Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 9 March 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Reigning in Uber's trolling

Can some uninvolved admin please look into user:UBeR's actions. Specifically:

1. His trolling and POV pushing on Global warming and related articles
2. His repeated and persistent harassment of William M. Connolley, one of our resident experts on global warming. To wit: Unfounded sockpuppet accusations, trolling, specious 3rr warning, trolling William's article, 'etc.
3. The "hit list" that Uber keeps (which, I will note, is the same act that got Wik perma-banned)

I would make the block myself but I am involved. I do, however, think his behavior merits some serious sanction. Raul654 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an admin, but reading the diffs, I would support action. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have tried reasoning with him when he was trolling William's talk page, without luck (all I got for my troubles was this, where he seems to be saying that he is following my advice, while doing just the opposite). He doesn't seem interested in behaving like a member of the community - I'm not sure if the community's patience is exhausted, but my patience certainly is. Guettarda 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• His behavior amazes me. I worked with him on another article and saw his ability to do good work. So, I'm dumbfounded as to why he keeps harassing User:William M. Connolley. It is unacceptable and must stop immediately. If it doesn't, I do support some sanctions. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also note Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/William M. Connolley. That discussion should probably be closed, as it seems to be entirely without foundation. Also note User:UBeR/WMC and User:UBeR/Raul654, which seem to be potential WP:NPA problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Three attack pages are up for deletion - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#2007-02-28 --Aude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These might meet WP:CSD criteria #G10, though I think we can let it go through MFD. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think they can be speedied; they're pretty blatant. Trebor 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd toss out the SSP page as well. No need to dignify those allegations by archiving them as if they were worth keeping around. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• To address to the first claim, I have not pushed any particular POV at Misplaced Pages other than that of consensus, if any at all (notwithstanding talk page discussions, of course). An overwhelming of my edits to that article have been to address sloppiness, style, grammar, spelling, etcetera. My mission here is for the betterment of Misplaced Pages articles. Let it be known that I support the consensus view on global warming, as presented by the IPCC. In fact, despite what might appear as undue support for the solar variation theory, my purpose is an attempt to bring balance and a NPOV to the global warming article, where a number of POV-pushers patrol and police the article.

• To address the second claim, modeling doesn't constitute expertise. Second, there is a colossal difference in "accusation" and "suspicion," hence the name "suspected sock puppets." And it is true that I have a suspicion. How can you say it is wrong for me to have a suspicion? That's nonsensical. So, on behalf of Brittainia, an abettor of mine, I filed that suspicion, "so as to retire any further suspicion of sockpuppetry of this user." Third, I will keep in mind now to keep comments that specifically relate to an issue (in terms of previous occurrences), but may be considered "trolling" by Raul654 and his cronies, to the talk page of the originator. My apologies. Fourth, my notice of 3RR was merited on the basis of his three reversion on that particular page. I felt it necessary to advise him, because he often reverts content on that particular article, as well as related articles. There's isn't much to that. Fifth, my template of notability on that particular article was well merited. I've attempted to discuss the issue, but users, along with Raul654, digressed terribly from the issue. The particular ad hominem attacks/arguments abound when such issues arise.

• To address the third claim, it would be wholly inappropriate to label this as a "hit list." It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Misplaced Pages's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Misplaced Pages, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to detract the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Misplaced Pages policies. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I can speak for at least the first claim and say that from what I've seen of UBeR's contribution to global warming-related articles, they are not trolling, nor POV pushing. These articles are highly controversial and continuously raise heated debates. It's easy to come here like Raul654 just did and throw accusations of trolling or POV pushing, but it seems to me that this has little or no merit. Besides, I have seen many users complain of William M. Connolley's POV or behaviour regarding climate articles, and I have witnessed myself at least one disregard of WP policies by him so far. I guess it is legitimate to keep a file with regard to his actions. --Childhood's End 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Childhoodsend (along with a few others - Roncram, Rameses, and the above-mentioned Brittainia) are, like Uber, POV pushers attempting to weaken or otherwise degrade the global warming and related articles. Their opinion of Uber's biased edits should not be taken as accurately representing the content of those edits. Raul654 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I will not respond to this POV pusher accusation. I'm trying to bring balance and as far as I know, my contributions have been appreciated so far. --Childhood's End 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Raul654, please remove yourself from this discussion; we are trying to have a serious discussion. You are not. You may sit here all day, with your ad hominen attacks, trying to discredit those who see the injustices of yours and WMC and others. In the end, however, you are only detracting from the issue at hand. Lets take a look at some of these examples you trying to put forth as POV-pushing, shall we? These are all of my edits made to global warming, not marked minor (all my edits marked minor were stylistic, grammatical, reversion of vandalism, etc.), of my last 500 edits to Misplaced Pages. Since you are making these claims, can you please explain how these are POV-pushing? ~ UBeR 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the evidence for yourselves and give UBeR a fair hearing. UBeR is truly a very hard working, fair minded, long standing contributor to Misplaced Pages. He (along with many others) has simply become increasingly frustrated by the kinds of tactics used by User:William M. Connolley, User:Raul654 and a few others who constantly delete all contributions by UBeR and anyone else not agreeing with their POV on all pages having to do with Global warming - See: (Fight this insidious Censorship) William stop deleting relevant discussion, Connolley's Revert Censorship of Misplaced Pages Evidence. 12 out of the past 50 edits by User:William M. Connolley are reverts ] (the rest are mainly talk page entries) and almost all these reverts are to global warming pages. when he runs out of reverts himself he pulls in others to start reverting. Given that he makes his livelihood in this field and clearly has a very strong POV, he should avoid this area for the obvious conflict of interest reasons (esp. so for an Administrator).

User:William M. Connolley has already had two official complaints reported against him in the past for similar tactics and has been prohibited from making more than one revert per day See: (, ). Also he has rather strangely been taunting an editor to report him on that editor's userpage: His actions certainly do need to be seriously examined by Administrators as his form of control is damaging to Misplaced Pages. I believe UBeR is justified in suspecting a sock puppet and in starting to gather evidence of these tactics. -- Brittainia 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:NPOV policy has an "undue weight" provision, but the sceptics keep pushing for equal coverage of the GW sceptic position. We attract an awful lot of sceptics, so we hear the same complaints over and over. But this isn't about the sceptic POV-pushing, this is about Uber's (and Brittainia's) disruptive activities - laughable accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling William's talk page, trolling Talk:William Connolley, setting up attack pages, etc. Guettarda 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, you are not representing my actions fairly. If nothing else, the solar variation theory is probably the most debated topic within the scientific community. This theory holds water. Many scientists have researched the effects solar variation has the Earth, and there shouldn't be anything stopping these substantiated scientists' research from being discussed in relationship to how it affects Earth's climate. I've added nothing to the global warming article that was either against the consensus or POV in nature. For all intents and purposes, your claims are unfounded. ~ UBeR 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my comment wasn't quite clear. Brittainia talked about "all the other people" who have had similar problems with William. Not only is that a misrepresentation (since, after all, it isnt just William), it's also expected, since there's always been a movement to give equal weight to a minority position. As I said, this isn't about...POV-pushing, this is about behaviour. I think I've represented your behaviour fairly - your continued repost of a 3RR warning, your sockpuppetry accusations, etc., your creation of attack pages...this behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry then, I misunderstood. But I still disagree with your assessment. The overwhelming amount of dissent is that in the direct of William M. Connolley. This isn't about skepticism. You have misunderstood that idea. Second, how am I supposed to address my concerns with this particular user? Shall I go to to his user page? Of course not, that's trolling! Well then, shall I go to some committee or report it to some official noticeboard? Of course not, that's silly and nonsense! Forgive me for not assuming the assumption of good faith, but what else can I do when there is a particular administrator who has been elected to be given a large amount of power, who, based on his personal feelings that he hasn't been able to subdue, can only categorize my every action as unwarranted, when, in fact, this is solely biased and unfounded! If anything, this is nonsensical. I've made by rebuttal above, and the author of these claims continuously avoids the facts, but rather simply attacks some unrelated point of view, and has yet to substantiate anything he has said. ~ UBeR 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The "Fight this insidious censorship" comment Britannia linked to (well, tried to link to) above was posted by Ramses, and it's really quite illustrative of the whole affair. A contrarian POV pusher tries to put bias into the article, gets reverted, and decries the "censorship" in the article. That's pretty much the same of these accusations.
• As to the one revert parole on WMC, the arbcom reversed it and acknowledged they had made a mistake (For the record, I voted against imposing that parole, and was the only arbitrator to do so) But Britannia already knew that parole had been revoked, because Stephan already told her. So she is simply repeating an allegation she knows is false. Raul654 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As a close friend of WMC, why didn't you recuse yourself from the voting since it was an obvious conflict of interest? -- Brittainia 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mu Raul654 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Raul654 has labeled me a "contrarian POV pusher trying to put bias into the article". But all I was doing was defending the words: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." which had been deleted from the Global warming article. Surely these words do not constitute pushing a biased POV, as alleged? The control group will not even tolerate this tiny amount of NPOV in this important article. UBeR is a good person who has been the subject of these bully tactics for too long. Please seriously review whether User:William M. Connolley's conduct shows his fitness and neutrality to remain a Misplaced Pages Administrator. (The link to the relevant section is: ) -- Rameses
• This is a witch hunt. Most of the edits UBeR has made have been reasonable as far as I have seen. He's been fighting what many of us believe to be a systemic bias on many global warming related articles to shut down and revert edits that are anti-GW. I don't believe any action needs to be taken against UBeR. Oren0 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This situation is extremely complicated and something that anyone who is not a regular participant in global warming related articles will be hard pressed to untangle. In terms of disclosure I should state that I am a climate scientist, and am taken by some as one of the villains in the affair. Discussions on the topic sometimes get heated, and even those who are acting in good faith sometimes make remarks that could have been put more tactfully -- certainly I have. Consider all this however you will.

The global change articles see a steady stream of editors who wish to promote a point of view that gives undue weight to the skeptical viewpoint. Some simply make gratuitously provocative edits in order to stir up trouble; others have an agenda and are fact-averse. Representatives of each of those groups already have responded here. But I don't think UBeR belongs in those categories. He genuinely believes that the skeptical side is not being given fair play. In other words, while I think he wrong on the facts, I think his position is held in good faith. He also is an excellent copyeditor. The problem is, the same single-mindedness and persistence (some might say obsessiveness) that well serves a copyeditor is less helpful when dealing with other individuals. One has to learn to be flexible and that some battles are not worth fighting. I have tried to warn UBeR against personalizing the situation but unfortunately to no avail. To make a long story short, if any sanctions are meted out they should recognize that unlike some others, UBeR can make and has made constructive contributions to the articles themselves. The problems mostly lie in his actions outside article space as outlined in Rau654's point 2. I hope that the situation can be resolved in such a way that he can continue to make constructive contributions.

Finally, should the remarks of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia become material to the outcome of this matter, there are reasons to believe a RFCU on those two usernames could be worthwhile. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond. UBeR genuinely believes the skeptical side is not being given fair play and I agree (the Global warming controversy article needs work). UBeR attempts to edit in good faith and has made positive contributions. I would encourage UBeR not to personalize the situation and to focus on the facts even when being attacked personally (as is sometimes done).RonCram 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted UBeR's attack pages based on the MFD discussions and general consensus that they are attack pages. I have also listed them at WP:PTL. If UBeR wishes to collect evidence for an RFC, he may ask me to unlist the pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The next step

It seems to me that while there is disagreement as to Uber's article editing practices, there's more-or-less unanimous agreement that his treatment of others users (the harassment and the hit list, points 2 and 3) is way out of line. (I'm discounting the opinions of the contrarians, whose solicited support is both transparent and non-credible ) I suppose the question now is - what's the next step? Raul654 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty easy to say "I will ignore all who disagree with me." It's pretty typical of you. If you notice, however, I simply ask them to review the case on their own. You reject their judgment, not because it is wanton, but because they disagree with your judgment. I've already made all my points clear enough above, all of which have not been responded to. If there is any next step, if for you to be reviewed. ~ UBeR 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul, this is getting absurd. Until that last post, I thought you were doing this is good faith, but that's obviously not the case. You're right. I came to this page because of a notice placed on my talk page. Have you thought (*gasp*) that maybe not everyone checks the administrators' noticeboard on a regular basis? So because Uber or one of his supporters solicited my opionion, I'm immediately non-credible? I think I've contributed enough to WP at this point that I'm obviously not a troll. My opinion should be worth just as much as the opinions of people that disagree with you. Can I discount anyone that's posted on your or WMC's talk page as "non-credible" as well? Give me a break. You're just trying to discount 8 editors' opinions because they disagree with you. When did WP become about censoring ideas you disagree with?Oren0 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, in a perfect world the next step would be an investigation into why Uber is behaving in this manner (because I think there is fault on "both" sides). Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, most people are here because they are willingly contributing their time. This is a really difficult call, you ought to enforce the rules, but by enforcing the rules you probably are doing an injustice because some are using the rules to bully others. You ought to investigate the bullying but that would take too much time (as I found out) and I'm sure there is fault on both sides. Probably the best solution would be to ban anyone who has contributed to this debate from editing any of the various global warming/climate change/mars heating up/etc. articles again! Mike 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I think the next step is to thank those administrators who do give up their own time to read all this argy-bargy. To do a good job moderating these disputes must take an awful lot of time and effort. Well done and thanks. Having read the israel-palestian and global warming, perhaps it might be worth considering creating new pages which can only be edited by one "side" which are linked to the main page (the main should not be edited by those taking a "side"). By asking people to decide whether they wish to be "neutral", "pro" or "anti" it would allow them to contribute to the article which best suits their own background. But more importantly it would allow the articles to include contentious information often repressed by one group. The "pro" group would be balanced by the "anti" group obtaining an overall NPOV within wikipedia (but not within those articles). Just an idea! Mike 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forking is bad. --Onorem 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Raul654 filed this complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

Raul654, this post that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group , , orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows - thus they are bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. To bad we organized our secret conspiracy on public talk pages. Now all our hopes of complete world domination via accurate scientific representations are moot! Back to the UN mothership! --Stephan Schulz 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated here. ~ UBeR 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, this post by William M. Connolley on a user talk page , is clearly designed to appear innocent and is a pointer to the next post on another user talk page , where the actual conspiring and planning of your group's next move is clearly discussed. WMC was obviously attempting to hide this discussion otherwise why would he say "Where next? - I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" and give a pointer to another user talk page before starting the actual planning session? The "where next" comment makes me question "where was it before?". Your self-serving mischaracterization of user talk pages as "public" is false as the public rarely (or never) visits them for "general browsing". Now that your group has been exposed, I hope that the Misplaced Pages community takes this seriously and considers permanently banning your control and POV pushing on all GW pages. -- Brittainia 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the above post is a surreal attempt at humor, or is meant to be taken seriously. Assuming it to be the latter, if anyone wants to conspire, it would be trivial to use the "email this user" function on the side of each user's talk page.

Furthermore, there is nothing unseemly about either my message informing WMC as to the existance of this thread (after all, Uber's persistent harassment of him was one of the three primary complaints here; obviously a de facto part of that is to inform the person being harassed), or the fact that WMC asked me to participate in a discussion about how to follow up this thread. Raul654 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Although a conspiracy is not proved only by the discussions that Brittainia unearted, circumstances are of concern. I was perhaphs naive, but I must say that until now, I did not understand how it could be that these three editors are on the same line 99% of the time in GW related articles and always backing up each other. I mean, in normal circumstances, the odds are that they will disagree here and there on occasion no? This being said, the "monkey-off-your-back" post by Raul654 as well as the one where WMC gives an awkward pointer to his friends do not seem to be within normal Misplaced Pages behaviour. --Childhood's End 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...maybe our usual (though by no means universal) agreement has something to do with the fact that all of us can recognize and read scientific papers, and distinguish them from political pseudo-science. Moreover, 99% of the time, Raul is not even there. As of the end of January 2007, he has 8 edits on talk:global warming (as opposed to William's about 700 and my 400). And, of course, the secret conspiracy on our talk pages is open for all to see. My talk page has never been archived. According to the article contribution counter, William has 11 edits there, Raul has 1 (and that is the official notification about the closing of William's ArbCom case that I reopened). Given that User:Brittainia herself has indeed widely canvased support (even on pages of users who have been inactive for a long time), this conspiracy theory is laughable.--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

His 8 edits to talk in contrast to his 76 on the main article. Pretty bad ratio. ~ UBeR 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you sound like the accused in the accused box who is yelling that the accusations against him are laughable. Although you can of course have your say in this new affair, you should stick to facts, not rant. Let the discussion go and see how the case unfolds. As a party to the "conspiracy theory", your testimony (since you chose to testify) must be flawless. It is true that your talk pages are public, but you also know just like us that they're not widely read, far from that.

Besides, we can all read scientific papers. It's just that we can also elect to be critical rather than elect for blind belief. Try reading David Hume (who proved that no certainty exists in science), whose work had a huge influence on Einstein, among others. --Childhood's End 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in this that I probably miss some of it...

1. I'm not an accused accused in any way that remotely resembles the situation in a court of law and warrants such a comparison.
2. There is no "new affair".
3. I'm not yelling (but admit to some ranting, which seems like an adequate tool in this situation).
4. I'm sticking to the facts.
5. I'm not a party to any conspiracy theory, neither with not without quotes.
6. My testimony certainly does not have to be "flawless" (why should it have to be?) and, in fact, I'm not giving "testimony". At most I'm presenting evidence.
7. In fact, I have no idea about how many people read my talk pages. Certainly most people I have interacted with have my talk page on their watch list.
8. I have no idea if you are able to read (as in "read and understand") scientific papers. Certainly, "we all" cannot read scientific papers - its extremely hard to read and understand a scientific paper that is not in your field of expertise. Most people (and most Wikipedians) have no approriate scientific training at all. William and Raymond are actually specialists in the field.
9. Indeed, there is no absolute certainty in science. None of us has ever claimed there is. But that does not stop us from using scientific results to calculate the statics of a bridge, to determine the ballistics of a weapon to put someone into jail (or, in more barbaric countries, onto death row), to develop a new vaccine, or for thousands of other tasks daily. Demanding "absolute proof" is at best a self-serving delaying tactic.

--Stephan Schulz 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you claim not to be an accused - well I accuse you of conspiring with Willam M. Connolley to censor and control global warming articles. Here is a clear example of how you both work, (bolded to highlight obvious censorship and biased POV - from Talk:Global warming section titled: Svante Arrhenius)

Fair enough. I fixed it above.

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot afford to let anyone (let alone Administrators) abuse and control widely read & controversial areas such as the global warming articles. Especially in so obvious a form of POV censorship. -- Brittainia 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suprisingly, while you may think that the 95% claim supports your POV, it is unambiguously wrong. That's why I asked for someone (notice this high level of conspirational secrecy!) to fix it. I would have replaced it with a corrected version, but, on balance, I think William was right - there is no place in such a detailed discussion in a biographical article (that't why we have greenhouse gases). --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How odd that "someone" turned out to be William M. Connolley (who is part of your group ). That is a brilliant method of removing all of the inconvenient facts from the main Global warming page (almost sounds logical - hard to argue against). I may not agree with your censorship - but I have to admit to a grudging respect for the genius of your methods of execution. -- Brittainia 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that even if something is known to be incorrect, it would be "censorship" to delete it? The 95% claim isn't just wrong; it's absurdly wrong, like saying the moon is made of green cheese. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am also about to join the "accused". I don't really have a problem with the ongoing pattern of new editors arriving on these pages etc. I agree that UBer seems to be trying to improve Misplaced Pages in good faith. However, I find the pattern of personalising discussion on this topic by attacking other longer standing editors totally unacceptable, both on and off wiki. It violates Misplaced Pages:Harassment and a pile of other policies. If those who seek feel NPOV is in a different place (however good faith they are) throw tantrums and engage in personal attacks on other editors than we should warn and ultimately reluctantly exclude them. We have enough to do to stem the rising tide of outright vandalism without wasting time on petty squabbles. The attack pages have been deleted, some sort of good behaviour agreement should be sort before this is considered closed. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How refreshing: I am also now object of an off-wiki attack page: . I ought to add for completeness that the poor Wikiquette issue I raised at AN/I before: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacks. It is a shame that we don't seem to deal with these kind of editors quicker. --BozMo talk 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you have done nothing wrong - why is this radio show investigating your group? -- Brittainia 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't have any group? As a pretty straightforward demonstration of this I was recently elected as an Administrator here by a very marginal majority (76% versus the 75% required) but none of the editors with whom I am assumed to be "grouped" voted for me. What better demonstration is there of a lack of conspiracy? As for this radio show ("race to the right"?), as far as I can tell it is a couple of guys who have a very strong POV and are trying to make a story about people not accepting their views. But they are both contributing to Misplaced Pages and writing a website apparently attacking editors here alleging conspiracy just because anyone with a reasonable scientific background is reverting low quality contributions. This should be stopped now. --BozMo talk 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bored Radio DJ's... that would explain everything, I suppose. But they aren't the only people complaining about a conspiracy - there are plenty of Misplaced Pages editors who have been complaining about the cabal controlling (and pushing their POV on) the global warming articles. William M. Connolley has already had three complaints against him - which two members of his group have admitted that they helped him to get out of (their admissions are right here on this page). After this latest complaint, he and his group conspired to launch this diversionary complaint which we are now involved in against UBeR (I am not sure why, if they had nothing to hide?). It is now time to begin a formal investigation of their tactics and the allegations against them from so many sources (including the bored DJ's). -- Brittainia 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this looks like an unfounded allegation. Personally I have complained several times on AN/I about UBer and others engaged in personal attacks ref the content of the page. This seems to me to be the substance of the current complaint: if he and the 3-4 others in the "conspiracy theory" gang were a bit more civil we would not be here (and that group have a lot of cross comments planning on each others talk pages, and abusing other editors). This is not in appearance a diversionary complaint AFAICT and unless "having a monkey on your back" has a vastly different meaning in other countries there is nothing I have read above to make this claim substantial. I think it is time to go to the ArbCom and ask for a community ban for the disruptive editors. --BozMo talk 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncivil? Lets not fool yourself, Bozo. ~ UBeR 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed

Per Raymond's suggestion above, I ran a checkuser query on Ramses and Brittainia and - low and behold - they are the same person.They both edit from the same class B network, and almost entirely the same class C networks too, with many overlapping IP addresses (including one case where Ramese made an edit with an IP, then Brittainaia a few minutes later, then Ramses again a few minutes after that; and another case where they used the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other). They're clearly the same person. Raul654 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - user:Persianne is also linked to them. Raul654 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a separate issue? As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors in terms of location / computer use, etc. If your intent is to distract from issue at hand, please do so elsewhere. If, however, there is reason for the inclusion here unbeknownst to me, I apologize. ~ UBeR 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the fact that Brittainia and I live together is anyone's business but ours and it certainly should not be relevant to this review process. I do object however, to the process by which Raul654 breached my privacy. No formal process was initiated - is this acceptable or is it more renegade tactics from this group? ~ Rameses 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your concerted editing was enough, on its face, to make Raymond suspicious as to request a sockpuppet check.

And it's extremely relevant to this discussion - The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. -- Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets Raul654 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have AFD'd Persianne's only substantive contribution, Persian Panda, as a probable hoax article since I can find no confirming sources. If it is a hoax, it is worse possible kind as it appears both detailed and well-written, and would easily pass as legitimate (albeit unsourced) content to most observers. Dragons flight 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, both Brittainia and I would like an apology (for unecessary and unauthorised breach of privacy) from Raul654 and from Raymond Arrit. Failing this I would like to initiate a formal complaint and a review of their actions here. ~ Rameses 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that, beyond your self-serving denial, we have no evidence at all that you, Brittainia, and Persianne are in fact different people. Moreover, the fact that your similar editing patterns were, on their own, enough to tip Raymond off strongly suggests otherwise. I have no intention of apologizing for following up on an (apparently correct) sockpuppeting suspicion. If that doesn't suit you, you can complain to user:UninvitedCompany, the checkuser ombudsman. Raul654 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Though this is pointless to respond to, I'll say it anyway for brevity's sake. Where is the breach of privacy? Raul654 has been entrusted with checkuser access to identify socks, meatpuppetts, and other uses of contributions to evade bans/blocks or misuse Misplaced Pages content or process. We are not all entrusted with such access for the very privacy reasons you are concerned with. Raul654 confirmed the IPs, and not a single shred of personal identity was posted. Only checkusers can view their logs. I don't know your gender, location either city or continent, editing patterns that aren't public or marital/tax/health status from the checkuser confirmation. So what exactly is your beef with a checkuser that would invite such a riled defense? This question is rhetorical, I do not request a response. Teke 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, for the sake of clarity, continent, state, city, and even ISP can be determined with an IP. So you're not 100% correct in that aspect. On another note, I believe the very problem was that Raul654 WAS the one who did the check, as opposed to a more trustworthy and uninvolved person. ~ UBeR 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are dragging a child into this, this really is typical of your smear tactics. It is reprehensible how low you will stoop to win! ~ Rameses 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on these comments as well as the signature at the end UBeR's comment here, I would not be surprised if Rameses, Brittainia, Persianne, and UBeR are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of complete fairness, based on this comment and the fact that he raised the issue above ("As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors") I ran a check on Uber (my first and only one). There is no evidence there to suggest he is related to the Ramses/Brittainia/Persianne sockpuppetry Raul654 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to Raul's comment, I am convinced based on editting patterns alone that Uber is definitely distinct from the others. Dragons flight 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts galore) That's going too far IMHO. I strongly doubt that UBeR is the same as the other two (or three, or one, or whatever). Raymond Arritt 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is merely coincidental that Rameses just started to sign his comments the same way that UBeR does?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly disappointed, Ryulong. ~ UBeR 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Or whatever cliche I'm trying to think of.) Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since your group obviously has no decency whatsoever, I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman. (Is there no place in Misplaced Pages for families?) ~ Rameses 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Families are allowed on Misplaced Pages. My little brother has an account here. However, when all of the members of a family push the same point of view disruptively, we have to apply the duck test.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one where if you weigh the same as a duck, you're a witch? Because a duck floats, wood floats, you burn wood, you burn witches? "She turned me into a newt!" "You don't look like a newt." "I... I got better!" -- Ben 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman? What Ombudsman? Corvus cornix 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and all of you others, I must say that I am also truly disappointed by your continually dragging a child into this unseemly character assassination (it reminds me of Shakespeare's "the stabbing of Julius Caesar" scene). Persianne has certainly not "pushed the same point of view disruptively" (apart from one vote to save her dad's article from a similar assassination) and if you can show any evidence at all - do so. If you cannot, kindly retract your ugly smear and apologise. Failing this, I ask that this unwarranted and completely false attack on a child's character also be examined by the ombudsman. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... Checkuser only discloses similarities between accounts and general information in order to avoid revealing personal details. Personal details, for example, such as that Persianne is apparently the account of an underage female. In the future, you may want to consider not revealing such specific details in public, even when making such a response. Bitnine 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather that shes a daughter of a couple, which isn't quite so revealing. ~ UBeR 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All that Raul has revealed is that all three users apparently use the same machine(s) to access Misplaced Pages. He did not reveal either the ISP, the location, or the (apparent) family relationships. The latter were subsequently revealed (in as far as we trust them) by User: Rameses and User: Brittainia themselves. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since creating a hoax article is blockable already, you'd do better to address Persian Panda rather than bemoaning the "character assassination" of an account apparently created primarily to hoax Misplaced Pages. Dragons flight 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - that article was her class project. She and her friends set out to prove their science teacher wrong - by showing that Misplaced Pages is a reasonably reliable source of information (through it's constant error correction). I guess that makes you a part of the project - the part of the hero...? -- Brittainia 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had the misfortune to try and edit the various global warming articles. Although I do not personally agree with Uber's point of view, I am firmly convinced that the faction that opposes Uber's views try is ganging up on contributors they don't like in an attempt to silent contributions informing readers of alternative & notable view points to the pro global warming lobbyists. I really do feal sorry for people who are trying to document the alternative view to the pro global warming lobby because they are up against some very nasty characters who quite clearly want to stop people like Uber using any means possible. This whole situation doesn't do Misplaced Pages's reputation any good. There is unquestionably a majority (of scientists) who are of the view that the minority should not be heard at all. The majority appear to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at all times of day and night, the minority seems to be "normal" people with an interest as they edit intermittently.

From what I have seen this is not at all a fair fight, this is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of the overwhelming force of the Nazis attacking the minority jews (with the same vicious belief they are right). The "Nazis" may be technically operating within the law, and the "jews" may be behaving in ways that in other cases would be acceptable, but until Misplaced Pages finds a way to redress the balance and in particular starts to enforce NPOV, I'm with the underdogs and would urge you to see their actions as extremely restrained given the intolerable position they are under. Mike 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in the first attempt. Impressive. And with regard to your edits here: I suggest you retract the "professional lobbyists" claim unless you have any serious evidence that anyone in this conflict is paid for his work on Misplaced Pages. I'm still waiting for my cheque... --Stephan Schulz 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal" - Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Prospect Magazine, November 2005) --Childhood's End 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"A fascist group can easily hide itself by quoting Godwin's Law whenever anyone reveals the true nature of their activities." This has the added benefit of smearing their victim's reputation. You can call that Brittainia's Law. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to call this an uncalled for and unjustifiable personal attack. --Stephan Schulz 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic. These ad hominem arguments do nothing but to distract from the topic. It is becoming increasingly annoying. If you feel so inclined, please bicker on each other's talk pages. ~ UBeR 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Uber on the minimum wage article. In that context, I've found him to be one of the few, intellectually honest Misplaced Pages editors. -- Mgunn 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been away dealing with my own server issues lately. I have had the horrid experience of attempting to edit/balance the Global Warming pages. My own research of edit histories, etc. has shown some extremely disturbing things about Misplaced Pages, its administrators and its policies. The short of the whole issue is this: there are a number of admins (the group being discussed here are not the only ones) who flex their power over any other editor that dare disagree with them. The tactics used are vague references to policies to 'prove' the other editors are out-of-line; carefully crafted cheap shots in the article edits summaries & talk pages to 'push buttons' of the 'bad editors'; talk down to them as being too inexperienced to understand how to properly edit Misplaced Pages; revert edits wholesale and in tandem (when one's rv is undone another will re-revert for the admin. The harder the resistance to the will of the abusive admins the more destructive the admins use/abuse of policies become. People talk about the blue veil of protection for police officers and a perfect example of that in Misplaced Pages can be found in reading the past 2 years of action, complaints, activity, etc from the admins and their colleagues in this particular complaint.

This entire RfC is a part of the constant efforts to chase away editors who do not comply with the viewpoints of various admins. To some degree it worked with me personally...I have chosen to not edit Misplaced Pages until I talk with certain key people in Misplaced Pages about this problem. Their actions are so intrusive I have recently received messages from some of these people attempting to dictate content on my own personal webspaces. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay left

Ok, noting that User:Essjay is gone, and is no longer around to use his tools. I think for the short term we will be fine without him acting as a B-crat, Where we will miss him most is on WP:RFCU and WP:MEDCOM. I think attention needs to be drawn to those areas to prevent too much of a backlog. Essjay ran 11 bots, and they are all currently down, though this is being worked on. The new bots will run under new usernames Folks I think we need to make sure that this gap is filled. The best way to do so is to support those that have the buttons already, and try to make life as easy as possible on them. I'm sure the clerks for the various processes don't mind new helpers. We might have a few problems down the road, but we can absorb the loss. —— Eagle101 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I need a TS root to grab a root archive sometime...... if Essjay doesn't care if we continue to use his code -- Tawker 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A potential problem may be his now-blocked archival bots, namely EssjayBot, EssjayBot II, EssjayBot III, etc. Unless they have been replaced by other bots... --physicq (c) 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is being worked on. I am currently requesting a toolserver account to run those bots. (in addition to a bot of my own programming) —— Eagle101 06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We miss Essay, of course : (, but the Mediation Committee does have a new chair, ^demon. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We're still down a checkuser though. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, I suppose I.. ;) The other checkusers can handle it, there have been quite a few active lately. Essjay's activity there was down quite a bit from where it was previously, with UninvitedCompany, Jpgordon, and Mackensen handling most requests. Prodego 12:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing and available to do check user, if I have the necessary community trust. --kingboyk 13:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The entrusted users step up when someone is gone. Essjay was gone for three months last fall and Redux (and others) did a bang up job at changing usernames. We aren't going to have a b-crat backlog. Teke 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

His talk page

• Now, I don't doubt he has left. There is some ridiculous trolling going on. Is there a need to keep his talk page open? Seriously? – Chacor 12:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected. – Chacor 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could admins please refrain from adding content to that protected page? It seems to be becoming an admin-only personal messaging board to say goodbye to Essjay. I certainly don't object to anyone saying goodbye to him but to continue editing a protected page for any but the most essential of reasons seems to be contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. We've had enough discussions of a perceived divide between administrators and regular editors that I don't think I need to repeat the main points in that discussion. --ElKevbo 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Essjay/Letter

One of the user subpages deleted per Essjay's request was User:Essjay/Letter, which has been fairly central to the whole situation and has been linked from a number of external sites, many of them (like Slashdot) widely read. Under the circumstances, I felt that its deletion just now — and especially the fact that, to a casual user visiting the site, it seems to have "vanished without a trace of ever existing" — may create an impression, however inaccurate, of a "cover-up" in the minds of at least some people stumbling upon links to it.

After discussing ther matter with the deleting admin, I've restored the page for now. I'd appreciate feedback on whether this was the appropriate thing to do, and will attempt to contact Essjay himself to ask whether he actually intended his request to apply to that specific page and what he would like us to do with it.

This is a complicated issue, and I certainly have no wish to hurt Essjay any more than he has been hurt already, nor to override his personal wishes willy-nilly for no good reason. Even so, I just don't think simple deletion is the right decision here. In particular, if the page is deleted, and perhaps even if it isn't, I believe placing some sort of notice there with a link to Essjay's request would be appropriate, and would alleviate any potential concerns that we are trying to make the page "disappear". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clash with the right to vanish everyone of us has. Maybe it can be transwikied to Wikisource, although I would prefer to keep it deleted. -- ReyBrujo 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish does not allow for the retraction of the GFDL license you give all text you contribute here. InBC 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish applies to user space. If Essjay had put this letter into project space, on a noticeboard or an article talk page, it would be here forever. But it's in his space, let it go. I don't normally wear my religion on my sleeve, but I just got back from church, and the message this morning was the latest in a series on The Beatitudes. "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." Whose interests are served by leaving the letter up? Slashdot visitors and attention seekers? Let it go. If necessary, post a soft redirect to m:Right to vanish. Thatcher131 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of convenience to people visiting from off-site we should put up a short explanation as to why the page doesn't exist any more (users right to vanish, etc). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to create as neutral of an explanation as possible. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect it if it starts to get vandalized. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilmari, thank you. That looks right to me. Thatcher131 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A good 'solution' to this seems to me to include a link from User:Essjay/Letter to somewhere else that includes the text. Otherwise we are still at some level giving the impression to people who are merely coming in for a peak that we are "hiding something". Mathmo 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please ban for POV pushing, etc... Completely ignoring the talk page, this user does nothing but edit the Condoleeza Rice article trying to give political commentary that belongs on a blog or a cable talk show, but not Misplaced Pages. Here are several diffs: wacko poll analysis that doesn't belong in the lead, vague 9/11 innuendo, and unrelated political commentary. This user is extremely familiar with Misplaced Pages rules, and i suspect it is someone else's sock puppet. -- Mgunn 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is as follows: This is not really a banning situation yet. At issue is how to characterise Condoleeza Rice's popularity based on opinion polls (which raises obvious WP:OR problems). Ohioan1 has been slowly editwarring about this, but consensus on the talk page appears to favour the opinion of Mgunn and others. Also, Ohioan1 is a single purpose account, editing that article only. I'd support a brief block of Ohioan1 to stop him editwarring and make him re-engage in discussion on the talk page. Thoughts? Sandstein 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for next time, this belongs on WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Sandstein 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A few points of clarification. It is clear that short attacks are effective in creating confusion.

Mgunn asserts that I have edited nothing but edit the Condoleeza Rice page. This is false, I have reviewed many others and edited one other.

Mgunn’s assertion that I have attempted to place information in the lead that does not belong there is not the whole story. I have attempted to move the poll details to a separate section and this has been blocked repeatedly; others have commented that the lead does not summarize what is in the article and the proposed move would rectify that. Mgunn has stated that he does not have a problem with the finding, but that it should not be in the lead. So, the lead continues to carry many detailed statements, footnotes and all, and Mgunn blocks addition of pertinent, new, information. So it is a Catch 22: the lead contains many detailed statements and Mgunn blocks an updated statement on the basis that it is detailed. The result is the lead statements are unbalanced and POV.

Mgunn asserts that “You are obviously not a new editor to Misplaced Pages” and that “This user is extremely familiar with Misplaced Pages rules.” These assertions are false, and also at odds with Mgunn’s assertion that I might be a random Middle School student. If I were extremely familiar with Misplaced Pages rules, I would have been able to find this ANI page earlier—Mgunn kindly referred to it but did not provide a link; I found the link only when I searched his talk page. Further, I would not have made some new-be judgement errors that I made in my earlier edits.

Mgunn criticizes my focus on the Rice page as evidence of wrongdoing. However, I understand that technical writers focus add value by studying a topic in depth and adding relevant content. If you research my history, you will see that I have added several well documented and accepted contributions to the page. I do not cruise a collection of political pages as some others have, with the principal edits being blocks.

Mgunn asserts that I have not used the talk pages. This is odd, because Mgunn has not responded to recent discussion I posted regarding the very statements to which Mgunn objects.

Sincerely, Ohioan1 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?

Several users are arguing about this issue. My opinion is that if a vandal removes warning from his page, then he is interfering with the process of keeping track of his vandalism so that appropriate warnings or blocks can be made. Thus his removal is vandalism; and we should revert it and give him another warning. MrDarcy (talk · contribs) (who is apparently an administrator), claims that such reversion and additional warning would itself be vandalism by the "enforcer". And he is threatening to give warnings and blocks to those who do that. What is the policy on this matter? Thanks for your help. JRSpriggs 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until recently there were specific warning templates advising vandals that removing legitimate warning templates was also vandalism. I agree that it is necessary for legitimate warnings to stay on vandals' pages, so others on vandal patrol can see the prior offenses without having to dig through the history. It is almost always the worst vandals who promptly remove the warnings, often doubling the workload for those of us trying to stop them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those templates were intentionally deleted because many people agree with MrDarcy (though perhaps with weaker language) that reverting vandalism warnings is generally inappropriate. While I understand your concern about tracking the worst vandals, allowing such reversions also encourages harassment of generally good users that simply make mistakes. The amount of problems they were creating was disproportionate to the amount of good a little extra tracking was doing since any admin worth his title ought to already be reviewing histories. Dragons flight 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An archive of the deletion review regarding warning removal templates can be seen here. Dragons flight 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to me to show strong consensus that valid warnings need to stay on a vandal's page, and that removing them is wrong. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine is far more recent. That poll (which I helped create) does not reflect current policy. As WP:VAND, "removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" replaced the statements that removing warnings was vandalism. While removing warnings might be a cause for further dispute resolution, it is not presently considered a form of vandalism and should not be indiscriminately reverted. Dragons flight 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's so easy to solve, just make sure your edit summary reflects the fact you gave them a warning. Then it will not matter if they remove it and the next person will just need to look at the history page and not go though several revisions. Misplaced Pages:Use common sense applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in as another admin strongly against edit-warring in an attempt to force the talk page display of material a user does not want. Talk pages exist to facilitate >communication< with the user. Not to serve as a perpetual 'wall of shame' for every condemnation that any random user chooses to place there. If you want to review past problems check the page history and/or the block log... that is their purpose, not the talk page's. --CBD 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CBD, and would just like to point out that if vandalism comes from an IP, that IP could be used the next day by a completely different person who is adding useful content. If it comes from a registered user, I imagine that in most cases, the account should be blocked indefinitely. I'm basing that on my feeling that there would be very few registered users who add the word "poop" to the article about George W. Bush today and add useful content to the article on contact lenses tomorrow. But surely a user should not be forced to display warnings that annoy or embarrass him. If that were the case, we'd need to change the titles from "user warnings" to "user black marks". When I send a warning, I'm careful to put something like "uw-vandalism2" in the edit summary, so that an admin can look briefly at the history, without checking the diffs, and see that someone has been warned. I'd hope, in any case, that an admin would check for vandalism carried out by the vandal before blocking, rather than warnings issued to the vandal, as I'm sure there are some who might misuse the warning templates if they disagree with an edit or want to harass someone. Just my two cents. ElinorD (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember the point in the warnings is to get them to stop vandalising, if they just blank the warning and do nothing then it worked. If they continue just add the next warning if appropriate, most who are intent on vandalising will just continue and It'll get to a blockable level reasonably quickly. If it comes to an AIV report you can note that warnings were removed. The other side to consider is that of attention seeking, some of those involved in this are incapable of gaining attention for positive contributions and would rather gain attention from the negative, edit warring over warnings is just feeding that attention seeking. If they are replacing the warning with taunts, abuse etc. then keep cool and if need be ask for an admin to see about protecting the page/blocking. --pgk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is definitely some gray area here. Maybe there should be some sort of time period that warnings are expected to remain. If an editor is removing current (24 hours for logged in users, less for IPs) warnings and continuing the actions that led to the warning in the first place, I would consider the removal as an additional act of vandalism. /shrug. --Onorem 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If they remove the template, then they have clearly seen it. The purpose of these templates is not to blackmark users, it is to ask (then urge, then tell, then warn) users not to vandalise (be incivil, edit war, etc). If they have seen the message, then the purpose of the template has been achieved. Reapplying such templates if the user has removed them is edit warring; it should not be done. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I can revert a page without viewing the content. If someone has been doing something or engaging in inappropriate behaviour and sees my name as having just edited his talk page, he can easily revert it without actually reading what I wrote.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion could be narrowed to focus strictly on anonymous IP users as a starting point. The majority of vandalism comes from anonymous users. Since anonymous users do not generally have the same rights as account holders and user talk pages are a community asset, not personal, it's reasonable that a pattern of vandalism should be required to stand on the talk page for a period of time. The removal of vandalism warnings slows down the enforcement process. I don't look at page history or edit summaries when placing vandalism warnings. It is a waste of time - and often time is valuable when trying to stop a rampant vandal (at least when you have to get the warnings documented before you can report to WP:AIV). What about those vandal patrollers who are using tools like VandalProof? They are likely to put a test1 on someone who has been blocked 3 times in the last month just because of a blanked page. If the user can be penalized for blanking the page, it will either act as a deterrent or demonstrate malice on the part of the user. -- Mufka 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea how VP works, but honestly, if the page has been blanked it's fairly obvious that one has to check the history to look for previous warnings. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about penalizing people, it's about preventing disruption, starting wars over user talk content is in itself disruptive. When dealing with a vandal you should always be checking their recent contributions anyway to revert any as yet undetected vandalism, this will tell you if they've blanked their page and if they have indeed been up to any other misdeeds recently. --pgk 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its also about civility. And while on a low-traffic talk page of an IP its easy to check for previous warnings, on a busy talk page of a long-time user (yes they can still make mistakes), it can be near impossible to dig through and find those. Warnings are no different than any other kind of talk. We consider it a civility issue if someone is constantly blanking talk on his talk page without responding to it. So why should valid warnings be any different? They're still communication. There is no reason valid warnings on a talk page should be treated differently than valid communication and they can both be archived as appropriate. We've established that users don't own their talk page, even though they're given some latitude with it, its a place where a record of communication with other users is kept.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If one has to scan the history of a page to find warnings (and talk pages can often have lengthy histories), figuring out who to block becomes a real chore. If the warnings are left on the talk page, it becomes much easier to find out what level the vandal is at, in turn making it easier to escalate the template level when appropriate. Users don't own their talk pages, and vandals, in my opinion, should have more restrictions because of their proven malicious intents (at least persistent vandals should). If a warning is unwarranted, because the user did not perform the edit in question (the warner made a mistake), they are welcome to remove it themselves, but some users (IPs and registered users) have simply blanked their talk pages, regardless of whether or not the warnings previously displayed had been valid or read. As far as I'm concerned, archiving to a page linked from the main page is OK; blanking/deletion is not OK. — Tuvok 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also become an issue if, for instance, a long-time user had an issue with a certain subject which he only edited occasionally. If there were warnings in relation to it, and that person consistently blanked them, any future people leaving notices in regards to some inappropriate behaviour in regards to a certain subject might never be able to notice the pattern and realize it probably needed addressed more than a simple warning.--Crossmr 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two additional comments on this; If a user does not have an account and is therefore showing up as an anonymous IP, it should just go with the territory that the user might have vandalism warnings sitting on the talk page from a previous user. The user doesn't own the talk page. We could just have a template that explains the situation very politely to the next user of the ip. On that same idea, the majority of anon ip's don't change from day to day or even month to month. It is reasonable that a user who is vandalizing on that ip will be back on the same ip to do it again (if they do it again). The second, and perhaps more important, is that I don't want to see vandal patrollers getting scolded by an admin who believes that blanking the talk page is not a bad thing. It makes us all look stupid if we can't agree on what the policy is and how it can be enforced. -- Mufka 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A template would be good. I think several exist, it would be a matter of ensuring that they get on all IP talk pages. I still can't find a "good" reason for blanking warnings when other communication is allowed to stay unless its an attempt to hide it. Thats assuming bad faith, but honestly I just cannot think of a good faith reason to blank valid warnings unless you're consistently blanking your entire talk page (which you shouldn't really be doing anyway).--Crossmr 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is an established editor with that much throughput on their talk page that a brief viewing of the page history won't make the issue obvious, I'd say that's all the more reason to not worry about them keeping warnings visible if they don't want them. We should be looking to the bigger picture in such cases not merely counting warnings. The warning templates aren't something to bash people with, if the issue has been resolved and moved on from (i.e. they've read it and "conformed") then we don't need chanting of "unclean". --pgk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. Because its much easier for an established editor to cover up an issue that way. If someone doesn't seen any obvious warnings to this person they might just leave another civil1, and move on and think nothing of it. What they don't notice on this editors busy talk page is maybe he's had a half dozen of those over the last year, but its never involved the same editors, so no one picks up on it. That would be an indication that perhaps it should be taken to another level for input and possible handling of the situation. As I pointed out, there is no good reason to remove warnings if they were valid. Absolutely 100% none. And "feeling like it" isn't a good reason. If I ask you a question and you blank it, its considered uncivil. It should be no different with warnings. Its just communication. There is no reason it can't be archived in 7 days along with everything else, or whatever the regular archiving period is on that particular users talk page.--Crossmr 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that fails WP:AGF, assuming it is done for "an established editor to cover an issue", doesn't cut it. Regardless of if you see it as uncivil is irrelevant, yes we want people to be civil, do we block people for being mildly uncivil, no. Which is more disruptive removing some warnings they've read and understood or Assumptions of bad faith concerning that warning and edit warring over the removal. --pgk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't blindly assume good faith. And if you can't provide a "good" reason for the removal of the warnings before normal archiving, I'm not violating that. If a single good scenario can't be provided for their removal, yet bad scenarios can easily be though of, AGF doesn't apply. There also wouldn't be any edit warning if we established a policy on their removal. Hence why this discussion is here. We don't block people for being mildly uncivil no. But if someone is consistently uncivil in all dealings he has with a particular subject (Lets say historical figures from a certain state, it doesn't really matter what) If a keen eyed editor notices this while leaving the individual a warning, he may try and intervene and recommend that the editor not edit those kinds of articles or if the editor ignores that and continues to be uncivil in regards to those articles, it may go to a point where the editor is officially banned from editing those kinds of articles. There are also other kinds of sneaky vandalism that long time editors could get away with by being allowed to bury warnings. There is also no assumption of bad faith in my saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wipe the warning right away. I'm simply saying that it is communication and it shouldn't be treated any differently.--Crossmr 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do blindly assume good faith, when we have some evidence of bad faith in an action then that assumption evaporates. If someone removes a warning and doesn't continue the behaviour they were warned about that is not evidence of bad faith in removal of the warning. --pgk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Users are heavily discouraged from removing messages from their talk pages, unless the message to them is a personal attack. Blanking warnings is vandalism, whether the warning has been there for one day or one year. Acalamari 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong answer! Agathoclea 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People can assert this as often as they want, fact is it is not consensus, and therefore not policy. And if you try to enforce it and edit-war about it, you will be in trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a bot on the drawing board that makes archives retro-actively. Once I got a better caching routine done I will make it available. _InBC 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer? What do you mean? This is a discussion about vandalism, not a quiz. Acalamari 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fut.Perf., are you saying that I would be in trouble and considered a vandal if I suggested a new policy that said that blanking talk page warnings is vandalism? Why would I be in trouble for? I would just be suggesting a policy. Acalamari 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a policy proposal. _InBC 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a proposal. Recently I encountered a user who receives lots of warnings. He immediately blanks all warnings and block notices, even while the blocks are active. Raymond Arritt 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Acamalari: No, obviously not, not for suggesting a policy. (But I'd advise you that, given the strong opposition such proposals have had in the past, you have very little chance of seeing such a proposal through. It's almost like one of those "perennial proposals". The community is pretty much split over it.) What I was saying was, you seemed to be just unilaterally declaring it a policy, and you would be in trouble if you attempted to treat it as one in practice, for instance by edit-warring on another user's page to enforce it. I thought I'd expressed myself clearly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was policy because several other users, including administrators, have said to me that talk page messages should not be removed without a very good reason (i.e. trolling) Acalamari 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors/admins who think this is a policy. I actually had to ask about it here about a week or so ago because I saw an editor get blocked for 3RR because they removed an old vandal warning and then removed the subsequent warnings they received for that action... because the admin thought he was enforcing policy. It's probably a good idea to have a more formal discussion on this. I'm not sure I want to see a hard policy on this, but a guideline may be helpful.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. -- Mufka 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had such a policy in the past. It doesn't work. It encourages edit warring over the presence of the warning messages and leads to escalating disruption that is far more troubling than the mere blanking of warnings. Sorry, but no thanks. Dragons flight 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So then apply it appropriately? Very simply the scenario should look like this: Regular Joe User notices user X has blanked warnings, they restore them and reminds them that that is against policy and they can archive the warnings with their regular archives. If user X continues, they've been warned about the behaviour. Make a report to AIV, an administrator can restore them, provide a final warning (because honestly if this takes more than 2 warnings to get across, there is a malfunction in the junction) and then lock the talk page. This makes sure all talk is readily available. The warnings should provide links on how to archive a talk page and links to say the village pump if the individual feels a warning is unfair, or they need help understanding it. It can also include information saying "If this warning is patently false you can remove it, but explain why in the edit summary, i.e. I never edited the article in question".--Crossmr 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The standing official policy says that this activity is "frowned upon". What exactly does that mean? How does one enforce "frowned upon"? The ambiguity is what is so infuriating. This debate will go on forever until that is resolved. We need to establish policy in one direction or the other. Separately, if an edit war breaks out as a result of a policy, it would be a pretty short edit war - warning1, warning2, warning3, warning4, block. -- Mufka 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that people are discouraged from doing it, but it won't (in the absense of other factors) lead to any sanction. Disruptive user that also remove warnings are more likely to be seen as trolls though. Dragons flight 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, just because did not find consensus in the past does not mean it will not now. I encourage the drafting of a proposal, it is clear there is much support for it. I don't see how it can encourage edit warring if the side removing the warnings is violating policy. _InBC 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a link to a proposal of mine. I provided the link further down this page, but I'll provide it here too: User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. Acalamari 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that your proposal is specifically for IP addresses, but lots of others have said this should apply to registered talk pages as well. Here's the problem: Say I'm having a dispute with User X. I am being civil and refraining from personal attacks. User X leaves an npa-2 warning on my talk page, even though it is entirely unfounded. Is removing it vandalism? If yes, can others remove it? If so, will we need to set up a noticeboard for requests for independent editors to investigate whether the warning was warranted and if not, to remove it? Obviously this would be a bigger problem with registered user talk pages, but we also have some VERY good IP editors (one in particular, of course, comes to mind). Would this policy apply to him? Why or why not? It's really not that difficult to check the history page, especially if something about the user seems fishy to you. If they are vandalizing and they blank their talk page, block 'em. That's completely in line with present policy, in which blanking warnings can only be considered disruption in the presence of other disruption (such as vandalism). My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt article

Daniel Brandt 13th AfD nomination - The Daniel Brandt article now is going through an unprecedented 13th Article for Deletion (AfD) nomination. There were significant issues brought up in the article deletion review following the 12th AfD nomination that may eventually need to be resolved. If past actions related to this article are any indication, this matter may involve disputes among administrators (in addition to the usual troubles). Please consider participating in the present AfD nomination in addition to keeping a watchlist eye on the article, the article talk page, and any process that this topic goes through. -- Jreferee 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it broke the GNAA's record. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it didn't - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). It took 18 tries to finally get an untrolled, ungamed AFD through. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinions on screenshot image of Essjay's now-deleted user page

This is a fairly minor footnote to the Essjay saga, but I'd like the opinions of administrators on whether something would be an appropriate use of admin tools. Looking at Essjay controversy last night, I noticed that there was a gallery of four screenshots of the Google cache of the now-deleted User:Essjay/History1. (These images can be seen at Image:Essjay History1 - 1 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 2 of 4.jpg, Image:Essjay History1 - 3 of 4.jpg and Image:Essjay History1 - 4 of 4.jpg.) I have a little application called SnapWeb, which can take a single image of a web page, so I used that to create a single image of the Google cache to replace the four split images. However, the Google cache is of a vandalized version of the page (it has a caption saying "Yes, I'm not a professor"). It occurred to me that I could make a screenshot of an unvandalized version of the page, using my admin ability to view deleted pages. But I was decidedly unsure of whether this would be appropriate or not.

Now, obviously, it's up to the editors at Talk:Essjay controversy to determine whether it's appropriate to have a screenshot or not, and there's a discussion going on there about that. The question I'd like to hear from my fellow admins address is whether it would be appropriate for me, as an admin, to create an image of a deleted Misplaced Pages user page for editors to use in an encyclopedia article? Was the issue of an image of a deleted page addressed in the Seigenthaler incident? (I see that John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy has no image of the page — is this due to a deliberate decision, or did it just not come up?) I don't want to provide an image if it would be a violation of my duties as an admin, but I do think that if the article is going to have a screenshot of the page, it might be better for that screenshot to reflect Essjay's actual page, as opposed to one that was vandalised. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From one point of view, I would say that the images, coming from google and possibly altered, are unreliable. That articles should not be self-referential and that Misplaced Pages itself is an unreliable source. That Essjay's user page was made by transcluding a dozen or more subpages so they would all have to be undeleted to get an accurate image. And that if an external reliable source is found that says "Essjay's page used to claim that he was German shepherd" then you cite the source. There is no need to see the actual page. From another point of view, I am past caring. There has not been even a hint that Essjay used his false credentials to insert false information into articles, which is after all our core purpose here (and yet that is apparently what at least one British tabloid is claiming--reliable my ass). This is a 9-days' wonder at best, yet we will now have to live with Essjay controversy forever because a majority of editors cares more about following meta-policies than being humane. Thatcher131 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. ElinorD (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, you cannot verify the reliability of screenshots from a deleted page on wikia.--Doc 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can verify that they are google's cache of the pages. So really, this is just arguing about semantics. We've been discussing this all day at Talk:Essjay_controversy. -- Kendrick7 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, this is merely semantics. Because you can't possibly deny this is indeed a snapshot of google's cache, and it will be of benefit to readers to see what the past history used to look like. Because currently that has been deleted away, of what was on wikipedia. Mathmo 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm? I thought that recreating deleted content in a format that masks contribution histories (a snapshot or cut-and-paste) was verboten under the license. Or did I miss something? Bitnine 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting to feel rather sick at the moment... so excuse me if I'm not giving a perfect example here (I know it isn't): but imagine you took a photo of a McD's building. The photo wouldn't automatically be owned by McD's, obviously. Likewise this has smilarities, which hopefully you can see the gist of. Though I really should have came up with a better example than that. Oh, might be more a "problem" (which if you think about it, is not there at all) with being a copy of google than related to GFDL. Mathmo 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that technically speaking the image wouldn't fulfil the GFDL (history isn't available), but if it were deemed sufficiently important for the article and there was a decent fair-use rationale it would be acceptable as fair use per the WP:FUC. However, until/unless such an image is published in the press, it would be original research (using Special:Undelete to get an image of a deleted page is definitely original research). --ais523 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, don't feel well enough to consider an argument regarding using Special:Undelete. However... that point totally doesn't matter, because as I just said it was made using google cache. Therefore using it from the google cache I believe almost certainly would come under fair use. Mathmo 09:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Honestly, taking a moment to divorce the question from the article's subject, I have no idea how a cached Google version of a Misplaced Pages page can possibly be said to even come close to the minimum standards of attribution and verification in order to warrant inclusion. Such a source so grossly fails to even approach the threshold for inclusion that I'm actually surprised that it even got beyond that to the questions of licensing, self-reference and appropriateness. A screenshot of a Google cache of a Misplaced Pages page is so flagrantly unreliable that it would make an excellent textbook example of Things to Never Use in Any Misplaced Pages Article Ever.

If you do honestly believe that the information benefits the article, I would suggest trying to find a reliable source or a summary that can be supported with citations. Bitnine 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the other users here. Images are not subject to nearly the same level of verification as article content. That's why for example, users can upload pictures they've taken of animals and locations and the only say so needed is that the uploader says that it is what they say it is. I'm not convinced these images add much to the article, but there isn't any WP:V issue. JoshuaZ 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

However, you can't get around attribution by uploading an image of a paragraph. In fact, if you read the above, the picture would in fact include misattributable vandalism. While you could add a caption stating that the article of vandalism was not posted by the user in question, that caption itself would be unverifiable. I could, though I certainly won't, edit another user's page such that "they" admit to killing Abraham Lincoln and time it such that I grab an image of a Google cache. Even if they were notable enough to have an article (say for vandalizing the hall of presidents), my posting of this image would be inherently problematic for the same reasons. Bitnine 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Username change abuse

Apparently changing your username frees up the old username for reregistration and potential abuse. See , . Also, if any Checkusers would like to look into this, I'd be interested in finding out who it was who wanted my old username so badly... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmph, nobody I recognized. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to register my old user name (User:Proto), so nobody could pinch it, and it said it was too similar to User:Pr0t0. Weird. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins can register a user despite the too-similar blocker; go to Special:Userlogin while logged in, and you'll find that you can create a doppelganger account no matter what the name is (as long as it isn't exactly the same as an existing account). This is good practice for creating doppelgangers anyway, as the log entry for account creation will have your name on it (I used this process when creating my bot, so that it wouldn't be blocked for username; see the bottom row of ). --ais523 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice to a fellow admin?

Is this the proper place for one fairly inexperienced admin to ask for advice from the larger community? I can't seem to find anything more appropriate, and I've bugged User:Prodego enough already :-) Maury 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I don't think anyone will kick you out. :) Hit us. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Block review requests, protection review requests, etc., are par for the course both here and at WP:AN/I. --AnonEMouse 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Well the reason I'm here is an editor has asked me to look into a minor ongoing problem. I had earlier seen some name-calling in the thread in question and had warned the user, but since then avoided looking at it because I was a little burned out. I returned to find a number of questionable posts.

Would you mind taking a look over the edit history here going back to March 1 and commenting? There's what appears to be a case of wikistalking going on; all of the talk pages being hit are ones that the other editor worked on some time in the past. There's accusations of sockpuppettry flying, odd images being posted about trolls, and continuing minor name calling (including mine).

In the past I have avoided all but the most obvious admin duites (rving vandalism, blocks on obvious vandal accounts, etc) and I can't say I really understand what admining, if any, to apply when the issue is not so black and white. This isn't a content dispute really (only peripherally, regardless of the claims otherwise), so I'm out of my depth. I have to say, it all seems pretty minor to me, but it might not to the other people involved. In your opinion, is this something that anything should be "done about"? Maury 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, who exactly is Opuscalgary wikistalking? Nishkid64 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just coming back on now. I believe he is wikistalking User:Bzuk ("Bill" in the many posts). I believe this is the case because Bzuk and I have worked on several articles in the past, so these are active in my watchlist along with the talk pages and some users in common. I saw a continuous dribble of posts onto these pages, and that's when I got the message from Bzuk asking for help. I looked over Opus' edit list and found many more examples, ones I would normally not see because I had not had dealings with those articles/users. But this is not actually my main concern (nor Bzuk's it seems), my primary concern is the constant stream of "abusive" messages -- but are they abusive? And if they are, abusive enough to do something? And if so, what? Like I said, I'm pretty new to this particular shade of grey, and I'm really just curious about whether or not this sort of behavior is considered bad, or just par for the wiki course? Maury 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's still pretty vague. You want a link to a specific edit diff, or series of diffs. Otherwise, just by directing someone to a whole contribution history, you will get people -- like me -- finding things like this, which implies that Opuscalgary and Bzuk had a fine relationship just 2 days ago. In general, for an admin to make actual blocks due to personal attacks, they need to be pretty blatant. (Unfortunately, that's not rare :-( ) Otherwise just general advice and encouragement to civility is usually better. Remind them they are all in this to write an encyclopedia, surely they can come to a peaceful compromise. It also seems the issue is an article about a Canadian aircraft? Not abortion rights, or the Arab-Israeli wars or something as heated as that? Then this shouldn't be impossible to find a compromise on. If in doubt, list all views with good references. --AnonEMouse 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm explaining my question poorly. The issue isn't about the article. Its about what happened after the article was RVed, namely a series of hundreds of posts to people all over the wiki. There's been over 50 posts to over a dozen pages since I posted about it here a day ago, and it shows no signs of slowing. Thus my question: is lots of posts to lots of people a problem in of itself?

I take your point about the specifics though, so I guess a little cut-n-paste is in order. It starts on my page where he tells me to "get professional help" (like I said, its mild). I told him to knock off the PA and left it at that. But here he blanks a post on BillCJ's talk page and adds some sort of spamming accusation to the checkin log. When someone reverted this and mentioned it was considered vandalism, he followed it with this post back to Chrislk02 where he again accuses BillCJ of spamming, something that I can find no support of in Bill's edit list. I think he's confusing BillCJ and Bzuk, because in this edit he seems to be implying that BillCJ is Bzuk (although it's hard to be sure). Here he accuses Bzuk of spamming.

Then a series of edits starts where he posts a sort of "form letter" to a number of user's pages, including Emt147, Evil Merlin, Red Sunset, Karl Dickman, MilborneOne and Trevor MacInnis, among others. It's this series that looks like wikistalking to me, the only connection between these users is that Bzuk asked them for help on the page, or in other cases simply edited an article in common in the past (some times, long in the past).

Sorry for the lengthy thread!

Maury 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Protected template edits

I would like to request edits to Template:Coor, Template:Coor d, Template:Coor dm, Template:Coor dms, Template:Coor at d, Template:Coor at dm, and Template:Coor at dms. There is a detailed explanation with the code for exactly what I would like edited at Template talk:Coor URL#Span title. As I have provided the code and directions, experience with templates isn't required, but it would help understand exactly what I am proposing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is thataway. --Coredesat 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Quarl 2007-03-08 09:32Z

Autograph pages

Over the last few days I've seen a bunch of users spamming talk pages of other users asking them to come sign autograph pages. Look at the contributions for Special:Contributions/Smartie960 and Special:Contributions/ANNAfoxlover. In addition, many users are starting to include "SIGN MY BOOK!" type links within their signature. It feels like this is starting to get out of hand. What's the opinion on such actions? The signature aspect doesn't bother me as much as the spamming of user talk pages does. A bunch of users are complaining about being spammed, especially when they don't know the user doing the spamming. Also see discussion at ANNAfoxlover's talk page. Metros232 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both users. There's nothing wrong with maintaining signature book, but the spamming is absurd and getting completely out of hand. Also note that Smartie960 has only 3 edits in mainspace. If they continue, I'll issue another warning and block for disruption. alphachimp 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the Smartie960 spam. alphachimp 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's okay if Misplaced Pages tolerates low-key activities that don't clearly help improve the encyclopedia, but doing that in combination with talk page spamming should be strongly discouraged. --Interiot 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree it should be discouraged. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. Signature page promotion should only be tolerated in very small quantities, provided the user even attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia. alphachimp 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there should be any posts with the intent to explicitly ask for a signing. I dont mind if they exist, and if an editor meanders there way there, that is ok. Spamming talk pages just does not seem like a good idea to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note the severity of this problem, I just reverted over 100 talk page solicitations by ANNAfoxlover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alphachimp 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A MFD on one autograph book was kept because it does no harm to the wikipedia, I'm a fan of delete them all, doesn't help the encyclopedia at all Jaranda 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've come across many users with autograph books, and wondered at the purpose. I realize that obtaining someone's real signature might have some value, perhaps only as memorabilia, but digital signatures? No handwriting, just wikicode. I don't see the point, and I would just as soon that all the users canvassing for signatures stop doing so (a small link in their signature should be fine, like my "Review me!" link; same idea); spamming talk pages is kind of like spamming email. It's useless information. I'm surprised at the number of solicitations you've found, alphachimp. Over 100 just in the past little while? *cough* problem out of hand *cough* :) — Tuvok 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I posted this to the AN/I; as I was unaware of the discussion here:

A user, ANNAfoxlover, has been mass-spamming users to get them to sign the user's own autograph page. Despite several warnings from other users 1 2, including administrators, the user continues to spam others (see the contributions 3). On the opposite side of the board, about a hundred other users have actually signed this users autograph page.

The user also tried to force HighInBC to sign their autograph page 4, after he had said many times to the user that he was not going to sign it. The user appeared to stop when I intervened by saying that trying to force HighInBC could be seen as harassment.

I do not believe this user has bad intentions, but the mass spamming is a serious issue, and failure to acknowledge the warnings makes this situation even worse.

As you can see, I have provided some extra links to follow. Acalamari 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

She has been blocked for 48 hours. All of her spam is now reverted. alphachimp 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say it is "very annoying"; and has anyone noticed the huge increase in accounts that practically just started out with "autograph books"; it is very odd...and I don't like it. ~ Arjun 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Arjun. It's beginning to remind me of the teenaged users from several months back whose only contributions were to hold chats between each other in the user space... Metros232 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you both there. I've been here nearly a year, and I have just started to create subpages, much less started an autograph "book". I have no intention of making one, and (as stated above) I don't see the point. Good job, alphachimp! It bugs me, too, the number of users that have basically all their edits as asking for signatures. There are still users that sign up and use Misplaced Pages as a chat service, too. Argh! — Tuvok 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing just seems incredibly juvenile. I'd agree with Jaranda about simply deleting the autograph pages of those who don't contribute. Would any other admins support nuking User:Smartie960/Autographs? alphachimp 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me twice. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A good deletion, Cyde. :) — Tuvok 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these should be banned and deleted on sight. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's now turned into a competition of who can get the most autographs, and these people are bringing their friends along for the ride (who are not contributing to the encyclopedia at all). I tried to warn you guys of this a few months ago when I wanted to delete all of these things, but nooooo ... God forbid we have another userbox situation at hand. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think a MFD on Autograph books in general should be held? — Moe 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No MFD, just speedy them. If people want to "collect signatures," then start an archive of your talk page. User:Zscout370 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then here you go, I found a couple: User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz/signatures, User:SonicBoom95/Signatures. — Moe 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Found another: User:Walter_Humala/Signatures — Tuvok 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe: I would personally vote delete; they are very annoying. Many users complain that it is not harming Misplaced Pages; I feel that it does since it wastes users time by deleting the "spam" from their talk pages, it also encourages the "prettiness" of sigs. And all of these new user accounts are bothersome. And most of all in dealing with all of this it makes it seem as though the encyclopedia comes second...which is disturbing. ~ Arjun 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already had discussions with Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, he hasn't edited a single article since October 2006 but has hundreds of edits to his user page, signature pages, and such since then. Clearly not here to help, but just to hang, Metros232 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with you both. I would personally vote a strong delete; I have observed more spamming about autograph books. How about writing a new Misplaced Pages policy for WP:USER discouraging this kind of thing? — Tuvok 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to propose the change of WP:USER at it's talk page. — Moe 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Maybe we can put a stop to this with new policy... — Tuvok 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. This is huge. Hbdragon88 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Someones may want to take care of these:

• User:Walter_Humala/Signatures
• User:ViolinGirl#Autograph Book
• User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book
• User:Tennis Dynamite/My Autograph Book
• User:Mac Davis#Sign here
• User:Mc hammerutime/guestbook
• User:Why1991/Signature's
• User:Tohru Honda13/Autograph Book
• User:Randfan/Autographs
• User:FF7Freakzorz/Sig Book
• User:AxG/Autograph Book
• User:Sharkface217/My Autograph Book
• User:Sd31415/Signature Book
• User:Renesis13/Autograph Book
• User:DarknessLord/Autograph Book
• User:Reywas92/Autograph Book
• User:Ac1983fan/sigbook
• User:Smcafirst/Guestbook
• User:Eugene2x/Autographs
• User:Poetic Decay/Autograph Book
• User:Kathzzzz/MyAutographBook
• User:The Runescape Junkie/Autograph Book
• User:Littleghostboo/Signatures
• User:Teh tennisman/Signature Book
• User:Deon555/Signhere
• User:CattleGirl/Autograph Book
• User:Miriam The Bat/Autograph Book
• User:Randalllin/signhere
• User:Kamope/Signatures
• User:Nimbusjdf
• User:RyGuy/ Signature Book
• User:Captain panda/Autograph Book
• User:Timclare/Autographs
• User:Leor Natanov/Autograph Book
• User:HaloPwnage/SigBook
• User talk:Brian0918/Guestbook
• User:Mikedk9109/Autographs
• User:Tbone55/autograph_book
• User:Nirajrm/Signhere
• User:Lachiester
• User:GravityFong/GuestBook
• User:AstroHurricane001/Sigs
• User:Hiddenhearts/SigBook
• User:TomasBat/Autographs
• User:GeneralIroh/Guest Book
• User:Jaseemum/Signatures
• User:Zombieninja101
• User:TomasBat/Universal Autographs
• User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book
• User:Nirajrm/Signhere
• User:Mrug2/signatures
• User:Freiddy/Sigs

Thank you very much. — Moe 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All those? If ANNAfoxlover's was deleted, so should all of those. Acalamari 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We should mfd all of those in a group, and speedy those who creator doesn't do article writing. Jaranda 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to an article writing requirement. There must be some better thing. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, remind yourself what Misplaced Pages is. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've long since given up arguing with people on that. -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come across some signature pages that are rather tasteful. I'm thinking of one in particular where the user collects signatures and is rather active on a few noticeboards. Soliciting and social networking, however, is totally inappropriate. --Iamunknown 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting all of those pages. Some people, like Tohru and I, don't advertise and spam talk pages like ANNA. // DecaimientoPoético 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope: if one goes, they all go. It's unfair to keep some and remove others. Acalamari 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just created my own autograph book User:Jaranda/Anti Autograph book ;) :p Jaranda 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? If it becomes policy that autograph books are banned, it will get deleted. I believe these autograph books are wrong. I admit, I do have subpages, but mine well within Misplaced Pages rules, and I don't spend loads of time working on them. No autograph books should be allowed. Acalamari 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Autograph books are OK, it is just the fact that people spam to try to get people to sign them. If you stop the spamming, then we won't have this problem. Nol888_(Talk) 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And tell me, how do they improve the encyclopedia? — Moe 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, didn't Jimbo himself say that he approves of autograph books? // DecaimientoPoético 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to it.. — Moe 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall he said they can help build community. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you are, Moe. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, close enough. Thanks, Deskana. // DecaimientoPoético 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He said they could be friendly and inviting (I think thats what he said, I have to re-read it). How is spamming these across the talkspaces of users and annoying them accomplish that though. — Moe 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I undeleted ANNAfoxlover's autograph page since she promised not to spam it everywhere anymore, which was the original reason for the deletion. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there... You can't be serious about deleting all signature pages! Remember that Misplaced Pages is being built and maintainted by a community. I see these pages as nothing more then then a healthy way of building a community. If you are seriously contemplating deleting these pages, you are in effect breking down one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages. Besides, signature pages hardly make the servers break a sweat. Sure, this isn't MySpace, and spamming should be discouraged. But we are a community. Don't destroy it... build it! --Edokter (Talk) 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, deleting individual ones is certainly acceptable if people are spamming links to them all over the place. I'm not so sure about deleting every single one. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are we breaking down a pillar of Misplaced Pages by deleting all the autograph books? The autograph books are of no use to anyone. Acalamari 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edokter, Misplaced Pages editors make up this community, not Autograph books, which give nothing positive back to the community. — Moe 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A community needs to communicate. Signature pages is just one way of communicating. Where else can one go just to say "hello"? --Edokter (Talk) 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh.. the user's talk page? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring over autograph books is far more damaging that the existence of them of them in the first place. I've created an alternative wiki purely for guestbooks, for people who would rather focus on these than working on the encyclopedia. Angela. 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:BJADON improve the encyclopedia in any way? Nope. Does WP:LAME? Nope. WP:ODD? WP:DAFT? WP:ROUGE? WP:BDC? WP:DoF? Nope. None of these actually "improve the encyclopedia", so why is no one deleting these pages right now? Maybe, just maybe, because being a community is one of the reasons that this place still exists in the first place. Having some (harmless) fun every now and then is (or should be) quite fine. We're not a bureaucracy, we're a place where writing articles is actually a cool and fun thing! Yes, yes, we're not MySpace (and we shouldn't be!), but we're not anti-MySpace either. And yes, I agree that spamming user talk pages for autographs is too much and should not be done, but why does that make the autograph books itself a Bad Thing? --Conti|✉ 02:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME might deter some people from engaging in edit warring. But the biggest difference between pages like BJADON and DOF and DAFT is that you don't have to participate. When users are actively spamming links to their autograph books, including harassment of one user (AnnaFOX repeatedly asked HighinBC to aign her book after he refused), then it becomes a major problem, and one better gone. Hbdragon88 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's certainly problematic. But this looks like a user problem to me, not a.. well, autograph-book problem. When someone is going to spam people with their favourite WP:BJADON joke, are we going to delete the page or warn the user? --Conti|✉ 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, look at it this way. There are only two users that have ever spammed talk pages because of these books. The solution, in my opinion, is not to delete them, is to inform them, and everyone else, that use of autograph books should be very limited, so spamming does not occur. Just look at most of these users' contribs, mine for example. You will see that most of them not only involve themselves in activities other than signatures, but even make constructive edits to mainspace. For most users, the books are not the centre of their edits. If they centralize it too much, all they need is a warning against spamming and nonencyclopedic edits, and that they should help improving wikipedia more than their books. They should not be deleted,thisproblem iseasily solved. Simply make them promise they will stop spamming. This has been done for one user already. We need to remember that this is a community, and the books are just a minor part of the community. It's about saying hello, so if anyone is making way too many edits about the books, they should be simply told to stop, and to work on improving the wiki for a while. This way, we wouldn't have to delete everything, so we could encourage users to make constructive edits. How about making a rule on WP:USER so that these books are allowed as long as there is no spamming, and that the edits involving these booksare kept minimal compared to constructive edits. Please and thank you. AstroHurricane001 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Autograph arbitrary break

I think a middle path is best for this issue: allow autograph subpages, provided the user actually contributes to the encyclopedia in some way (writing, vandal fighting, spellchecking, whatever) and refrains from spamming anyone. The desire for social networking and other forms of humanity seems really understandable, considering how easy it is to get lost among the thousands of active users. But spamming in anyway is unacceptable, and having an account solely for the purpose of having an autograph book falls under the category of using Misplaced Pages as a social networking site or free web host, IMO. Natalie 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Natalie here. There's a big difference between user sub "autograph" pages where editors are actively seeking other editors to sign a guestbook and what amounts to an image gallery of signatures formulated by the user themself (particularly if the user is an esteemed contributor). (→Netscott) 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site; the only "networking" we do is working with other users. Everyone here in this discussion is "networking" only to improve Misplaced Pages. Autograph/signature pages are nothing more than nonsense and a waste of space on Misplaced Pages. I myself spent only a bit of time on my own subpages. Acalamari 02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't these: 1 2 3 4 mean anything to anyone? Spamming talk pages for signatures is obviously bad, and maintaining an account that appears to be "only" for collectiving signatures is probably bad, but so is speedy deleting books whose owner is doing no harm. -- Renesis (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that sounds pretty "Jimbo said.."ish but that first diff expresses my own view about the humanity of signatures and signature galleries. (→Netscott) 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the nature of these autograph books. Looking over some of these, you find that many are somewhat incestous - the editors who sign these are those with autograph books, and they leave links to their own books. It means that a platoon of editors sign a book, making these pages near-copies. - AMP'd 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we should just create a single Misplaced Pages:Autograph book and then set protected redirects from all of these individual books. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the old userbox deletionist Cyde Weys talking there. Yes that'd really do a lot for sentiments of good faith in the community. (→Netscott) 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, bringing that up actually hurts your case, because we "userbox deletionists" were right. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see while we're at it why don't we get rid of another unecessary gallery (warning NSFW) or two? Asking you in the role of a Devil's advocate: How is a gallery like that helping the project? Besides were you really "right" about userboxes? (→Netscott) 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them have been migrated to userspace and new ones are usually deleted quite rapidly. You don't call that a victory for the deletionists? Also, a similar gallery - User:Markaci/Nudity - has been nominated twice and resulted in no consensus, so...those are debated. Hbdragon88 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to above comment (WP:NOT): it's very true that Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site. But obviously some level of social networking is allowed, since we have userpages and we can post personal information/interests/etc on said pages. Some of the intention of userpages is to humanize us contributors, since without them we are all just faceless names. Personally, I would read WP:NOT as "Misplaced Pages does not exist primarily as a social networking site, but social networking in the course of building the encyclopedia is fine." But that's just my $.02. Natalie 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. Acalamari 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed the rise in autograph book messages. I agree that they should all be sent to MfD - however this may pose a problem as any dicision would affect a large quantity of people. I can foresee there would be a million miles of talk page thread of meaningless discussion & POINT making similar in scale to Esperanza's deletion page. I personally see no point in collecting people's sig's as you could quite easily do so by making a talk archive (as per Zscout). Sorry if I'm not really allowed to talk here (non-admin, I know not your ways...) but something has to be done, but I'm not sure what would be the best method of doing so... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tell me, if users want an "autograph book," why don't they simply set one up on their own userpage? Why waste space creating nonsense subpages when you can use your own userpage to make an autograph book? Acalamari 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They both are in the same general category, so to speak. — Moe 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER

I have written a proposal on things that should be discouraged (regarding guestbooks) and I would like some feedback on the talk page of WP:USER or here. Thanks! — Moe 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The key points:

• guestbooks = harmless (and friendly).
• spamming = bad.
• biting the newbies = also bad.

Especially don't forget that third point; ie. heavy hands aren't needed, just gently remind people that MySpace is over there. --bainer (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with User:Thebainer here. Look folks we're a collaborative project; guestbooks/autograph books help foster goodwill amongst editors and help to enhance the collaborative environment. So long as editors aren't spamming and spending an inordinate amount of time on their autograph/guestbooks they should just be left alone.

As a side note, there is an Autograph book MfD open right now which judging by the lack of courtesy notices to the users whose pages are involved in the MfD should just be closed and restarted. (→Netscott) 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the summary posted by Thebainer (talk · contribs). Bottom line, guestbooks are basically harmless. If you find them annoying just ignore them. Spamming talkpages for signatures can be dealt with via existing guidelines.--Isotope23 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:NeoFreak#Wikipedians

If no one disagrees, I am going to remove this section about Wikipedians. NeoFreak apparently has the need to make personal attacks and make comments next to well known Wikipedians. I am removing it unless anyone disagrees. — Moe 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can support some degree of comments at userpages, but such personal attacks are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. You might as well add a note on the user's talk page about it (if you haven't done so already). Nishkid64 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added a short reminder about it on his talk page. — Moe 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's perfectly fine, Moe. If there is any trouble in the future, please contact me. Nishkid64 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the listing I had before with a version that lacks the comments I've added next to the names. I'm a pretty good humored guy and I don't have any actual mailce towards anyone here (or anyone that I meet on the internet) and I'm sorry if I've caused offense. Sometimes I forget that tone doesn't tranlate well on the internet. I was quite irritated when Moe came over and removed the listing (instead of just removing anything that he deemed to be a violation of WP:NPA but I'll continue with assuming good faith and not jumping to the conclusion that he took such offense only because on my list I called him out on pretending to be in the military.

I see value in linking to other wikipedians and helping establish a real sense of community but if anybody has any problems with me adding the list back in I'm sure that I'll hear about it again. As far as I know my page meets the guidline of WP:USER but if this is not correct I would appreciate a mention of the fact on my talk page so I can fix the issue myself. NeoFreak 15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Daigacon

The Daigacon article had been deleted multiple times, but it's back again... --PatrickD 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to speak with User:The Cunctator as to why he undeleted it. Getting his view point will surely clear this matter up. — Moe 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the AFD debate, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, and The Cunctactor undeleted it as it had happened. I think he should have taken it to DRV to get some kind of consensus to undelete it, though, rather than unilaterally undelete a unanimous-delete AFD. Hbdragon88 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PatrickD, if you feel there should be debate over whether to still delete the article now that the convention has occured, please open a new AFD. I don't think it needs special administrator attention anymore, so I'm marking this resolved. —Quarl 2007-03-08 09:38Z

So PatrickD has to go through process again to delete something that has already been deleted through process? Why not have The Cunctator redelete that article and use the process (DRV) to get that article undeleted? Hbdragon88 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Coz that would be process for process sake. The default status of Misplaced Pages articles, for better or for worse, is existing (ie not deleted). 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for retrieval of trivial content

Could an admin be bothered to transfer to WP:BJAODN four snowball deleted templates: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Note that this is extremely trivial and unimportant with regards to recent events and even every-day going-ons. All that's needed for this is a patient admin. (Note: the original author may need to be credited, although this is not a common practice on BJAODN.) Gracenotes § 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon9288 (talk · contribs) helped me with this over IRC. Nothing to see here... Gracenotes § 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification

Can be found at User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. The community should probably comment on it. (there, not here) pschemp | talk 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wired article mentioning this. I would not comment on the "scandal" but I reckon someone should clarify that an arbitrator do not enforce content as it is suggested. This salt-in-the-sore criticism goes far beyond attacking the actions of a particular member of the community and damages Misplaced Pages as a whole. I believe that an easy-to-follow press pack, describing the different functions and responsibilities should be put together. This would need to be written in simple English and avoiding any wikislang. Regards, --Asterion 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification

I'd really like to see more comment by admins, or anyone there, especially because Jimbo has already announced to the press that we are doing this. pschemp | talk 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's... unfortunate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Perfect 138

Thread retitled from "Annoying User".

the user Perfect 138 has changed the info pretaining to the Darth Maul page has been screwed with a couple of times and after delting his edits he puts them back. Revansrangers 06:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute over whether Darth Maul is more awesome or Darth Raven is more awesome. Doesn't require immediate attention; use the talk page, please. —Quarl 2007-03-08 10:30Z

Personal Attacks on userpage

Is it acceptable to remove a section on another editor's userpage if it's a personal attack? Touching other people's userspace is sort of taboo...but then again, it's fine to remove personal attacks from talk pages.

If it's fine, can someone please go do something about the "Wikipedians who suck" section on User:Unknown Dragon's userpage? I don't really want to touch it myself, i'm really not all that keen to deal with this editor again, but i really would like his personal attack against me removed.

Also, is having song lyrics on userpages fine? I would have thought it's a copyright problem (like having copyrighted/fair use pictures on userpages). If it isn't, then the "Theme Song(s)" section on his userpage needs to go as well.

Thanks --`/aksha 10:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack section is not good; I've removed it, and let the user know why. The song lyrics are fine, he is only using an excerpt, not the full lyrics, and there are many many Wikipedians do so (quotes, lyrics, poems, etc). Neil (not Proto ►) 10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --`/aksha 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted

I have discussed this individual before.

Sockpuppeteer and vanity spammer Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was unblocked. Since then he has done nothing to benefit the encyclopaedia, but he has done some things to disrupt it, for example removing sock tags and disputing CheckUser results for Somelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Symphonic Flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 12.35.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Billybobsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chicago60607 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He asserts that Smdewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of Clear Channel and not a sock, but Smdewart has no contribs outside of the Nysted vanity spam articles Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

He's now arguing with Pilotguy over refusal to unblock Nysted's "girlfriend" who also edited from the same IP, Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and posting a soapbox on his user Talk, also to Jimbo's talk, about the "misguided" CheckUser system (in the sense that it found a lot of accounts editing from his IP< clearly a ne definition of misgiuded), implicitly arguing for his vanity articles back. Most importantly, he has made no edits to mainspace at all outside of his deleted vanity articles. Not one. The protestation that Misplaced Pages, should be "the source," of all information...for us, and our children. "THE SOURCE," that does more additions than subtractions; a source with verified proof of facts and the integrity to show it combined with the assertion that he was using my real name from the beginning (and other implications that the "facts" and "integrity" apply to him posting his vanity article) can only really be read in one way.

How long do we put up with this? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday. Support indefinite community ban of main account and (as identifed) likely socks. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, support indef. Been far too long and too lenient I feel. – Chacor 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Nysted again. I see from this that he's still agitating to try to get his spamvertisement on WP because he claims he is "covered" in reliable sources like music directories and Google, in spite of the fact that this matter has already been decided multiple times by the community. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Irredeemable conflict of interest. Let's be done with him. Friday (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be brought up over at WP:CN? Sounds like we're talking Community Ban here, although it just might be an indefblock.... SirFozzie 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, in practice there seem to be multiple processes that can result in a block. In this case, he was originally blocked for disruption surrounding his vanity. He was unblocked on a promise of good behavior; a promise he has not kept.ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else get an email from him saying something about how he's contacted Jimmy? – Chacor 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello,

I would like to completely overhaul, enhance, rewritte an existing article. As a result, when my work is done, I would like to propose the newly written page as an "article of quality" or something like that.

What is the regular procedure to do that ? I've already seen some templates on pages which are redefined and rewritten. My problem is that I would prefer an "agreement" from the previous authors of the page: I will not destroy their work, or I don't want to appear as doing so, but I would rather insert it into a much more general and profound setting.

Thanks,

TwoHorned 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you plan on completely rewriting an article, a good way to start is to begin writing the article on your own userspace. So, for instance, you could start writing the article at User:TwoHorned/Rewrite and then you can build it up there and take your time without it interfering with the existing article. When you believe your rewrite is finished you can make other editors aware that you have rewritten the article and you could allow them to read it before you copy it over the existing article. As far as "article of quality" goes, we have two things I believe you are referring to. There is Good Article and Featured Article with the latter being the more stringent one. Featured articles are profiled on the main page. I hope this helps. If you have any future questions, rather than posting them here, try the help desk.↔NMajdan•talk 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Take it to the article's discussion page, link to where you're working, and encourage them to help with the rewrite. Just make it known, and remember that you don't own the new and improved article. I look forward to reading it. Teke 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Kyanka

Garbage is being continually added by User:Keep it Real, a banned SomethingAwful forum user with a grudge against Kyanka. I've fixed the facts according to information from Kyanka himself, but now anons (socks?) are messing with it. Should I semi-protect, block, or semi-block protect the whip? He's also been leaving inflammatory comments on my talk page for reverting. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a pretty surly character too. JoeSmack 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing coming from the man who said he'd kill Kyanka's daughter. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um. We can sprotect the article, but the last few edits were mainly removing stuff, some of which did not appear at first glance to be cited. Also the picture i that article is scarcely what one would expect in a WP:BLP article. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been in contact with him regarding the article and its inaccuracies, he didn't say a word about the picture. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• How does this not merit a block? JuJube 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted editing

(Moved here from WT:RFA) As principal of a Junior High in Texas, one of our students was caught editing a page over Albert Einstein. He has been dealt with and will be banned from internet use for the remainder of the school year. Please accept my deepest apologies as this behavior is not tolerated in our school district, and will be deemed a serious event. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.213.238.157 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Phaedriel page protected and history blanked?

I suggest that those wishing to correspond on this use e-mail. this is not an administrative matter than needs discussed in public.--Doc 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This user placed the pregnancy tag on thier page awhile back. Then about two months ago, another user removed this tag based on their speculation that this user wasn't pregnant any more. I reverted that edit this saying we should let the user edit their own page. Now the page has been reverted again and protected. I tried to ask the person who blanked the history why they did that and they said it was a privacy matter. What gives? Thanks --Tom 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That user was getting some very rude messages, as well as congratulations. I agree with the protection of the page. I can understand the reasoning of removing the tag, however when in doubt I think it is best to leave the page as it was, and protected. _InBC 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears the editor in question is on a long term break here. I'm not too sure about the background here, but I'd say leave it as is and protected. If she wants to restore or anything if/when she comes back, she has the tools to do so.--Isotope23 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a matter suitable for public discussion. It pertains to the possibly very personal affairs of an editor who has vanished, not to the content of an article or a project page. Everybody has a right to vanish; in this case Sharon's friends have partly exercised that right on her behalf by reverting her page, removing speculative and insulting edits, and protecting it. If anybody can present any reason as to why this should not have been done, or any valid reason why they need to leave a message for a long-departed user, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's give the girl a break and hope she's back one day - and not bombarded by a huge backlog of messages, speculation, insults and other crap when she returns. --kingboyk 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Right; WP:AGF there are editors here who are in contact with her and let's just leave it at that.--Isotope23 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This action was taken for sound reasons by trusted administrators and involves personal affairs of a (perhaps temporarily) departed user. I see no reason for further discussion of the matter. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

I don't know where to alert you all about this (I hope this isn't kapu), but there is a copyvio on Anderson County, South Carolina. I think it was put in there on this edit. The text is largely cribbed from The Official Website.

For further reference is there some place that I can report (or something I can do) if I find copyvios in the future? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can go to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. There are instructions on how to proceed there. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

w00t!

Special:Linksearch now has a namespace selector! Who did that? Was it Werdna again? A big thumbs-up whoever it was, anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war

This arbitration case has been closed.

• Yanksox (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
• Gaillimh (talk · contribs) is banned from editing for a period of ten days
• Geni (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
• Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), Bumm13 (talk · contribs), and Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.
• Freakofnurture (talk · contribs)'s administrator privileges, having been removed for a brief period consonant with his offense, have been restored.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these permanent desysoppings, or can they be renominated immediately , or after a particular period of time? Corvus cornix 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to the arbcom page and read the final decision, it explains it in detail. Yanksox 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when users are desysopped, they can be resysopped via RfA. --Woohookitty 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a summary of the decision (and a slightly briefer summary than I would have given). As Yanksox indicates, the full decision is available at the link (and colloquy about how the arbitrators arrived at the decision is on the /Proposed decision page). Newyorkbrad 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this more of an encyclopedia and less of a first person shooter game

Let's make this more of an encyclopedia and less of a first person shooter game. There is too much Vandal versus Blocker first person shooter game aspect to Misplaced Pages, caused by treating "anyone can edit" as if it were holy writ. Some quotes:

"I've been exceptionally busy today dealing with juvenile vandalism, in between working on writing articles, and may have issued more blocks today than any other single day. The childish behavior is sure getting annoying. Months back, I remember reading something on this mailing list about some stable version system or something that provides a delay before anon. edits go live. Does anyone know if that is going to happen (ever?) or what's going on with that? I don't expect anything anytime soon." 3/8/07, Aude

Work is ongoing (we've addressed this as a high priority issue on the Board level for some time now); however, I will only give a first report once I'm confident it will lead somewhere - not a good thing to announce potential vapourware. In the meantime, I think people should apply semi-protection more liberally. Our first goal is to write an encyclopedia, and that can be often done perfectly well with the existing community. I find it absurd that the featured article is still not routinely semi-protected. Yes, everyone can edit Misplaced Pages. Everyone _knows_ that by now. Many people are starting to think it's a bug, not a feature. Wikimedia board member Erik Moeller 2007-March Wikimedia piper mail

"Semi-protection doesn't block just anons- it also blocks new users. And having to wait four days really kills the whole wikiwiki thing." - unnamed person

And in some cases, the whole wikiwiki thing is more trouble that it is worth, by rather a long shot. Wikimedia board member Jimmy Wales 2006-May Wikimedia piper mail

WAS 4.250 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FPS? I thought Misplaced Pages was an RPG. —Quarl 2007-03-08 21:23Z

MMORPG I think. _InBC 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-fighting is more real-time strategy if you ask me. --tjstrf talk 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of the quote that IRC is just multiplayer notepad. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All I do is type text; it's a MUD. --Edokter (Talk) 10:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We do already have a Captcha system for new users--VectorPotential 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the Administrator's Noticeboard the open soapbox anyone can yell from? :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the Misplaced Pages complaints department? --tjstrf talk 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is? I thought this was the room for an argument. Ben Aveling 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you once. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exagerate. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially, in all seriousness, had it been intentionally designed this way, I'd consider it a great success in Human Computation and Games With a Purpose, being cleverly addicting yet work-producing by having attributes of both a FPS and a RPG. For more on this interesting area see research by CMU Prof. Luis von Ahn —Quarl 2007-03-08 21:34Z

So where are stable versions? Tom Harrison 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want stablepedia. Ben Aveling 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. I want stable versions. Tom Harrison 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just have automatic edit summaries and a "this diff has not been viewed by anyone at all yet" flag. — Omegatron 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We also need to redesign the top of each page to clearly say "This is an encyclopedia edited in real time by people like you and may contain errors or vandalism."

More generally, we just need some experts in user interface design and social engineering to reword and relayout everything in a way that encourages good contributions, discourages bad contributions, and makes the nature of the site very clear to first-time visitors. — Omegatron 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron's suggestion seems entirely right to me. Speaking of such things, have we lost the anti-vandal bots? Jkelly 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but last that I heard the bots had been taken over by the foundation. They are running with the "=bot" flag, as such their revisions would be hidden from recent changes. Teke 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) is out of commission, which is not to say that there aren't other AntiVandalBots--VectorPotential 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's the handy "permanent link" in the toolbox. It'll lead you to the revision you prefer each time. Other than that, I agree with the childish vandalism and the articles it will obviously attract might merit a kind of permanent semi-protection on the formed articles subject to such crap. Penis and Vagina, for example, are vandalized all day every day with little new information to put in the article that can't be hashed out for four days on the talk page or simply having to wait for autoconfirm. Teke 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it was Whac-A-Mole rather than an FPS. Vandal fighting is voluntary. If folks don't want to do it they don't have to - people are free to develop articles as they wish. SFC9394 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a lot of people who enjoy it. If that ever ceases to be the case, that's when we'll find a better way to deal with vandalism. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I've developed a set of articles and I have to constantly watch each edit to make sure that it's good or not. Even if it isn't vandalism, it may be written in an incoherent manner, replete with spelling mistakes and grammar problems. It's kind of like guarding hostages. Hbdragon88 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's something by that changed my mind somewhat about stable versions:

The greatest joy of Misplaced Pages for many people, and I think what draws many, many new users in, is that this is a dynamic, collaborative body of work in which your contributions are instantly visible. It gives somebody like me a chance to be a published author, in a very real way (since this is such a high traffic website and most people with computers use it as a reference at some time or another). To relegate anyone's contributions to the realm of "something that may be added to the article at some point, if your edits combined with everybody else's since the article attained 'stability' are deemed by who the hell knows who to be a 'significant improvement'" seems almost humorously counterproductive. --Tractorkingsfan

I can still see a place for some sort of delayed publishing of 'untrusted' contributions, but I'm convinced that contributions should be considered innocent until proven suspicious. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain article areas may be useful for it. I don't know how far along it all is, but I believe when this was first floated a while ago it was roughly outlined that it would only be a candidate to be used in a few article areas. Ones that immediately spring to mind are quite a few of the ones that are under permanent SP (G Bush etc). The vast majority of wikipedia articles are backwaters, out of the 1.6 million I would guess a few thousand get hit by vandals very regularly (10+ times per day) - the other 1.55 million can go months without any new content, and when that new content does come it has a decent chance of coming from an IP address or a new user. Creating stable/live versions of these pages is a bit counter-productive - all it is likely to do is create large backlogs of pages needing reviewed and updated by the "keyholder" editors who can edit the stable page. Frankly it might be an idea to reverse the process on these backwater pages - we have stable "1.0" pages held behind the live front page. A reader going to these pages would be presented with the live page just as now, but there would be a stable version in a tab available if they wished to double check against something that had a few more guarantees against it. The pressure to review any content submissions would be lower, because ultimately they are immediately viewable just as they are now - but we would have a more stable backup page in reserve. SFC9394 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Chabad and Fisheaters

The Fisheaters site owner is bitching again about her site being blacklisted (she really really wants those inbound links - and has demanded them often enough that I'm almost inclined to consider that justification enough for blacklisting on its own). Apparently she finds it very stressful being blacklisted. She emailed Jimbo and told him so. Again. One might suggest not keep coming back and reopening the argument as a way of managing that stress, but there you go. Sordid details, as ever, at User:JzG/Fisheaters and at m:Talk:Spam blacklist and several of its archives.

Her recurrent theme these days is the chabad.org website. She may have a point: if you look at this linksearch you will see that there are nearly 640 links to the Chabad website in main space. She has a point: that is far in excess of what one might expect given that Chabad-Lubavitch is a sub-group of Hasidic Judaism, not exactly the world's largest religious sub-denomination, though significant to be sure. That's over 100 more links than the official website of the Church of England. It's not that bad - The Vatican has 1,600, the Catholic Encyclopaedia and Jewish Encycloapedias many thousands, but it does look a bit rum. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nod. The answer to "but Timmy gets to do X" is to go find Timmy and stop him from doing X... not to let Suzie do X too (as you well know, since you and I both have kids :) )... thank her for bringing these to our attention and ask for help here to weed them down... ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Penis corrected.jpg

This image is under constant vandal attack. They either blank the image description or add sexual comments or reverting the image to older versions and back again. Would it be possible to protect the image to at least Semi-block? (to get rid of vandalizing IP and newly created vandal-only accounts). Maybe someone would be able to clean out the 30+ image revisions, it seems there are only two diferent images reverted over and over. --Denniss 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see only 2 vandalisms in the last 8 days, no need to protect unless it gets worse, just keep it on your watch list. _InBC 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. I just deleted 50+ "Reverted to previous versions", mostly by SPAs. You might want to keep an eye on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, they are deleted, that would be why I missed them. In that case, I think a semi protection would be in order, I will give it 5 days. _InBC 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious copyright/policy violation

I was checking the icon Image:Vista-file-manager.png. It's saying that the image is released under GPL, and a reference to a source at http://sa-ki.deviantart.com. Why they have been specified as GPL here (and on countless other wiki-projects, including commons), is probably because that on http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=28352 it's specified as GPL.

The problem arise when looking on the authors own page about these icons http://www.iconsdesigns.com/?page_id=44. There it's a notice saying:

These free icons are provided to be used as a replacement icon theme for your operating system only. You can also use them on your open source projects. For non open source projects such as commercial ones, products website, personal website, blog, commercial or personal applications, documentation, etc. asking a permission to use them is mandatory and you will have to give credit for them. Thank you!

If this hold, then the icons is not compatible with the rules for images used on the projects. _→AzaToth 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct anyone know a commons admin to zap it. You will want to rip it out of the relivant templates first.Geni 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a replacement image is needed, Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png should do the trick. WjBscribe 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no law-talking person. However, the user uploaded the icon set under the GPL, and the package itself contains a copy of the license, even if he states in another location and seemingly at a later time that it is under a more restrictive license. Isn't this somewhat like the Misplaced Pages disclaimer that "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."? What's relevant are the conditions when he originally released the file; you can't "take back" licenses. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is we can't prove he every did release under pure GPL.Geni 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that GNOME-Look says that (the uploader sets the license there), and if you download the package from there you'll note that it does contain a copy of the GPL with no added restrictions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

but who was the uploader?Geni 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

saki. The same person who has the deviantART page, and the IconsDesigns.com page. He links directly to and from the various websites. The one and only download address is at GNOME-Looks, and that package has a copy of the GPL inside of it and is stated as being GPL-licensed on the download page. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a great alternative. Might as well give the filing cabinet a coat of paint anyway. :) Garrett 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist backlog on Meta

There is a massive spam problem that forced me to semi-protect Sathya Sai Baba. I do not know how to report backlogs at Meta, so I thought that I would report it here. There are seven proposed additions that need to be acted on at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. If there is a place on Meta to report backlogs, please reply to this message. Jesse Viviano 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof.png

The user Shelbyyoung has requested that an image she uploaded be removed from Misplaced Pages. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for image deletion that I can see. Can someone help here? If you look to User talk:Shelbyyoung, you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks.

Ispy1981 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Author request falls under G7, which means that it can apply to images as well as articles. This is a privacy issue as well, so there shouldn't be an objection. Hbdragon88 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, image deleted. IronGargoyle 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER severely backlogged yet again

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests has now reeached 21 entries; it's been backlogged for over a week now. --ais523 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed at Editor Review

Would an admin please review and clear out improper editor review entries? Examples:1, 2, and 3. Thank you in advance for any assistance provided!!!Vassyana 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Flamethrowers required

Candidates for speedy deletion has just exceeded 500 items and is now at 505. A substantial portion of this are non-commercial images, which currently stands at 192 items with some being tagged for more than two days without being seen. Thanks. MER-C 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now at 565 items... MER-C 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Sparta? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Stupid bot adds my sig faster than I do! Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

200 items! My hand hurts. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Long block of IP address

I would like some feedback on the block I issued on 70.89.242.249 (talk · contribs). The blocking as such will not be controversial, when you look at his contributions, warnings received, and block log. I just wondered if it is acceptable to block an IP address for so long (6 months). It looks very much like a static address, but as this is my first long block (and one of my first blocks anyway), I thought it would be better to get some feedback. Fram 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. I might have put a {{repeatvandal}} tag at the top of the IP's talk page. Apart from that it looks 100% fine to me and just what I would have done. Gwernol 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.111.128.3 edit/revert warring

moved to WP:AN/I (Retaining this subject preserve links to this headline.) / edgarde 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Another backlog...

...at requested moves. Sorry to be a bother. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We need more administrators! Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but it ain't happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, 100 user talk space project image reversion edits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

People just don't have the balls to nominate themselves - which I've now decided to do next time - and don't want to shop for nominators. Hence shortage of candidates. Moreschi 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning Removal Proposal.

I decided to post this down here, as the discussion several messags above called Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism? will soon be archived. This message here is not spam or an advertisement; it is simply notice to say that I've written a suggested policy at User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. I believe that Pschemp provided a link here to a policy as well. The policy that I've suggested will likely be controversial, but it's best that it's discussed on it's own talk page and not here, please. If I have made an error in posting this message here, please let me know. Acalamari 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Wikipedians on Editor review/Backlog