resolved issue. CltFn makes an edit here: and 12 hours after BhaiSaab makes his first edit to the template in almost 3 months: Which is another revert of CltFn's edits -- Karl Meier 09:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier, User:BhaiSaab was the 7th registered editor to have ever edited on the Portal:Islam/Did you know page. He was editing there long before User:CltFn. Let us not forget that WP:STALK allows for "checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy". From looking at the RfC against User:CltFn as well as the comments on the RfC talk page (note User:Zora's commentary in particular) it's arguable that BhaiSaab was, "checking up on to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy". (→Netscott) 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott knows what he's talking about. I have this page on my watchlist as with all other portions of the portal. I edited the portal way before CltFn did. And yes, I do check on CltFn's edits to "fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy" considering his bad faith edit history with sockpuppets. BhaiSaab 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth about this matter is that BhaiSaab has hounding CltFn for months and months because he doesn't agree with his strong personal pro-Islamic and anti-Semitic views. Misplaced Pages's policies doesn't allow anyone to follow another editor for months and months attacking the editor on every possible occasion, and if BhaiSaab has some genuine concerns that can survive the attention of a broader range of participants in this project then he should indeed bring them to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians instead of trying to drive and harass CltFn off the project. Another fact is that is that BhaiSaab haven't been editing the mentioned template for months before CltFn made his edit, and only a few hours after BhaiSaab made his revert. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt that is the case, considering all the other times he has followed CltFn around reverting his edits. BhaiSaab has a long history of Wiki-stalking, and has even brought his harassments against users that he doesn't agree with to peoples workplaces. BhaiSaab's constant nit-picking against CltFn and a few other users that he has targeted is against everything that Misplaced Pages's policies regarding stalking is about. -- Karl Meier 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Karl. We all know where your loyalties are. When Gren mentions the anti-Muslim brigade, which group of editors do you think he's talking about? The RfC is just attempting to bring his edits to the consideration of a larger group, and then you say its "harassment." What nonsense is that? BhaiSaab 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quit making personal remarks and bad faith accusations. I have never said creating an RfC is harassment. Try to read what I write above. It's about you stalking and hounding Wikipedians that you disagree with on the project and sometimes even outside it. -- Karl Meier 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to root out sleeper socks?

This is probably a dumb question but is there a way to root out sleeper socks? Someone is obsessed with the Jim Clark article. (Apparently someone named Pflanzgarten). I got involved when I undid full protection but the repeated IP vandalism was so frequent that I sprotected. Now he's just using sleeper socks to continue. Is there a way to root out the rest of the sleeper socks before we have to go back into full protection? Maybe WP:RFCU folks can determine which accounts were created by the IPs that are attacking the article? Or is it too fruitless since the IPs are so dynamic anyway? —Wknight94 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we may be able to find them with checkuser. File a request at RFCU and we'll take a look. Essjay (Talk) 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from a newbie admin

(Hi everyone, by the way!) The user NoCarrier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently in the 1-month phase of an increasing series of blocks, but keeps disrupting his talk page (removing warnings, adding spurious RfUs complete with forged endorsements of an administrator, etc.) even after a final warning by me not to do so. My questions are:

• How do I extend his block to the talk page? Do I protect it or is there another way? WP:BP doesn't tell.
• Would a temporary or indefinite extension of the block be appropriate here?

Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's been warned and banned several times, and has shown no interest in improving the encyclopedia, its time to kill the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... I'll leave the account-killing to someone else, if one feels that's necessary. I just protected the page and added {{usertalk-vprotect}} to the top of it. The person should hopefully be calmed by the conclusion of the month-long block. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. In other cases it would be appropriate to protect his talk page, providing he has had good time to lodge an unblock request. Once that is denied, then there is no reason why it shouldnt be protected. for the duration of the block when they are causing so much disruption (in my opinion anyway). Viridae 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Sandstein 06:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have the textbook example of a single purpose account. He has made no other edits other to add the Yahoo! link to female ejaculation, and has been warned repeatedly.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarity/bad language at beginning of "African American" article

The first sentence of the Misplaced Pages entry for African American is as follows (derogatory n-word censored): "Gogo Dodo is a stupid n*****. is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa." - http://en.wikipedia.org/African_American (12/02/2006, apprx. 7:23 AM GMT)

Not only is this a terrible word to use and a terrible word to use given the subject, it appears to be a personal attack and should be fixed/edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.40.54 (talk • contribs).

Not sure when you saw this but there was a spate of vandalism earlier on that article. As it stands currently there's no further problem. (→Netscott) 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As we often say, vandalism like that doesn't last long. A minute at most. --Woohookitty 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532

Within the past month, I rewrote NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 as NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, which were both redirects to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 before my edits. Since then, this is what has happened to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532:

1. I turned NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 into a redirect for NGC 1532 (the larger of the two galaxies in the pair).
2. I nominated NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 for deletion on the redirects for deletion page. The nomination failed because of concerns about preserving the edit history and maintaining the link for external web sites.
3. NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 was turned into a disambiguation page.
4. Someone else saw the disambiguation version of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, thought it was stupid, and attempted to PROD it.
5. The PROD failed because of the significant edit history of the article.
6. The article was nominated as an AfD.

At the moment, the discussion on the AfD is still continuing, although the issue is confusing. I think the outcome that most people would like to see is the following:

• Keep the current text within NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.
• Preserve the edit history of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 somewhere.
• Delete NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 itself.

Assistance and advice from an administrator would be helpful. I would also like advice from an administrator on how to perform this kind of action in the future. Misplaced Pages contains several articles on pairs of galaxies that could be split like this one. (Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs a "Requested split" mechanism, which I would be willing to assist with creating.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found that Misplaced Pages has a WP:SPLIT. The information at WP:SPLIT, however, did not address the issues brought up with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I would still like advice on splitting pages like NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have many edits been made to the separate articles since the split? If not, I would suggest deleting one of the separate articles, revert the double article to before the split, move it to the article you deleted, and then remove all the text that's in the article you didn't delete. The article that wasn't deleted should then link to the moved article somewhere (on the talk page, probably) so people can see who made what edits. --Tango 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the single articles look like each other, nor do they look like the double article before the split. I rewrote the single articles, with only some general information, transwiki links, and external links being used from the double article. (The double article was poorly written and lacked references for some of its information.) The edit history of the single articles, however, is not very extensive; only 6-8 edits have been made to each article.

Would it be possible for an administrator to do the following steps in the following order?

• Copy the text of NGC 1532.
• Paste the text into NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.
• Delete NGC 1532.
• Move NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 to NGC 1532.
• Delete NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.

This seems to be a modified version of the proposal by Tango. If it preserves the text of the two single articles, preserves the edit history of the double article, and removes the double article itself, then I think everyone would be happy with the outcome. Dr. Submillimeter 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is done. Here's what I did (slightly different from either of these proposals):

• Deleted NGC 1532
• Moved NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 to NGC 1532
• Restored the deleted edits of NGC 1532. They were now buried in among the post-split edits to the dab page.
• Reverted to the correct version of NGC 1532.
• Deleted NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, which was then a redirect with the only edit by me.
• Oh, and now I'll add a link from the talk page of NGC 1531.

Full edit history preserved, dab is gone, everything good. Yes? Chick Bowen 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you asked about what to do in future. If you had Galaxy 1 and Galaxy 2, as in this situation, the best thing would be to move the article to Galaxy 1, cut and paste Galaxy 2 into a separate article, and then put a note on the talk page explaining what you'd done and linking to Galaxy 2 (or linking directly to the history as I did at Talk:NGC 1531); the problem here stemmed from the double cut and paste. But it was fine to bring it here and have us fix it. Chick Bowen 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent fix. All the suggestions did pretty much the same thing and I think any of them would have been fine. --Tango 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Propol

An IP, possibly the logged out user (although no way to check without CheckUser) is adding the same content to User:Propol despite numerous reverts. It includes an extlink to a site which seems to glorify paedophilia, amongst other things. Could someone have a look? haz (talk) e 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time, I believe - if I remember rightly, Gamaliel removed a bunch of this sort of garbage from the edit histories of both Propol (main target) and me (collateral damage), earlier this year.  !John Broughton | Talk 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lopnore64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I indef blocked this user for making death threats, then I protected his user pages for continuing personal attacks. HighInBC 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a valuable contributor to me. </sarcasm> Tony Fox (arf!) 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Year-long blatant vandalism never caught

I must say, I hope we can catch blatant vandalism faster than one year ago which no one found. Is there anyway to search for blatant vandalism other that by random chance of us finding it? semper fi — Moe 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're calling "blatant vandalism" looks to me like a freewheeling comment on a talk page by a registered user who has been a valuable contributor over the past year. That comment begins grr i hope i don't accidentally delete this because i can't see a dang thing!, implying that the editor was having some visual problems. The comment wasn't appropriate primarily because the talk page was a redirect, something (I believe) is fairly unusual.

More to the point - the problem might have been caught if there were (a) an automated process for editing a redirect page, or (b) an automated scan of redirect pages to detect any characters on a page beyond the last two "]]'s"". Since neither exists, the answer at the moment seems to be "no" - not for this type of "vandalism". John Broughton | Talk 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

3 year block on an IP

Is it really appropriate to put a three year block on an IP address as was done here? I could see the one week block since it looks like the user behind it was posting personal information (either real or made up). --StuffOfInterest 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP put personal information in Widnes and WP:AN/I. I saw both edits before sending a private e-mail to the oversight mailing list. The edit to Widness introduced \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ in several places on the page. The edit to WP:AN/I did not, but it's interesting that in the edit summary (which is still visible in the first entry in his block log) was "HEY HEY, I AM JARLAXLEARTEMIS AND I\'M BACK!!" Note the slash in the word "I'm". Isn't that a telltale sign that an open proxy is being used, in which case the IP should be blocked not for three years but indefinitely? AnnH ♫ 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin used the description (user is idiot), which seems like a personal attack. *Dan T.* 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, the user was acting, if I may say so, quite idiotic. He/she posted the personal information of several administrators/users right onto the AN/I board. The contribs were given an admin rollback. Second, it was almost certainly a proxy, because it changed every ' into a /'; thus it should actually be indef'edx. Perhaps, then, we can avoid a confrontation over this user? Patstuart 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, I see everything I said was already mentioned above. -Patstuart 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I remember having seen at WP:ABUSE an ip from a school or something similar that is indef blocked. If someone can confirm the ip is an open proxy, it should be indef blocked indeed. Otherwise, personally I don't think such a long block is justified. -- ReyBrujo 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The simple thing to do here is just to go ask the blocking admin about it. No need to post here first when you are perfectly capable of asking a question of the admin who did it. It is almost certainly though, an open proxy. pschemp | talk 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. Nothing to see here; move along. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP should indeed be indef blocked as an open proxy based on that evidence, however the original block description is a personal attack - it doesn't matter that's it's true, WP:NPA is not WP:LIBEL, truth doesn't come into it. --Tango 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:DNFT, people. Let's go back to article writing, this is time-consuming and pointless, to argue about a block summary for a troll. – Chacor 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DM Ashura

This AFD needs to be closed. It was nominated six days ago by SPUI, who put an unnecessary {{afdanons}} tag on it - I can't really find anything on any Bemani forums that justifies the tag. The article seems to have improved quite a bit during the course of the discussion. --Coredesat 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards