Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 2 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)

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

Block on political grounds?

I would like to ask for an admin who is not involved in editing Middle East related artciles and does not suffer from a conflict of interrests to review this block of User:Tiamut. Please note also her comments on her talk page. Thanks ابو علي

She added the phrase "their indigeneity has been challenged" or equivalent here, here, here, and here. Yes, the wording was changed, and other aspects of the relevant paragraph were changing around her edits as she made them, but the repeated insertion is pretty clearly a violation of 3RR. Note that I have absolutely no knowledge of the context; I'm responding on technical grounds here. Chick Bowen 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But this leaves out the context of the edit war, with 40 reversions by 12 different editors, in the course of three days. Please see the discussions at User talk:Tiamut#3RR block and Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#indigenous, and the page history and edit summaries for Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut was the unlucky editor to fall into a trap baited by other editors, and is being unfairly punished. RolandR 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does leave out the context, as I said above. This is part of the problem with WP:AN/3RR: people give diffs, and admins look at the diffs. Having looked at page history, I agree with you that it's a mess, and that Tiamut is hardly the worst offender. Tewfik has gamed the system a little bit, with four reverts or quasi-reverts in about 27 hours, it looks like. I think Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution might work well here, and temporary protection may be necessary. But all that said, I'm not inclined to unblock here. The point is, you're right that she was baited, but she shouldn't have gone for the bait. 24 hours to let things cool off would do all of you a lot of good. Chick Bowen 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggstion that a well respected vetern editor blocked this user (for what is perfectly obvious is a violation of 3RR) out of political motivation, and the canvassing of editors with langauge that similarily suggests a politcal motivation (here, and here) is such a blatant violation of WP:AGF that it should earn you a block. Isarig 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the block, it is hard for me to see why one would block someone for failing to AGF. Canvassing is bad, they've stopped canvassing. The user should not canvass again. JoshuaZ 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check WP:BLOCK: "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." Isarig 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Isarig, Do you really think that your own conduct is really "consistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia"? ابو علي 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me - feel free to use this page to make your case. Until then, please read Tu Quoque. Isarig 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I don't do complainst:-) ابو علي 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, this isn't the first time you've made bad-faith allegations against administrators when you disagree with their actions. Please give it a rest. As for Tiamut, I've offered to unblock her if she stays away from that article and any related page she's edit warring on, if any, for 24 hours, but she hasn't responded yet. SlimVirgin 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

proabaly because the offere was made around midnight Israel time. good that the offer to unblock was made. but better late then never. ابو علي 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I received a request at my user talk to review this block and it does look like a solid application of 3RR policy. Tu quoque isn't grounds for unblocking. Clearly, the article needs protecting for a bit while the editors work toward consensus. I recommend an article content WP:RFC to bring in some fresh views. If problematic behavior by other disputants continues then build up a case for WP:POINT (or any other applicable policy) and report to WP:ANI. Durova 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another question, User:SlimVirgin has threatened to block me for supposedly making "repetitive, predictable personal attacks". But I have not made any personal attacks, merely questioned her actions as an admin. To what extent can an admin use their admin rights to ban editors who oppose their particular point of view? In such cases would it not be wiser for that admin to leave the block to another admin in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interrest? Thanks ابو علي 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate response would be to ask SlimVirgin which edits of yours she considers to be personal attacks. Durova 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do thatابو علي 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a query on her talk page, but she declined to respond. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that following the lifting of my block, SlimVirgin posted comments at my talk page and the talk pages of others, that I consider to be inappropriate. I posted this response to her talk page : "No doubt this will be cited as a diff, the next time a reason is found for me to be cited for a violation of some kind. Thanks for the warning and for considering me to be so special as to warrant extra disciplinary action, attention, and follow-up - with personalized notes left for me on the talk pages of other people right after I’ve posted there. And just after your controversial block of me too! I also appreciated how you went digging about for a diff that proves I did something wrong and produce this, as evidence of my having lied in the 3RR. I think I explained myself well there in response to you. And honestly, too. What’s up SlimVirgin? Wikistalking and harassment is not the way to respond to decisions you do not agree with. Can’t you just accept that I blocked you? Oh I'm sorry, it was the other way around. My mistake. (sarcasm, please forgive.) So can I ask what the h-ll you are doing following me around? Thanks, Tiamut 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)" I realize that the sarcasm and indignation might be a little much, but considering that the block was controversial and I was considering filing a review of her actions, and considering that I have done nothing to provoke SlimVirgin into communicating with me since, nor have I violated any Misplaced Pages policies and have even avoided returning to the Arab citizens of Israel article despite ridiculous edits there since my block was instituted, (though I did revert one edit that has since been readded despite its factual inaccuracy) I would like to state for the record that I find her behaviour in this regard to be very disturbing. Tiamut 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you clearly violated 3RR, no-one else did, and it's rather tiring to have wade through this continuous conspiracy-mongering by you and User:Abu ali. This lengthy business is an egregious violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and there is no conflict of interest either; people making that claim should apologize. If I see much more of this I'm going to start blocking people for violating WP:POINT and for general rudeness. And, Abu Ali, you've been warned about false WP:COI accusations before, as well as about your labelling others as "Zionists" and "Israelis", so consider this your last warning. Jayjg 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jayjg. I would have, however, appreciated it if you mentioned your own editing of the article that I was blocked for editing. In fact, if I recall correctly, you deleted the word "indigenous" in an earlier edit war, the content I was blocked for trying to reinsert in this edit war. See here: . With respect. Tiamut 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? Stop. Jayjg 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You know Jayjg, I really don't understand your tone. Or the implication in your first posting that I am a "conspiracy theorist". In fact, strangely enough, the only two people here that have ever made such an accusation against me are you and SlimVirgin. You above, and SlimVirgin twice in the last three days, most recently at User:Mackan79's talk page . I didn't respond to your accusation above, because I didn't want to escalate the situation any further. I thought I would merely point out that for purposes of disclosure, it might have been nice if you had mentioned that you had a direct stake in the matter, since you had been involved in an earlier version of the same editing war. That you are trying to make me out to be unreasonable based on my restrained response to your accusations, is really totally unfair. Thanks for your input again. With respect, Tiamut 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you violate the 3RR and are blocked for it, it's safe to assume that it's your conduct that got you blocked. We admins aren't required to have no political opinions in order to use admin abilities. If you believe you are being persecuted for religious or political reasons, your best bet is to have exemplary conduct. If you are no longer blocked after that, then it probably wasn't your political views that got you in trouble. – Quadell 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. I don't think that admins shouldn't have political opinions. (In fact, that would be quite ridiculous. Everybody has political opinions and biases that inform their editing and interaction, no matter how "objective" they claim to be). And I may note, in my defense, that since the block I have reflected on my editing behaviour and taken a much more collaborative approach. I invite anyone to take a look at my extensive participation in the talk pages of this RfC that I opened to discuss edits I would like to make to the List of indigenous peoples article and to review my user history in general since the block. Thanks for your advice Quadell. See you around. Tiamut 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate some community input as to whether Jayjg's declararion of intent to block me for is justified? I personally think it is an attempt to use adminstrator privilage to intimidate editors with an opposing POV to his own. And if my questions regarding WP:COI are unfounded, why are they answered with such a sharp response? Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Faculty and involving the police over a sockpuppet report

Adrian Sfarti has been contacting faculty members at UIUC regarding a recent sockpuppet report Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. He has also been sending emails slurring a student and even trying to involve the campus police all because of this report and delusions that he keeps getting banned at sites, not because of his actions that warranted the bans, but because it is somehow everyone else's fault and we should fix everything for him. His behavior is unacceptable, but furthermore I am disappointed in Misplaced Pages administrators. Yes ultimately these are the faults of Adrian Sfarti's actions and he clearly has problems, both in the inability to look at himself critically and accepting the consequences of his actions, but also the notion that he can possibly believe this makes him look like anything but more of a crank is beyond me.

However, it is outrageous that Misplaced Pages administrators allow this to keep recurring. Yes, that is right, Adrian Sfarti has done this in the past. This should never have been allowed to happen again, for he should not have been allowed to even get back into situations like this. You have IP records of everyone coming on here and at the very least you should have a mechanism to flag someone as heavily using IP's that a banned individual used. From the sockpuppet report it is even apparent that a user recognized one of his edits and labeled it as "Sfarti spam" back in mid December, and yet Adrian Sfarti was allowed to continue on. People like Mr. Sfarti should immediately be removed. To keep letting them get their foot in the door again and again, and then to drag out the process of removing them each time, only leads to more of this nonsense.

Please give serious consideration to improving your user identification mechanisms. It is clear he will continue this cycle for as long as you allow him and I do not want to ever have to deal with this individual again. AnnoyedInIllinois 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might not want to deal with him, but unless he has been banned by the community here, he is free to edit. From what I see Sfarti was never banned here and If I'm missing something, point me to the editor name he was banned under or the community ban discussion. Most of the stuff you are referring to here is happening off Misplaced Pages and isn't relevant here. We generally don't block underlying IPs unless there is serious vandalism or personal attacks happening, and I don't see that right now (diffs would be helpful). So... I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen here.--Isotope23 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

HI AnnoyedInIllinois... we have alot of concerns to balance here. First of all, your concept is a good one (flagging users who are using the same IP address of someone who has been troublesome) but unfortunately it can't be done in a way that is effective. In many cases IP addresses aren't stable. Some even switch every page-load. In other cases (schools are a good example) a single IP address might be shared by hundreds/thousands of editors. In a few notable cases entire nations share a single IP address. Another concern is that of privacy. I realize that IP addresses arn't very secure, but atleast when I speak here I can do so with confidence that some irate vandal isn't going to call my boss and try to get me in some kind of trouble. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I propose a ban on Sfarti. Any objections? JoshuaZ 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some links or diffs to the prior incidents? Newyorkbrad 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am the student referred to above. Here are some links for you regarding prior incidents:

* Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive34#Urgent_need_for_consensus:_Police_contacted

* Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#User:Ati3414_Threatenning_to_call_the_police_(again)

Knowing what I know now, I'm amazed in the oldest report that I actually pleaded that everyone be lenient on Sfarti. -- Gregory9 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of Order

I would like to complain about User:Mr. Darcy. His approach and attitude towards other editors who come to Wiki and work diligently is unacceptable. A review of his contributions/comments/Talk pages should demonstrate this. He often appears to act in unison with User:Tyrenius. Regardless of how many barnstars and merits accumulated by such people, opiniated power seems to be running amuck here. One email I received from another User about Mr Darcy described him as "Arrogant, rude, hasty, overweening, opinionated, biased and power-hungry." If Wiki is supposed to be a forum for consensus and civility towards each other it is not being demonstrated here. David Lauder 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly and truly honest, mentioning a "cabal" never helps your case. I briefly considered taking a look at this case until I reached the word "cabal". Ral315 » 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asking here for intelligent consideration of this matter. Saying you will not consider it because you don't like a single solitary word is fairly ridiculous, is it not? I have changed that now. David Lauder 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had my run ins with Mr.Darcy (infact he blocked me last week (which was later overturned)) and generally find him pretty harsh - harsh but generally fair, fair and knowledgeable in fact. If you are going to throw around accusations of acting in a "cabal", then maybe the old adage of "those who live in glasshouses, should not throw stones" could apply.--Vintagekits 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were an unseasoned observer I would say that you were more friendly with Mr Darcy than not. He has supported you absolutely in appalling decisions before. Maybe the block was just a ruse to indicate his "independence"? David Lauder 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you make a complaint about Mr. Darcy, but when someone speaks up for him, they are in cahoots with Mr. Darcy in some diabolical ruse? I am disinclined to give much attention to your complaint at this juncture. Please provide diffs to evidence your complaints, rather than vague accusations of cabalism and malevolent plottery. Proto ► 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I feel that I have been clear enough. David Lauder 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that someone is being bad will not cause anyone to immediately dig through every one of the user's contributions looking for bad stuff. Saying what they've actually done wrong is a bare minimum, evidence is highly desirable if you want anyone to take action. With regard to this posting I hereby swear that I am not a member of any cabal, conspiracy or secret 'NO GURLS' clubhouse. I am not privy to the secret codes, the secret handshake, the secret decoder ring or the super secret secret squirrel. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party, nor have I been party to the Communist Party parties, although this one time I went to a Socialist Party but it was a total sausage-fest full of nerds in pullovers so the next time I was invited I was all like look I'd like to but the neo-conservatives already invited me to theirs and after a few drinks one of the girls usually starts a game of Strip and Awe so... --Sam Blanning 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW! I didn't know you could do that! GOD, I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If an Editor has a complaint, properly expressed, it seems to me that you should make an effort to treat it with some respect instead of trying to belittle it through ad hominem abuse. Your post says more about you than you realise.--Major Bonkers 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the complaint is not properly expressed. There's no evidence, just vague allegations about power-hungry admins and insinuations of some kind of underhanded subterfuge. Proto ► 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It still reads like some inadequate wanking his ego.--Major Bonkers 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats the best I can do. It is easy enought to spend five minutes looking through the contributions if you're really interested. I do not have the knowledge to direct you otherwise. David Lauder 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was easy enough, you could have spent that five minutes yourself scaring up some actual diffs with actual evidence instead of saying that you couldn't be bothered to do so. Why should anyone else be interested if you aren't yourself? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are extremely rude. David Lauder 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User Account Problem

Hi! I have problems with my user account Bwilcke. Something is wrong with my original password, and when I ask for a new password, I get no answer.

Maybe a did not give my e-mail address: bwilcke@web.de. Can you help?

-- 84.176.56.251 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your junk folder; if you didn't get an email when you asked for a new password to be issued, it's very possible that you did not set that email address to the account. See m:Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password.3F for what to do if this is the case. I'm afraid you may not be able to gain access to the account, but you can try and contact someone with direct access (ie, not an administrator) to reset the password for you - look on m:Developer for ways to contact them. Proto ► 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unexpected Request By User:212.219.247.229

This user has requested to be blocked.

1. I can't handle this
2. Why would someone ask this?
3. Is that even allowed?
   RyGuy 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be an educational institution (registered to a council, connecting via ja.net). So it's likely to be very shared. Such IPs are normally blocked as anon-only, account creation blocked when they vandalise heavily, but in this case I'm not sure if they should be blocked merely on a request (because one person requesting an IP to be blocked would cause other people using that IP also to be blocked). --ais523 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of blocking anonymous editing from a school IP, at the request of school officials. But the guy making the request on that page hardly looks like an official. He may just be a student trying to annoy his friends. EdJohnston 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is way over me to say anything at all to him / her, but now he / she has replaced their talk page with "BLOCK OUR IP. NOW. OR VANDALISM. CHOOSE.". I really need help with this. RyGuy 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a {{schoolblock}}, which would seem reasonable enough even if they hadn't asked for it themselves. Incidentally, that's the second school in 212.219.*.* I've blocked today. If anyone can figure out which specific school this one is, please correct the tag on the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cabal like Page Move discussion at Talk:Voodoo Kin Mafia

First, a question, if band changed their name, would the article name change with it? How about if the band changed name a few months ago, should the article reflect its current name? Or should it use their older more established name?

There's a page move discussion at Talk:Voodoo Kin Mafia which was started on the 4th of February, it's still ongoing regarding moving the article back to the old name. However, this page move is linked from absolutely nowhere apart from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do, a behind the scenes wrestling page. It has taken a month just to get 6 support votes from editors engrained within the wikiproject, and absolutely lacks any outside comment.

I'm afraid that these guys will just get an admin to go "Look! Support! Move it back!" without letting them know the whole picture. Is such a move discussion even valid? 82.19.126.78 19:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's true I cannot find a posting to requested moves, that would have garnered little other interest than a closing admin to end the discussion. You aren't going to like the results, but I'm moving the article to their most common found name, New Age Outlaws. Your comments in opposition are credited, but there is persuasive points towards to application of a couple naming conventions to move the article. I'm assuming the questions that you started with are rhetorical, as there is no one right answer to any of them. Thanks for brigging this to administrative attention, though! Teke 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did file a request at WP:RM on February 3: Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves&diff=105458803&oldid=105458684. TJ Spyke 08:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New templates rfarb, rfcuser, rfcn, and listuser

As a timesaver for several frequently used types of links, I've created:

{{rfarb}}

• links to WP:RFARB arbitration page on a topic or user, if it exists
• enter topic, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. article/user of a talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label

Example 1: {{rfarb|Waldorf education}} → WP:RFARB page on "Waldorf education"

Example 2: {{rfarb|Waldorf education|Steiner schools issue}} → Steiner schools issue (same link)

Example 3: {{rfarb|Jimbo Wales}} → There is no WP:RFARB page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 4: {{rfarb}} → WP:RFARB page on "Example"

{{rfcuser}}

• links to WP:RFC/USER page on a user's conduct, if it exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter RFC number, else defaults to highest (standard-format) RFC found, up to 20

Example 1: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}} → WP:RFC/USER page on "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (links to latest RFC, #Template:Highrfc)

Example 2: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nick's RFC}} → Nick's RFC (same link)

Example 3: {{rfcuser|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|number=1}} → There is no WP:RFC/USER page on "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (links to first RFC, unnumbered)

Example 4: {{rfcuser|Jimbo Wales}} → WP:RFC/USER page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 5: {{rfcuser}} → There is no WP:RFC/USER page on "Example"

{{rfcn}}

• links to WP:RFC/NAME section on a username, or the page top if no such section exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter archive (oldid) number, else defaults to current page

Example 1: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan}} → Current WP:RFC/NAME on "DeveloperDan" (closed topic)

Example 2: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan|oldid=111584225}} → Archived WP:RFC/NAME on "DeveloperDan"

Example 3: {{rfcn|DeveloperDan|here|oldid=111584225}} → here (same link)

Example 4: {{rfcn}} → Current WP:RFC/NAME on "Administrators' noticeboard"

{{listuser}}

• links to Special:Listusers listing for a username (or next one if that one doesn't exist), confirming or disproving the account's existence (whether or not there's a user page or user talk page); listing also shows "(Administrator)" if account holds that status
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label
• enter number of entries to show as limit, else defaults to 1 (one)

Example 1: {{listuser|Essjay}} → Essjay

Example 2: {{listuser|Essjay|limit=12}} → 12-username list starting at: Essjay

Example 3: {{listuser|Essjay|a jury of peers?|limit=12}} → a jury of peers? (same link)

Example 4: {{listuser}} → Example

More documentation at each template. I hope these help! -- Ben 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "templatecruft" a word? – Steel 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. — CharlotteWebb 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Try dealing with lots and lots of the same sorts of hardcoded URLs, whose texts you could hand-type full-length half-asleep, except for pain and/or slow loss of fine control in your hands; you'll be happy for anything that reduces keystrokes. -- Ben 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an RFCU equivalent? I like these templates. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't done one for RFCU (request-for-check-user) yet, only because I'm not as familiar with that area, and don't know what are the frequently-used reference links. I've been working on RFC (requests-for-comment) pages, which only share their first 3 initials with RFCU. What sort of template would be helpful over there? -- Ben 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be similar to {{rfcuser}}, except that it would link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/USERNAME. At Checkuser, all requests for a single user go onto a single subpage, even if there are multiple requests on a user, so it seems like the template code would be straightforward. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done:

New template rfcu

{{rfcu}}

• links to WP:RFCU (checkuser) page on a user, if it exists
• enter username, else defaults to basepagename, e.g. username of a user page or user talk page
• enter linklabel, else defaults to descriptive label

Example 1: {{rfcu|American Brit}} → WP:RFCU page on "American Brit"

Example 2: {{rfcu|American Brit|Brit's RFCU}} → Brit's RFCU (same link)

Example 3: {{rfcu|Jimbo Wales}} → There is no WP:RFCU page on "Jimbo Wales"

Example 4: {{rfcu}} → WP:RFCU page on "Example"

Thanks for the pointer, Akhilleus! -- Ben 10:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making it. It will come in handy. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New template usercheck, addition suggested to user5

{{usercheck}}

• Looks for same pages as {{userblock}}, plus three of the above new page-check templates

Example: {{Usercheck|Monicasdude}} → Monicasdude (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Suggested {{rfcu}} be added to the end of {{user5}}, thus:

Example: {{User5|Jimbo Wales}} → Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu)

Since {{User5}} is used extensively at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets, it could be very helpful to have that link at the end finding any checkuser pages that exist for the users listed. -- Ben 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei

Following a complaint at WP:AE documenting extensive edit warring between Instantnood and Huaiwei on various articles, the following remedies are enacted under the terms of their previous arbitration case.

1. Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one month for persistent edit warring, violating his 1RR parole, and wikistalking of Huaiwei's edits.
2. Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
3. Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
4. Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one week for edit warring.
5. Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning. Thatcher131 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Good User in Order to Get an Account.

What do you all think about blocking 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) with account creation enabled in order for him to get an account on Misplaced Pages? This is in order for people to nominate him for administrator. Thanks. Real96 06:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, hell no? It's his choice if he doesn't want to register; why should we enforce registration upon him? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wtf? Of course not. If he wants to register, he will. If he doesn't, he won't. It's entirely up to him. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your points. Real96 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. A better idea would be to nominate him for adminship—the first anon admin.  :-) With a year and a half on that IP and nearly 18,000 edits, he might make it even without an account. —Doug Bell  06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is technically impossible to promote an IP. Dragons flight 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well dammit, that's what developers are for, sofixit! —Doug Bell  07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A user wishes to make good edits without logging in? Sounds like their choice, and not a problem. Leave the user be. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Also, your use of {{IPvandal}} isn't too smart. – Chacor 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, blocking is supposed to be preventative. What would blocking him/her prevent? There are several prolific IP accounts; leave them alone. If they wanted to create accounts, they could very easily do so; forcing someone to do something on a volunteer project is never a good idea, no matter how lofty the goal. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let him/her continue editing as an IP, and if he wants to be an admin as well, let him/her create an account as well. A few crossposts to confirm that the IP and the account are the same, and (if everything goes well) we could have the first admin with less than a few hundred edits on that account in a very long time. But definitely leave the IP continuing as it is. Fram 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What adminship is not (an essay) makes it clear that adminship is optional. There's nothing wrong with letting an anon know that you would nominate them to become an admin if they got an account, but the anon should be able to make up their own mind about whether to get an account and whether they want to run for adminship. Sysopping an IP, by the way, would be a bad idea even if it were possible, due to the risk that the IP will become assigned to a different person whilst still sysopped (in 68.39.174.238's case, that seems unlikely, but it's still technically possible). --ais523 09:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(trolling removed)--Boy, that was hard 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No trolling, please. Proto ► 11:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed, totally inappropriate remark. (And note edit summary) Awyong J. M. Salleh 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Sorry about the {{IPvandal}} template. I didn't know another template that I could use to show an IP's contribs. I am so used to the template, because I do RC patrol. Real96 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Gap

I'm sure most people here are aware of the "gap" between admins and non-admins, by which I mean that several people perceive a wide difference between the two groups (regardless of whether such a difference actually exists) and tend to distrust the other group. We appear to be getting another "gap" between clerks and non-clerks. There is some discussion here where someone suggested deprecating the position and was vigorously attacked for his opinion. Now deprecation is probably not such a good idea, but perhaps we can do something to lessen this perceived gap and its resultant distrust and strife? >Radiant< 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot again

We've made Slashdot's front page again. Prepare for vandalism to User:Essjay, User:Essjay/Letter, and User:Essjay/History1. Why does Slashdot know these things before I do? I blame the Cabal. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected all three pages; I'll let Essjay know. Proto ► 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of vandalism that follows Slashdot is pretty minimal these days.Geni 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling, on the other hand, is at new heights (or lows) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The Slashdot trolls are already trickling onto Essjay's talk page. PTO 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note: per "Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight." at the top of User talk:Essjay any trolling should be left on his page unless Essjay says otherwise. (→Netscott) 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, trolling and vandalism aren't necessarily the same thing. Proto ► 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits leading to an abusive message on my talk page

I, together with User:Richhoncho were briefly caught up in a mix up over vandalism which User:Oli120792 had engaged in on Haslington. We were being blamed for unfairly accusing him of vandalism when he had originally committed an act of vandalism, and then immediately reverted it whilst User:Richhoncho was preparing to revert it. Because Oli20792 had two edits of the same article almost immediately after each other, the revert which was clearly intended as a good faith one, had the effect of putting back the vandalism. Oli20792 then reverted back, and this was then reverted in the belief that he had merely put back the vandalism. This went on for a while. Oli20792 was also the editor of dubious edits to other articles around the same time, which I reverted. I erroneously reverted one of the Haslington edits before I realised what was going on, did a final revert to remove all vandalism, alerted Richhoncho as to what was going on, and warned Oli20792 of his behaviour, who had started to accuse me of unfairly treating him, but had not made any comments to Richhoncho. Now, in the same section of my talk page where this was dealt with (sections 19 and 20), an anonymous editor (User:82.109.66.150) has written "You Twat! I assume you are a dick face teacher." Since Oli20792 admitted he was a student, it could be possibly the same person. My question is, how does one deal with a kind of game-playing where vandalism attempts are made, and then almost immediately reverted, which I have seen a much more increased number of recently. And how do people view edits of the kind just added to my talk page. (yeah - ok, some may think it is fair comment, but it really isn't in the spirit of the entire site, is it?)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

School spammers hate me!

I blocked some accounts and IPs using talk pages as chat rooms, then vandalising my userpage after I left warnings on their talk pages. Now they're reverting my warnings and leaving attacks in their places. Do I protect their talkpage or is that bad form? An example is User_talk:170.177.11.93. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't for a single instance of talk page vandalism, but it seems appropriate in instances of repeat problem. -- Infrogmation 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We will not take this injustice

recently my page was vandlized by bad people and then deleted by admins this was not fair and when I tryed to remake the page I was acused of remaking deleted materiial and was temmperally banned. this was not fair Citizensunitedforwiki 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What page? Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have another ID, you have not been blocked from editing at any point. --Spartaz 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article in question was titled Corrupt wiki users. -- zzuuzz 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not, I take it, about the flacks who offer to write puff-piece Wiki-articles for money? -- Ben 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not allowing articles about non-notable Gears of War game clans. For shame. 8P--Isotope23 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the editor who started this thread, who confesses to being a ban-evading sockpuppet. Durova 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects

There is another backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects that I do not have the time to take on. I need to leave soon to go to a school co-op orientation, so I cannot sit around and mark most of these with {{Db-redirnone}} or fix the few fixable redirects. Jesse Viviano 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is there anywhere I can post an {{Adminbacklog}} tag to report this backlog? That page is not editable, and I do not want to clog this noticeboard anymore than necessary. Jesse Viviano 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Until they appear in CAT:SPEEDY they are not a specific administration backlog. There is a page at Misplaced Pages:Special:BrokenRedirects you could put a {{backlog}} tag on, like there is at Misplaced Pages:Special:Lonelypages. -- zzuuzz 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleared anyway. I like clearing out Broken Redirects, as you can whizz through it. Proto ► 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't put a backlog tag there. It is protected, and I am not an administrator. It is an administrative backlog because it requires deletion of redirects. Using {{Db-redirnone}} just transfers the backlog to the speedy deletion backlog one redirect at a time. Jesse Viviano 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The best place to put {{adminbacklog}} in this case is probably Misplaced Pages talk:Special:BrokenRedirects. --ais523 13:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a backlog. Every few days a new report is generated and usually shows around 300-400 broken redirects. Then within a day or two one or more admins notices that and clears it out before the next report is generated. I've rarely seen this get up to 500+ when the previous report wasn't cleared, but it's never more than a week's worth of pages. --CBD 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Need two AFD discussions merged

I started this AFD last night. It covers three "Buffyverse chronology" articles. However, I did not notice a fourth until later, after the previous discussion had been well underway. Merging the discussions was brought up in the AFD on the fourth article, and I really have no problem with this. Could an uninvolved admin close the second AFD and merge the discussions? --Coredesat 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure it's appropriate with the main AfD so far underway and the first person commenting in the canon AfD that he thought the other three article should be kept, but favors deleting the "canon only" one. I would suggest doing a procedural close on the canon AfD and reopening it when the other one finishes, with the hope being that the result will be consistent with the main AfD. It's the nearest thing I can think of in lieu of combining.--Kchase T 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally withdrawn the nomination, but there's a delete argument, so it can't be speedily kept. I'll contact the first commenter. --Coredesat 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD has been closed for now. --Coredesat 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you review block of User:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen?

Could you review block of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen, please? I have been blocked indefinitely without real reason, my talk page has been protected without real reason. From WP:BLOCK: "(Blocks) should not be used as a punitive measure.". Thanks. GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW - check carefully all dates and histories, because Ryulong likes doing some reverts like eg. this one... GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, creating a 2nd account to get around your indefblock doesn't help your case (you can always email the unblock-l list if your talk page is protected). Looking at the # of warnings you've received in a short amount of time doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either, ther is being Bold, but if you are reverted, do not continue to fight over the link, but instead take it to the article's talk page. I'm not an admin, but I think you're looking at an uphill fight here. SirFozzie 01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Read talk page (with very extensive archive). There was no consensus to keep this image in the article, especially inline. Check also history of the article -- this image was constantly removed since the beginning (i.e. since it has appeared in the article). GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway -- one 3RR violation doesn't warrant indefinite block, AFAIK. GenVonKlink Hoffen 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR is taken very seriously: HoffenKlinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Hoff Klinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Gen. VonKlinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I suggest that you pick one account name and stick with it. -- Donald Albury 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used sockpuppets "to avoid 3RR"! Check histories and dates, please. And I will "stick with" one user account with pleasure -- but my first user account on English Misplaced Pages is blocked indefinitely by Ryulong, unjustly IMO. GenVonKlink Hoffen 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked GenKlinker von Hoffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely after he once again removed the image from Pearl necklace (sexuality). I request a re3view of my action. -- Donald Albury 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. I've declined an unblock request. Picaroon 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What really gripes me is that I would like to see that image removed or at least linked rather than in-line. There's been a lot of discussion demonstrating divided opinions on what to do with the image. Klink in his various manifestations is poisoning the well with these deletions. -- Donald Albury 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What really gripes me is that HoffenKlink Gen Von Klinken Hoff hasn't given up already. I've told him why I blocked him, because of the use of "For Bryan Peppers" in two of his removals. And now he just keeps coming back.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's talk page

Essjay could use some help over there, with comments like this, and this. I personally think it was correct to remove them, and that they should not be re-added, but I am asking your opinons. Quite an NPA bonanza over there. Prodego 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they're best removed, but I don't want to touch that cesspit. – Steel 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay is getting the living shit beaten out of him by random new users and anons. Some admin backup would really be nice (i.e. semi-protection). I'm starting to hand out {{npa}} warnings. PTO 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

His talk page specifically says "Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight." —Centrx→talk • 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a big yellow box on the talk page earlier today informing people about that statement, but people are still reverting the troll edits. Oh well. PTO 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately this removal was not reverted AFAIK... Oh well... GenKlinker von Hoffen 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Short of Essjay choosing to protect his talk page, I'd leave it alone and let him sort it out later. For those out of the loop, on February 5, Essjay edited his /me template to add his personal information. Turns out he's not a catholic scholar in his 30's as the userpage claimed before. However, he cites privacy concerns as his reason for masking his real identity and personally I don't care about the whole thing. End result was that yesterday he was slashdotted as though it was breaking news even though it's a month old, and this is where the trolling comes from. Let him handle it as he chooses. Teke 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't lock it down without censoring legit debate can't really do much about the tone untill Essjay commens again. Rock meet hard place.Geni 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND includes attacks as vandalism. Essjay only said not to revert non-vandlism edits, so... :) Prodego 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a thread about these developments. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard#Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion. (→Netscott) 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evading sock block

I just blocked T2BN93 (talk · contribs) indefinitely and a block evading sockpuppet of Perdy80 (talk · contribs). I didn't request a checkuser, but T2BN93 has nearly the same userboxes as Perdy80, the account was conveniently created the same day that Perdy80 was issued a 1 month block, and T2BN93 just blanked Perdy80's userpage.--Isotope23 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion forum leaders needed

I am in the final planning stages for a web-based discussion forum to supplement wikien-l and related mailing lists. The purpose is to provide an independent, carefully hosted venue for discussion about Misplaced Pages that works well for high-traffic threaded discussions. If you wish to be involved as a forum host when the site goes public, please drop a note here or on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there already many fora? Or is this intended to replace some of them? —Quarl 2007-03-02 04:25Z

There aren't, so far as I am aware, any web-based forums organized on a threaded discussion model. At least, there aren't any that are frequented by respected Wikipedians. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wiki talk pages, mailing lists, and IRC channels are enough fora; it's just technical issues that might make wiki or mailing lists less preferable to a webforum. Personally I prefer both mailing lists and wiki to a webforum, for threaded discussion. Perhaps you've already discussed it on some other forum -- that's the problem with having too many fora :-) —Quarl 2007-03-02 07:14Z

Public in-store computers - 192.22.123.0/24

Thread title changed from "Thousands of Possibilities" —Quarl 2007-03-02 07:15Z

Through trying to deal with several bouts of vandalism tonight, I came upon 198.22.123.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP (and the entire /24) is registered to Best Buy and is a public in-store computer. Seeing as no one should really be editing Misplaced Pages at Best Buy, would it be wrong to treat the Best Buy range as open proxies?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing this with Jpgordon, he has suggested that I block the range. Which I have.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find. Teke 06:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we block IPs indefinitely for being public computers? Would that also include schools, libraries, hotel rooms, coffee shops, and computer labs of any other kind? If there is vandalism, the IPs should be blocked for an appropriate length of time, taking into account that the IP is shared. I think a permanent block (unless requested by an authority greater than or equal to the store manager) sets a bad precedent (see m:foundation issues: anyone can edit"). Consider that not everyone has internet access at home, and that many users edit from their place of business, particularly those working in retail. Please consider allowing registered non-vandal users to continue editing. — CharlotteWebb 07:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The computers are essentially open proxies. Unlike libraries, schools, etc., a Best Buy computer is open to anyone who goes into the store, and a post on the IP's talk page stated "THIS IS A PUBLIC COMPUTER AT BEST BUY" until it was removed by a later editor from the same IP. I would mention more about why this was blocked, but I only know what Jpgordon discussed with me (we found this IP through a checkuser of accounts used to harass myself and CSCWEM).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. At least with a schools/public libraries/university public terminals there is some level of access control and responsibility. Thatcher131 12:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right... with a school or library, at least you can contact the netadmin. In this case I imagine the only recourse would be to call up the specific BestBuy store and say "Hi, can you go smack the kid testing out the Compaqs at your kiosk? He's vandalizing Misplaced Pages."--Isotope23 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet it's an employee rather then a random customer...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article probation in 2004 election

Hi, I've been trying (with the uncoordinated help of a few other editors) to clear the backlog of articles to be merged for the last few days. There was a backlog that went back to February 2006, but now I've run into 2004 United States presidential election recounts and legal challenges, Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities, and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. To be honest I'm not sure what to do with them exactly; there is not much discussion of the merge on the talk pages. However there is a ArbCom warning not to make any "disruptive" changes. I assume merging, redirecting, etc. would qualify as dramatic if not disruptive. So, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Thanks, Selket 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider submitting all three articles to Misplaced Pages:Peer review, to get a list of suggestions. The last of the three looks the most like a real article. I wonder if it could become the master article and the others somehow converted into subarticles. Excess detail might be dropped but you'd need a lot of consensus. Consider reading the Arbcom Election case, the 2 AfD debates for the third article and at least skim all the Talk pages. Perhaps you could leave a note for a member of Arbcom. Isn't this a fun assignment? EdJohnston 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace

This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.

Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was worried this was going to be an attempt to get rid of the handy shortcuts (such as WP:ABL to Category:Administrative backlog). But these all seem fine. Proto ► 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though I use of these on a regular basis, these are shortcuts that absolutely should not exist. Raul654 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (And the one I used regularly was one of the first ones I deleted)
    • Why? Kusma (討論) 09:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, what benefit do we gain from making the website harder to navigate? Catchpole 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, thirded. Raul, why should the very handy and intuitive shortcuts such as WP:ABL not exist? Agreed that the ones on Radiant's list are both confusing and counterintuitive (per his comment just below), but the shortcuts are useful and are never going to be confusing to users. Proto ► 10:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • A quick glance over Raul's deletion log seems to indicate he was responding to me, rather than Proto, and hasn't been nuking shortcuts. >Radiant< 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That isn't really the aim here :) Generally XNRs tend to confuse people, and make things appear to be in article space when they aren't articles; on WP:RFD, XNRs are almost always deleted (with, yes, some exceptions for the few that are actually useful). >Radiant< 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Personally, I think RFD is fairly dumb about this. Cross-namespace redirects can make the encyclopedia easier to use. For example, if I type "wikien-l" into the search box I ought to get to Misplaced Pages:Mailing lists. But no, since that would be cross-namespace, it was deleted and subsequently recreated with a link to our article on the concept of mailing lists in general. Of course that's not a very helpful result if you want wikien-l. But not to worry, someone added Misplaced Pages:Mailing lists as a top link on mailing list because having cross namespace links at the top of articles is somehow more acceptable than having the crossnamespace redirect. Sigh. Dragons flight 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Please pay closer attention to the use of the {{selfref}} template in the headnote. Uncle G 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Huh? So what? People interested in learning about Misplaced Pages specific items still shouldn't have to take circuitous routes. Dragons flight 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
                • The template's talk page explains "so what". Please read it. Uncle G 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Quite a few of these seem to be redirects to a category where the redirect is a plausible search term, so changing it to target the main article for the category may be more appropriate than deletion. --tjstrf talk 10:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, {{sofixit}} :) >Radiant< 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • --tjstrf talk 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you! >Radiant< 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's loads that could just be redirected elsewhere - I've just done 15, will do some more over the next 2 weeks. Proto ► 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:193.35.248.11 editing while it should be unable to

I came here from User_talk:193.35.248.11, which carries a notice that no editing activity should come from that IP, and requesting anyone to report edits here. The user has made several edits recently, the latest of which to Public limited company. --Anna512 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The whois data says this belongs to a UK company so I'm removing the {{AOL}} template (which is incidentally at TfD). The IP was never blocked in the first place. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Schoenman article

An anonymous user, IP 63.197.17.233 (talk · contribs), has repeatedly blanked this article and posted a legal threat in which the user claims to be Ralph Schoenman. After looking at Special:Undelete/Ralph_Schoenman I noticed that the article has had a colorful history of claims of copyright violation and libel before being deleted on Feb. 11 by User:Centrx. It was recreated on Feb. 16 by User:Michael Snow. Posting here in case there is any potential WP:BLP problem. ˉˉ╦╩ 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Essjay's access

A straw poll on Essjay's access has been created as an obscure subpage of a newly-created (and low-ish traffic) noticeboard. I'm posting a notice here for more exposure. For the Truth On Misplaced Pages Committee, Cyde Weys 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This won't be a trainwreck, no sir. For the Cabal On Misplaced Pages Committee, Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I put an mfd tag on the straw poll as an inappropriate personal attack page, and not only has the MfD discussion been speedy closed multiple times by an anon who is making threats to me, the tag was removed by User:FCYTravis without so much as an edit summary to that effect, after he had made threats to me. Corvus cornix 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And now FCYTravis is trying to speedy close the discussion on the grounds "I am an admin" and what I say goes." Isn't that what caused the wheel war over the Daniel Brandt article? Corvus cornix 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to have these things weekly now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And now User:Mackensen has speedy closed the discussion yet again. What is wrong with letting discussions run their course? Corvus cornix 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And you see nothing wrong with submitting a 78kb discussion for deletion. Don't even play that game. Mackensen (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Corvus cornix, what is wrong with letting discussions run their course? --Cyde Weys 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also closed the deletion discussion. An MfD at this stage is inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Closure was again reverted. This is getting silly. Trebor 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stopped trying to keep the mfd discussion open, since I'm being ganged up on by admins. Have we learned nothing from the Daniel Brandt debacle of last week? Apparently admins are "above the rules". Who will be the first to block me to shut me up since I seem to be one of the few voices who are coming to Essjay's defense in this gang bang. Corvus cornix 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling for a block. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. Just what I expected. Corvus cornix 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The motto of the Brandt debacle was to allow discussion to run its course. Stifling discussion doesn't allow editors to share their views, and leads to confusion and bad feelings. So I'd suggest making your objections on the discussion page, rather than hoping for it to be deleted. Trebor 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These pages allow the community to do a catharsis: give out their opinions, release tensions and accept the matter. We have had similar ones when Carnildo was promoted, when Raul promoted Ryulong with little less than 70% support, when the Fair use policy was tightened, etc, etc, etc. Leaving these discussions open allow wounds to close faster. -- ReyBrujo 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the time Ed Poor deleted VfD. :) I still think Ed got off light on that one. A Train 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and FCYTravis's edits at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay make it clear what his position is in regards to Essjay, and he should not be closing things in which he has a vested interest. Corvus cornix 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests

CAT:PER has managed to creep up to 24 entries (excessively high for an immediate-request category), and has been backlogged for quite a while. --ais523 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards