Revision as of 18:09, 25 July 2006

• 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)

Tasks

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

General

user:AdilBaguirov making attacks

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive

Freerick created a user box with the message "someone thinks this user is fuckable" and a corresponding category. Not only are these most likely to be offensive, they are also likely to be sexual harrassment. The user has placed them only on 3 pages (besides his own).. I have deleted all instances, the template and the category. This would seem to be an aberrant lapse of judgement on the part of Freerick, (intended, he says, as a compliment), and there is no immediate evidence of similar previous behaviour, so I have placed a strong warning. I am posting this in the interests of transparency over this matter and my actions. Tyrenius 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be okay if "fuckable" were changed to "attractive". Deco 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I, the author of the content in question, strongly disagree with Tyrenius' assesment of this situation as described above and I am disappointed that he chose to deprive me of my right to freedom of expression by censoring content that I created and that I have used and distributed in a manner that does not interfere with the rights of others. First I'd like to address content that I place on my own user page: since that page is created by me and its primary purpose is to relay information about me its cannot be considered sexually harrassing to me, or anyone else. The reader is under no obligation to visit my user page. Moreover, profanity is not banned on Misplaced Pages, instead it acceptable per Misplaced Pages's policy on profanity.

As far as other users' pages are concerned, users may remove the content that I put on their user pages at will. I will not re-instate content on another user's page after the user in question, _or_anyone_else_, for that matter, has deleted the content. I may advise the user, however, that someone has deleted content that I placed on their user page. The user in question has the option to keep the content or discard it. My actions, therefore, are in no way harrassing or offensive. The allegation of (sexual) harrassment would be justified if I distributed content in a discriminatory, derogatory or otherwise demeaning manner, and if I did so clearly against the will of others, or pervasively, even after specific complaints have been received. So far no one has complained, except Tyrenius, and I did not modify his user page in any way or associate my content with his account. I have made it clear, as Tyrenius contends, that the content I authored is gender-neutral, not meant offensively, and intended as a compliment. To underscore my point that the content in question is not offensive, please note that the content in question has remained on the users' pages for a long time, with the users' full knowledge, as I have made them aware of the situation in some cases via their talk page or the edit summary. The user(s) in question had every opportunity to remove the material, address the appropriateness with me, appeal to an administrator or take other remedial actions. None of this, however, has occurred.

I feel that Tyrenius' actions not only encroach on my rights to freely express myself, I find that they also create a chilling effect, discouraging myself, as well as others, to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages with an open mind, for fear of being expelled from the Misplaced Pages community, should their views not be in line with those of the administrators. Specifically, Tyrenius' threat to block my account in spite of my obviously positive contributions to Misplaced Pages underscores the chilling effect that his action has on the community.

Unless I receive a specific request from someone who finds my material offensive or harrassing, I believe that I have the right to distribute it freely, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Should that situation occur, the affected user, admin or guest should address the issue on my talk page, rather than executing an arbitrary summary judgement.

Since, as I stated above, I respect other users' rights to edit their own user pages, or any other pages, for that matter, as they please, I will not revert deletion of my content from other users' pages. However, I believe that I share the same right as other users to include the content that I want on my own user page. Therefore, I disagree with Tyrenius' decision to remove benign content that he personally happens to finds offensive, but does not violate Misplaced Pages policy. If we cannot reach an acceptable consensus, I do intend to appeal his decision and would like to thank him for his candor and forthcomingness when explaining his decision. (Patrick 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for free speech, and your suggestion that removing a userbox, which could easily be taken as offensive/harrassing (if you don't think that walking up to someone and saying "hey, you're fuckable" might be taken as an offense, you have severe social problems), may discourage people to "continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages with an open mind" is nothing less than utter bollocks. Misplaced Pages is not Myspace, it's an encyclopaedia. We don't want this kind of 'contribution'. I think Tyrenius' warning was lenient and you are severely pushing your luck with this ridiculous defence. --Sam Blanning 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wkipedian, please note that according to the page you refer to above, Misplaced Pages is not censored and "...may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Sam, are you suggesting that defending my position on this is grounds for suspension of account privileges? I cannot conceive that Misplaced Pages has any policy that would support such a stance, so if such a policy does exist, kindly point me to it. In addition, your comment above starting with "We don't want this kind of 'contribution'. " suggests that you believe you are speaking on behalf of *all* Wikipedians, which I do not believe to be the case. If you have evidence to the contrary, however, please let me know.

As far as potentially offensive content is concerned, I am only referring to content I posted in user space, not content in name space, which should certainly be kept encyclopedic. In user space, Misplaced Pages policy traditionally provides an outlet for editors to post on a wide range of topics, including their own opinions, even if such views may be unpopular. I noticed that the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above use ad hominem attacks and threats of suspension in an attempt to possibly discourage those with opposing views from speaking up or perhaps to shield their arguments from public scrutiny. This is understandable, since conformity by the masses is an essential requirement for authoritarian leaders. Please be advised, however, that such arguments may provoke and encourage those with opposing views from yours to enter the discussion.

In order to provide a fair playing field for other Wikipedians, please refrain from personal attacks and threats, especially if you are advocating to other users to refrain from distributing offensive content. Thanks!

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” (Avram Noam Chomsky)

(Patrick 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

You say "I noticed that the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above use ad hominem attacks and threats of suspension in an attempt to possibly discourage those with opposing views from speaking up or perhaps to shield their arguments from public scrutiny." I would be grateful for an apology over this use of the plural, which obviously included me in a sweeping statement, as I opened this discussion in the first place precisely for people to speak up and express opposing views if they wished. Tyrenius 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with userbox removal. -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, indeed, I'm sorry that I wasn't precise with my language above. I should have said "...the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above and use ad hominem..." (emphasis added, of course). Again, I do appreciate that you mentioned the matter here in order for others to comment; this shows that you believe that your decision was justified and that you acted in good faith. (Patrick 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

Samir, Tyrenius, Sam, et. al, I don't have the consensus needed to keep the userbox content that I created but I disagree nonethless with the decision to prohibit me (or anyone) from posting this (or any) content on my user page, so long as its removal is not absolutely necessary (e.g. as required by law), and even in such extreme circumstances such a decision might frustrate me and I would most likely raise questions regarding the justification of said action. I'd like to again emphasize that I feel that even the suggestion that stating my position regarding this matter, even if it is the dissenting position, would warrant expulsion or other repercussions, does not contribute to a positive and efficient working environment. On the contrary, and without regard to the content discussed above, such a suggestion discourages editors from making statements (in user space or elsewhere) that may not be popular, but valid, nonetheless. Many editors, especially those who are newer members of the community, may not see themselves in a position to withstand a personal attack, or the threat of a summary judgement by an opposed admin, which may result in, possibly unwarranted, blocking. Unless this is disputed, I think it is necessary to clarify here that a user ought not be banned or otherwise reprimanded for stating his viewpoint in discussion, in the appropriate space therefore provided, regardless of the matter that is dicussed or the position that is taken. (Patrick 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

I don't think Samuel Blanning is threatening to block you for expressing your opinion in a forum which is available for comment, more a figure of speech to indicate how strongly he feels you've got it wrong. We can all make mistakes, and an apology clears the record. The very first use of it caused offense, for which you have not apologised to the user. To continue to argue for it so vehemently is now reducing your credibility, when third parties have pointed out how unacceptable it is.Tyrenius 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Free speech is free speech, and if you think that saying that another person is 'fuckable' means you lack social skills, then perhaps you've never been to a bar before. Or perhaps no one thinks you are fuckable. Regardless, I agree that the userbox could be construed as offensive. However, simply being offensive does not seem to be enough to warrent its total deletion and threats regarding account suspension. (Toaster 06:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

This comment was posted by 72.197.178.213 who has 2 edits -- Tyrenius 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The context in a bar is entirely different from the context here: People who go to bars do so because they want to drink and play darts and meet members of the opposite sex. People who come to Misplaced Pages do so because they want to write an encyclopedia. If you went to a bar and asked a random girl there to write you an article on Gustav Doré, she'd think you were deranged. Why is it a surprise that the inverse is true here? It was inappropriate, and one of the first people who "received" the box immediately (and unsurprisingly) took offense, whether offense was intended or not. -Hit bull, win steak 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• I went up to a girl in a bar and asked her to write an article on Gustav Doré. She said she doesn't know much of him and remembers not liking the prevalence of dark tones in his engravings. She is, however, working on a dissertation on some works by Henri Matiss and says she "could use some help". Whether or not I actually am deranged was never brought into question and didn't seem to matter much to her...
• Besides: not everyone who goes to a bar does so for the reasons that you have stated. Some people, for example, go there to work. And you obviously left out a lot of activities that Wikipedians do on Misplaced Pages. Are you suggesting that users of Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use it as a medium for interpersonal communication or, as a result of this, even, meeting members of the opposite sex? THAT'S definetely censorship. The userbox removal was kind of a gray area because of ceratin decensy laws, user agreements, and such, in addition to the fact that a removal, is constitutionally as equally protected as the speech removed.
• I did not receive a peronal complaint from any user personally, so I did not feel the need to issue an apology. If such a complaint has indded been sent to me, with the properties that you imply, I am assuming that you have a copy of said compalind and are ready to sent it to me.
• I'm not making myself less credible by defending a point that is no held by the majority. It was my intention for the readers of my previous comment to infer that I feel more strongly about the importance of having a free forum of discussion, rather than the material that was discussed prior. That's why I started said paragraph with "I don't have the consensus needed to keep the userbox content that I created but"... but maybe I was a little too vague. (Patrick 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Please sign your talk posts with ~~~~. You're giving the appearance of wikilawyering here with your arguments, which have all been refuted already. Railing about censorship is not really a good approach, as there is no right to free speech here. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place to hook up or to be sociable, and everything you do here should be able to be shown (without twisted or torturous logic) to support the project itself. Your box was inappropriate for the collegial atmosphere that is desired here. Internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't signed my prior post. I've never heard the term "Wikilawyering" but it sounds really depressing. I've already "internalized" everything that has been posted and I haven't mentioned recreating the user box. I do disagree that there is no free speech here. Either there is free speech or there is not. If there is no free speech, people's constitutional rights may be violated. It's important to detect such a trend early on, before it becomes wide-spread. (Patrick 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Exactly whose constitution is Misplaced Pages governed under? Syrthiss 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a right to free speech with a right to have anything you like published by whoever you like. --pgk 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, pgk. Everything you write on Misplaced Pages is being published by the WikiMedia foundation, and your "right" to say things here is actually a privilege granted by the site's owners because it seems like a good way to get an encyclopedia written. If you use that privilege to do something other than write an encyclopedia, you shouldn't be too surprised when someone asks you to stop. If you think Misplaced Pages should be a free webhost, or a social networking service, why not address that point directly, instead of feeding us red herrings about free speech, as if Misplaced Pages were a nation-state or something. -GTBacchus 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

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

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

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

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

I also received this exact same email and concur with User:Jmabel's analysis. - FrancisTyers · 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten it twice, from two different accounts. The first version didn't have the first two lines. KillerChihuahua 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen surrounding all of this, posting this e-mail here would be a fine example of "feeding the troll". (→Netscott) 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got it too. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also received the email. Phish much? Although I somewhat disagree. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of a case here. Yes, there was some incivility and personal attacks, but no administrator abuse. MONGO, et al. have every right to delete an image whose use is to attack or disparage the subject. He has every right to remove banned users' (+ socks') edits. He has every right to remove his personal information that someone else has put on the wiki. And we are not the keepers of ED; if there is vandalism there, they have to deal with it. I just got done writing MONGO an email letting him know we have a phisher. --LV 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also got it, looks like he spammed admins...? I responded that it was an inappropriate venue and told him to bring it to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it too. My response was basically "What do you want me to do with this?" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there's anyone who didn't get it? -- Natalya 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Generally unenforceable. Even if the spammer self identifies, there's no guarantee that it's actually who they say they are. If the mass block was policy, it would be a simple matter to impersonate a target to get them removed from the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well what do you know. I got the spam too. So I went to the AfD and voted with my conscience, which is precisely what I urge everyone else to do. Review the article, it's cited sources, its potential for further reliable sources, and above all its stated aim of becoming the next GNAA, and decide what role Misplaced Pages should play in helping them to achieve that aim. Do check for mentions on Google News and your favourite newspaper sites (with and without the diphthong). Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I did as well, JzG. And I got the spam... Will (message me!) 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was spammed with this crap too just after I voted. — Nathan _{/ 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

I did not even do anything, yet I got this. I believe it should be a sanctionable offense, but with the comments other gave, it could be just giving people tickets to remove people from WP. User:Zscout370 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel left out...I never got one! Darn it...I feel rejected. Pout time.--MONGO 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. The way things are going we'll soon have an article on the email itself. ;-) Tom Harrison 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

--MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Of course, it is a bad thing, and the admin who said it should face some kind of sanction, but regardless of what the admin did, the spammer should have tried to contain the issue within its' current locations, instead of trying to spam everyone about it in their inboxes. User:Zscout370 07:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone hates spammers with a passion. Once you start acting like a dick, any claim against another user is null and void in most people's eyes. --mboverload@ 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone "retarded" and telling them to "fuck off" certainly seems to be "acting like a dick"... yet your axiom strangely doesn't seem to hold in such cases. When an admin acts like a troll, and using terminology clearly intended to insult is certainly 'trollish' behaviour, they share in the responsibility for the bad behaviour of the person they abused and provoked. Saying, 'the admin was annoyed so it is understandable' is a cop-out/double-standard... the regular user was equally annoyed and their behaviour equally 'understandable'. But 'understandable' doesn't equal 'acceptable'... for either party. Admins ought to be better than trolls... and when they aren't we should say so and tell them not to do it again. --CBD 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In AD 2006, War was beginning.

What happen?

Somebody set up us the bomb.

We get email.

What !!

Email open.

It's you !!

How are you gentlemen !!

MONGO blanked our article.

You are on the way to vandalism.

What you say !!

The article will survive, waste your time.

Ha ha ha.

Jimbo !!

Delete every article.

You know what you doing.

Delete article.

For great justice...

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

*mboverload@'s brain explodes due to high-pressure awesomeness*

It seems to be peaceful. But it is incorrect. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing one key line, all your article are belong to us. (→Netscott) 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That'd be "Mongo blanked our article". But I liked yours better :) Will (message me!) 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The email may be getting copied and pasted from this usersubpage...--MONGO 09:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Son of a Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Son of a Peach has been engaged in some vandalism, including editing other users' comments, what do you think? Myrtone

In regard to the second edit, I would recommend that he not change another person's comments in that manner. However, I would not go so far as to call it vandalism. I do not think that his posting of "W00t f0r j00, dr4g0nf1y!" after DragonFly31's comment would qualify as vandalism, either. I believe that he was just expressing his support for DragonFly31's position. I looked through a couple of his edits and did not find any vandalism, but I did not make an exhaustive search. I think that politely requesting that he not modify the content of your comments would be okay. -- Kjkolb 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"W00t f0r j00, dr4g0nf1y!" The reason I regarded this as vandalism and threfore removed it is becuase it looks like gibberish (I have no idea what it means). Myrtone (☏):-(

I think it means "W00t for you, Dragonfly." -- Kjkolb 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Request to undelete articles per OTRS permission confirmations

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

• Explorium: a Gold Rush game per Ticket#: 2006052510009541

no AFD is busy enough already.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delphian Records per Ticket#: 2006060510012858

Apears to have problems with a number of wikipedia policies.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Eco diving per Ticket#: 2006052610012909

As a generaly rule articles should not be writen in a question and answer format. Notice a patturn here?Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Skip Williamson per Ticket#: 2006061010011438
• Bruff R.F.C. per Ticket#: 2006061410017854
• International Peace Operations Association per Ticket#: 2006061510013945
• Tees'n more per Ticket#: 2006062110011257
• Virginia Home for Boys and Girls per Ticket#: 2006062510002812
• URENIO per Ticket#: 2006062510009093
• GOLDEN per Ticket#: 2006062610000769

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

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

Articles that were deleted due to copyright violations may simply be re-created. However material copied straight from another website is unlikely to be NPOV or have the right tone. Even if permission is given the material may need to be rewritten. -Will Beback 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see the deleted article content, that's why I request the undeletion here. As for "more specific statement of permission", I'll recheck these tickets and send mails where needed. --Timichal 10:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete lines from deletion log archive

Hello,

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

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

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

12:44, 28 Oct 2004 Ahoerstemeier deleted "Vojmil

12:21, 28 Oct 2004 Rdsmith4 deleted "Verica

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

12:20, 28 Oct 2004 Rdsmith4 deleted "Vojmil

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

Should we just blank all pages linked from Misplaced Pages:Deletion log? That way, the log data is available in the history but won't be cached by Google. Kusma (討論) 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there just a way with meta tags in HTML to tell a robot not to index...? Sasquatch t|c 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, google for meta robots noindex nofollow for instructions. Who can edit the HTML of Special:Log/delete? Weregerbil 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They can be added to /robots.txt, like is done with AfD. --cesarb 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Usernames consisting of email addresses

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

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

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

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

This sounds pretty fair. We have warned people in the past about not using email addresses for their usernames, and I can see several times a day people doing this very thing. While I have not blocked any of those names in recent memory, it would be a good idea too. As for the edit reassignment, I have no idea how it would work. User:Zscout370 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need to block them, it seems to be for their own protection rather than any particular WP issue. However I do think whatever we do we should amend MediaWiki:Signupend to make it clearer that either they aren't allowed or are not a good idea. (They text is way at the bottom and I guess not visible for most unless they scroll down on the signup screen). --pgk 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Repmart evading block

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

Give me some links and I'll be more than happy to block them. User:Zoe| 02:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much point; several IPs were used last night, often with only one edit each. User:195.153.183.3; User:86.29.116.166; User:86.29.127.112; User:86.29.117.184. The latter especially illustrates how he's trawled my contribs., The JPS 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Broken" pages in the deletion log

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

There's been some funky stuff going on with the database, so who knows. --Woohookitty 06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For about 40 minutes last night, all activity was going to the wrong database server, and wasn't being recorded by the master database server. That's been fixed, and the article edits during that time have been copied over, but other activity such as creating new accounts and moving pages didn't get copied. I suspect this is cleanup from that. --Carnildo 07:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the deletions were of redirects from one User page to another that had been made months, if not years, ago. It seemed like a lot of them were redirects from Lir's sockpuppet pages to Lir's main account. User:Zoe| 19:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Suggest watching

Suggest watching 155.9.10.2 (talk · contribs). Edits with a rather strong point of view about the causes of inflation have been made to several relevant articles. That IP address has had previous warnings and blocks. The edits are not vandalism, but some watchfulness might be in order. Thanks. --John Nagle 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-opened AfD

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

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

• Closed. - Mailer Diablo 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, much appreciated. Gwernol 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• ⁃

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

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-opening AfD

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

Only administrators can close AFDs, from what I know. Is VivianDarkbloom one? -- ReyBrujo 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a limited set of circumstances under which non-admins may close AfD's, however closing a clear delete as keep isn't one of them. Even and admin closing this one as keep would be improper given the clear consensus to delete. Kevin 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vivian has made it pretty clear on her user page that she is willing to violate the rules to get her way. To that I say oi vey. --Woohookitty 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Kevin) I have just received my weekly lesson about Misplaced Pages, thanks :) -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed it as delete, article gone. User:Zscout370 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war in the GraalOnline article

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

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

User:84.169.185.88 - threats, attacks, etc.

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

I removed the attacks from his talk page as that was the only place he/she was posting. Leaving a comment too.--MONGO 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for a week, just in case. Used only for PA abakharev 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one week? How understated. User:Zoe| 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He has continued making comments on his talk page. I therefore took the liberty of semi-protecting it. JoshuaZ 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia and other places by User:Kramden4700

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

The user definitely has an axe to grind with the USA for some reason. I have watchlisted all the redirects mentioned and will revert until a consensus against their current redirect is reached. --mboverload@ 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I got involved trying to reason with him before I discovered the extent of the issue. --Scott Davis 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has also been putting speedy deletion tags on articles to which they obviously don't apply. It's a bit of a grey area, though, because some of them do seem to be used appropriately. Ardric47 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The changing of links is continuing at a rapid-fire pace. Also, his or her talk page has been moved to User talk:Kramden4700/1, and a new one started. Ardric47 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RegExTypoFix - the precursor to Skynet? John Connor hopes not

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

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

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

What about when the misspellings are intentional, or not in English, etc.? Ardric47 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It skips articles with in them, and yes, check before you save. --mboverload@ 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Caution users to carefully check what they're trying to fix before pressing "Save page" Hbdragon88 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on Anil Bhoyrul?

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

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

Thank you. Glad to learn that. E Asterion 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal

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

Problem to login

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

Can a admin please check and give me an answer here? Thanks in advance! --217.228.30.190 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no email account specified for this username. (see here). Unfortunately if you cannot remember your password, the only thing that can be done is to create a new account. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The username arguably falls foul of the username policy in giving the impression of an official capacity, probably best to choose another. --pgk 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But why is it possible to use this name in other Misplaced Pages portals then? ] --217.228.47.171 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy varies from wiki to wiki, they aren't uniform. --pgk 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexWilkes

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

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

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

Policy for undeletion of Images

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

Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs)

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

User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline

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

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

User talk:Dictyosiphonaceae

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

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

Open complaint about administrators' rollback tool

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

• On May 29, 2006, an anon added four userboxes to WP:DRV. Three administrators deleted them three different times, each one using the sterile "reverted by...to this version..." Now, two of those admins had deleted the four userboxes in question, so I was actually tempted to revert as there was no clear reason why they were removed. I asked on T1 and T2 debates and I got the answer, but why didn't they just mention it in the edit summary, so it would be absolutely clear?

• I added something that I thought was funny to WP:BJAODN. It was reverted by an admin, once again with the sterile rollback summary. When I asked him on his user page, I was told that doing manual rollback took more time and that, because most people didn't ever question his deletsions, that it was a waste of time. Right. It takes like, 15 seconds to write a summary? I think we both wasted more time using the talk page to explain exactly why the edit was removed than if the admin had just taken a few seconds to explain why he didn't think it was funny.

• {{Mario characters}} was the subject of a brief 3RR war between Xeno-Lord (talk · contribs · count) amd A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count). From Xeno-Lord's (and mine, I suppose) point, the template was suddenly and unfairly halved wholesale. Now that I look into it a bit deeper, I see that somebody else deleted it and there was relevent discussion on the CVG talk page, but there was nothing in that talk discussion to indicate that the characters had been dispersed - just deleted. Had AMIB simply pointed to the direct CVG debate in the edit summary, or started a talk page discussion pertaining to why the template was so radically changed, the 3RR would have stopped, or at least AMIB would have been more justified in his use of the rollback tool.

• And finally, the ArbCom decision on Guanco and MarkSweep, a vandalism rollback tool revert war, in which Guanco was desysopped and MarkSweeep "strongly cautioned" to only use the rollback on vandalism.

Hbdragon88 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only use the default edit summary on vandalism. Anything more and you just need to write a few words saying why. It's simple and very useful for when people look back at the history of an article. Edit summaries are not just some stupid process thing - it actually helps everyone. --mboverload@ 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to the pop-up tool - which can be set to ask for a editsummary. Maybe make that the default behaviour? Agathoclea 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of an intermediate step. If I'm trying to wipe out a prolific vandal's edits, I already am going to have 30 tabs open with rollbacks in them. We just need to make sure that admins use the tool in the right situations...or leave a note on the rollbackee's page. Unlike some editors, I don't place any negative connotation when seeing the rollback summary. Syrthiss 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've been asked about the lack of summaries more than once; maybe there should be additional text (like "using popups", but "using rollback") which links to a description of the feature and why it leaves no summary? Or maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vast User account creation

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

Link spam

Would these qualify as linkspam? .

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

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

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

Looking at User:Hardvice's latest edits now that the Encyclopædia Dramatica article has been deleted, he seems to be following the same "null edit" behavior that his sockpuppet User:FurryiamIAM has been demonstrating. Is 48 hours enough? (→Netscott) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Misplaced Pages admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly topics discussed and writing pattern that indicates the sockpuppetry nature of the relationship between the spammer account and Hardvice. One can see that User:Hardvice decided to submit all of those Wiki's for deletion under a sockpuppet as a result of this WP:ANI thread. (→Netscott) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Hardvice's recent edits, it is clear that he was, as Netscott says, using the same null-edit technique as his sock. I surmise that this was so as to inflate his edit count for unknown reasons--which I think we can safely presume to be nefarious. I suggest that a community ban at this stage would be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, Donteatmycat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks fishy, too. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Dramatica troll. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Tony Sidaway's community ban proposal. This user is very clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to block this user indefinitely. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

None. Okay I'm blocking as a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I debated an image he had posted on his userpage earlier, and never agreed with the evidence, though I let it go when Raul stated the image wasn't a copyvio. It seemed implausible that someone who got out of jail would rush home the same day or even the next day to upload their own image (a mugshot) on wikipedia. Don't expect this will be the last you see of him though. Oh, and yeah, I support the block...no surprise.--MONGO 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the ban, subject to review if Hardvice ever climbs back off the ceiling over the deletion of ED. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product or service. Accidentally signing his sockpuppet's talk page was hilarious. I loved his edit summary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh!--MONGO 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Will McBride (candidate)

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

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

Alleged Wikistalking (User:Anomicene and User:IronDuke)

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

Not mentioned here is Anomicene's vote here against my position on an article he'd had nothing to do with previously. Also not mentioned here is Anomicene's sock puppet that was used to harass me. IronDuke 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this page before, so I'll try to find the previous one rather than rehash the details. In brief, Ironduke has been stalked by User:Gnetwerker, User:Anomicene, User:Gomi-no-sensei, and possibly User:BlindVenetian, who are either the same person or (as one of them told me by e-mail) an employer and employee(s). One of them posted some personal details about Ironduke, others created attack accounts, and there have been various shenanigans like constantly reverting his edits, changing his user page, and so on, all very immature behavior. The Gomi-no-sensei and BlindVenetian accounts are currently blocked, and the Gnetwerker account has stayed away from the disputed articles, so the only problem left is Anomicene. I asked him a few weeks ago to stay away from articles he can see Ironduke has recently edited, but he recently followed ID to an article the latter had created, so I've told him if he doesn't stay away from ID, this account will be blocked too. SlimVirgin 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check user confirmed that Anomicene and Gomi-no-sensei appeared to be the same person. Some details here and at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei. SlimVirgin 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always been curious about this: There was never a checkuser request (or answer) on WP:RFCU. So there is actually no record of this. While I've stipulated that User:Gomi-no-sensei and I work for the same company, behind the same firewall, so it could easily show the same ip, but that situation smacks of the same lack of process as this one. Also, that situation ocurred months ago, and there is no evidence of any harrasment by me since then.

This, however, obscures the basic issue: look at my edits. Is there anything wrong with them? Do they add or detract from Misplaced Pages? Are IronDuke's automatic reverts (accompanied by screams of harassment) in good faith? Is SlimVirgin's block threat a good faith attempt to solve an actual problem, or wreak some punishment for alleged activities two months ago? -- Anomicene 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you stay away from articles edited by ID, there will be no problem. Please just stop being so interested in him, then he'll stop commenting on your behavior, then I can stop leaving you warnings, then we'll all be a lot happier. SlimVirgin 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I couldn't be less interested in IronDuke. As I've pointed out, you're claiming "wikistalking" when I've edited exactly two of his many, many articles. -- Anomicene 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you show some examples of problem edits? There shouldn't be a probelm if Amonicene and IronDuke are just editing some of the same articles as long as the contents of the edits isn't abusive.130.15.164.81 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim is claiming wikistalking on the basis of the edits a group of accounts that have been harassing me, including User:Gnetwerker, User:BlindVenetian and User:Gomi-no-sensei (not to mention countless edits from anonymous IPs all originating from the same area). These are, according to you, your boss and colleagues, respectively. And then you picked up where the anonymous IP's left off after Mike Hawash was sprotected. I really would count yourself lucky there's not been a ban on all those accounts yet. You say you aren't interested in me, and yet you keep following me. It's not hard to avoid articles I'm working on. It really isn't. IronDuke 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, out of the past 119 edits or so you've made over the last two months, roughly 110 of them have been to articles I've been editing (before you), articles I have created, talk I have participated in (in which you had no interest previously), or you've left messages urging sanctions against me or concerning me. In this time period, you've done little with this account other than harass me with it, roughly %93 of your edits. IronDuke 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Read my post again, please. "Last two months." IronDuke 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let's be accurate. Since June 15, I have edited Mike Hawash, with only minor exceptions, none of them involving you, until July 18, when I made one set of edits to Global Relief Foundation, on which you had not been active for some time. The edits in question are NPOV, and have been retained. The remaining small number of edits were a request for mediation (you refused) and responses to your scurrilous accusations. -- Anomicene 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "accurate." I wasn't talking about June 15, I was using your edits starting with May 14, when you first left a message on the Gnetwerker account's talk page apprising him that he had "a problem." But fine, let's take June 15. Starting from your date and going to the time I wrote the above numbers, and using my criteria above (all of your edits that stalked/followed/complained about me), the ratio remains the same, this time 106 edits, 8 of which having nothing to do with me: roughly 93% of your edits are focused on me or the work I've done. This is a very, very bad percentage. Even half this number would be cause for grave concern. I also notice that you keep glossing over a telltale edit you made, perhaps you can say what it was that drove you to vote in this renaming poll (with which you had nothing previously to do), and to vote against me? IronDuke 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an aversion to criticism that you wrap in claims of stalking. Your endless commentary continues to try to mask one clear fact: I edited two articles involving you during the period in question. My edits were NPOV, WP:RS, and have withstood scrutiny. Your corresponding edits were mostly blind reverts, with the tag "rv stalker". Your main objection seems to be that I haven't allowed you to WP:OWN those two articles. That you have an admin going along with your outrageous "stalking" claim is what is really absurd. -- Anomicene 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anomicene, please stop posting about this. ID, it's also a good idea for you not to respond. The point, Anomicene, is that two edits to articles by someone else are not the same as two edits by you. You've been accused of being part of a campaign of harassment. By rights, you shouldn't still be editing. I believe that any innocent editor would stay away from Ironduke in order to make sure they weren't viewed as part of the nonsense. That you keep thrusting yourself into it does not speak well of you. Please stop thinking about, talking about, writing about, and editing with Ironduke. If you think the allegations are unfair and ridiculous, fine, but stay away from him anyway. The longer you stay away, the more people might end up agreeing with you. But the more you go on about it, the more it looks as though are you, indeed, obsessed, so you're shooting yourself in the foot somewhat. SlimVirgin 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since my name was drug into this above: SlimVirgin, it is one thing to issue a unilateral admin edict that I stay away from "IronDuke's pages" (whatever that means). I have and will do so (for a reasonable period of time, not necessarily defined by you). However, trying to prevent me from seeking the community's (and other admins') opinion on the matter goes too far. I have not been party to harassment of IronDuke, and I'm not interested in your (biased) opinion of what an "innocent editor" would do. At this point I am less interested in IronDuke than in your unilateral and out-of-process actions in support of him (and of course his support of you in the current ArbCom case). -- Gnetwerker 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again

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

First of all, there was no 3RR violation, let's just get the facts straight to begin with. Circeus in his "3RR report" lumped up the edits from 4 days to come up with four reverts. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different

Besides, Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)' summary above is not complete and one-sided. First of all, Ghirla's argument is not laughable, even if Circeus claims so. Second, Circeus forgets to give a full context of their previous skirmish, the edit conflict (not flawless by both parties) which Circeus "won" in the end of the day by simply blocking an opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archive of this board at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive52#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive50#Third opinion please. --

--Irpen 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the caption that Circeus wants to add and Ghirlandajo wants to remove is a comment Ghirlandajo added when he uploaded the image in the first place. It is completely beyond me why a text he wrote in the first place would now be unacceptable as a caption, and I think Ghirlandajo is the one that should give a good reason not to include it and not the other way around. Fram 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have admited that the 3RR report was mistakenly done: Ghirla's first revert occured on July 21, although most of the reverting occured today. I will continue tostand by my July 7 block. That Ghirla's attitude can be sanctionned by his edits (the quality and quantity of which I certainly won't deny) is beyond me. He is regurlarly uncivil (when not threading near personal attacks) and constantly maintain strict dogwatch over articles he works on, in adition to his general confrontational attitude. Those are the gripes I have with him, and I am not the only one to have found his a stressful editor to deal with. Circeus 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be better to submit such things to a review first. Like Irpen rightfully pointed out in one of his threads, that was considered a good reading by some people, such kind of actions must be reviewed first, preferably by a third party, instead of making a hasty 3RR report that turns out (in good faith of course) to be a simple revert.

Incidentally, even if the block you're mentioning about is old, it still created a precedent, because it raises the utility of a review. Maybe a review would prevent all this story... :( -- Grafikm 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I am seeking third opinions in this matter before it escalates further? Circeus 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is a good thing" (tm) :) -- Grafikm 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahrarara = Panairjdde

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

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Politician editing entry

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

Jonathunder (talk · contribs) reverted but left no message. Anyone wanna handle that part? I think this matter should be handled with care. -Ravedave 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message. User:Zscout370 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want to take the word of a newbie that they are whom they claim to be? What if it's Gutknecht's opponents trying to make him and his staff look bad? User:Zoe| 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, also it can't hurt to treat the person with respect lest they decide they want to sue WP. -Ravedave 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Harassing Anonyous IP

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

• -
• -

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

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

• Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from editing Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its talk page and related articles for one year.
• Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1#Log of blocks and bans.
• Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Misplaced Pages for an appropriate period of time. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

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

Re:T:DYK

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

Okay. BTW, HighwayCello, thanks for helping keeping T:DYKT clean, it's really quite appreciated -- Samir धर्म 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, I have nothing better to do. ;) Highway 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Is anybody in charge here?

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

Nobody is "in charge". It doesn't work that way. You could try to appeal to User:Jimbo Wales is you would like. --Woohookitty 10:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be better to appeal to the arbitration committee, but since you're unblocked now it seems that the issue is resolved. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Extended block for User:Justforasecond

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

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

Agree with block. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, this user is highly disruptive. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Justforasecond's repeated harrassment of User:Deeceevoice, one may want to question his agenda. User:Zoe| 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan

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

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

Speedy deletion

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

Indefinitely banned editors still using email for harassment

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards