Misplaced Pages

The comments may have been blunt but they certainly weren't uncivil. Now put your Spiderman pyjamas away. Nick 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we still increase the distance between his ears and shoulders? :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find this totally amazing that an admin is let off for being uncivil particularly when he has a history of it. Even worse still, he was involved in a whole whole debate here regarding a very minor breach of WP:CIV where one admin clearly chose to overreact and despite clear community consensus against his actions (ignoring pile-on votes), refused not walk back his decision, and clearly does not wish to respond to any comments or have anyone see or hear further discussion on this matter diff. Jeffery O. Gustafson should know full well the policies and as such his actions should not go unpunished by the community, particularly since he is an admin and should be held to an even higher standard than the regular tireless contributors. This is a further demonstration in the disparate application of WP policies against certain groups of users, and quite frankly does nothing other than to weaken WP policy in these matters. I have removed the resolved tag from this AN/I report and I am asking for immediate review of this decision particularly in light of these additional facts, and a subsequent enforcable undertaking or punishment be issued to Jeffery O. Gustafson. Cheers, Thewinchester 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The demands in here for the above user to apologise to Jeffery for one single comment now ring rather hollow in my estimation given the above proceedings. I am concerned about the clear lack of balance which seems to have emerged, as was pointed out at the time by User:DanielT5, but emphasised beyond doubt in this case. Orderinchaos 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jeffery is now removing Talk page edits which dare to point to where one can find the BJAODN content. Corvus cornix 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH IT! HE COULD JOIN THE HEADLESS HUNT FOR ME INSTEAD. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn... WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Nick. We must lynch him. It is the only way the community will be satisfied. -Pilotguy hold short 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cmapm on Estonian SSR

Cmapm has repeatedly reverted Estonian SSR into a former, less detailed and less sourced version, making on its talk page unsubstantiated claims of WP:NPOV violation and copyright violation, but finally admitting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the longer version. Specifically, he appears to dislike its detailed description of damages caused by Soviet occupation of Estonia.

Considering that having Yet Another Edit War over this obvious partial blanking issue is certainly not the preferrable move, what should be done? Digwuren 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. You know what to do when you have a content dispute. --Ghirla 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping!? This persons actions are seriously disrupting! It would be a content dispute if the person engaging in these actions had some content. He has not. He is just deleting stuff he does not like.--Alexia Death 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be reasonable concerns that you and Digwuren are the same person. Why do you always second each other, in a matter of several minutes? --Ghirla 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the checkuser discussion to the end, you would see there's nothing reasonable about such a "concern". Digwuren 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we watch same articles of course! And I personally watch every known opponents talk page. As to us being the same person, read it. It says NO CONNECTION, when a person with networking knowhow looked on data. --Alexia Death 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no connection isn't at all what it said... it was more like "indeterminate"...--Isotope23 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote David Gerard: "Just looking at this. I can't nail a link with any of the first three and anyone else based on CheckUser.". Does not seem indeterminate to me.--Alexia Death 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object dragging that case, in witch all sockpuppeting accusations were proven false in the end into this debate as a weapon making me defend myself all over again. I do not see an honest reason for doing so...--Alexia Death 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone need to pop over there and protect the wrong version?--Isotope23 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like protection is warranted, even to just give both sides a chance to talk it out. -M 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page shows that Ive asked this person to present his sources and info. To that he said that he basically answered that the wasn't going to...--Alexia Death 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe protection is desirable, although we have a separate noticeboard for such requests. --Ghirla 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me on my talk page. BTW, you've forgotten to give a link to our discussion in Talk:Estonian SSR, from which origins of the "incident" can easily be traced out, showing who was first to remove disliked references and "thoroughly rewrite" the article, giving overwhelming preference to Estonian source over other ones. And I agree with an experienced user whom I respect very much, Ghirlandajo, that you are believed to have chosen a wrong way for content dispute resolution. Cmapm 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue here. I see very little commitment to discussing and resolving the issue on the talk pages. Therefore I do not think the normal dispute resolution mechanisms will work in this case. The way I see it, the only way this dispute can end, is that one, or both of the editors involved in the dispute, is permanently banned from editing Misplaced Pages.

One of the editors here is clearly a single-purpose account, with an agenda. His contributions to Misplaced Pages thus far seem to be limited to WP:TE and WP:DE. I suggest that administrators closely follow the editors involved in this dispute, if for nothing else, to gather evidence for the upcoming WP:ArbCom.

As for the article. It has been neglected for a long time. I welcome the expansion, and I believe the article should be allowed to grow. As for possible POV, I believe it can be sorted out at a later date, once this round of expansion ends. -- Petri Krohn 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gotta love how Petri helps to encourage discussion, no more comments needed.--Staberinde 06:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May the record also indicate that Petri Krohn attempted to get rid of this link. As above, any comment I might add would be rather unnecessary. Digwuren 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not come here to point the finger at anyone or name either party as responsible for the incident. (Let the records speak for themselves.) With your last edit, you have hovewer managed to maneuver yourself right under the ☞ tip of this finger of blame. -- Petri Krohn 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To Petri Krohn: Your attacks are becoming very tiresome. What happened to assume good faith? If theres an ArbCom coming I welcome it, if it means that after that these personal attacks and insults stop.--Alexia Death 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As of June 2, the page is under protection. This would appear to resolve the issue for now, but it is not a stable solution. Digwuren 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat on article Mudaliar and Talk:Mudaliar

The following user IDs are making statements of extreme vulgarity. They maybe sockpuppets of the same user User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat. They are involved in highly uncivilized language and deleting the RFC I posted in the talk page. Please take appropriate action against these logins.

Please restore my RFC request on the talk page.

Sriramwins 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence Baccarat (talk · contribs) is a troll, but I blocked the other 2 accounts.--Isotope23 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. I haven't taken a close look at the situation but it is definitely at risk for the arrival of sockpuppets of User:Mudaliar and User:Venki123, both blocked per the ArbCom case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. Somebody take a look and see if we'll need some ArbCom enforcement/checkuser. The Behnam 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Night Gyr

Please see this diff. Admin Night Gyr has announced that s/he will be providing the press with material that was deleted as a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was misinterpreted. 'her' refers to the subject of the article, not the author. This was in line with what happened in the Sean Hornbeck case and was endorsed by several other editors and administrators, including Newyorkbrad: "I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case." (quote from newyorkbrad) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I read the comment the way Night Gyr clarified above. A query, is it a BLP violation to send a copy of the article to the subject of the article? Clarification as to the community's opinion on that might assist in resolving this before it hits crisis mode. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I read it the other way, but either way, I don't know. Surely the subject has certain rights? Moreschi 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr has been desysopped. Corvus cornix 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

- I asked the stewards about this, and Guillom did an emergency desysopping while the arbcom decides this. He says: " DavidGerard_, just tell them this was an emergency procedure, because the arbcom wasn't reachable ; now they have to take care of that and if the emergency was not justified, then a bureaucrat will sysop him without delay" - David Gerard 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)

Ok this is ridiculous. I am not planning to and I never intended to say that I would release content to the press. I'm simply using the reporter as a contact to see if he can put me in touch with the article's subject, since he wrote the front page article about it. This is a practice that I have done before with wide endorsement. See the remarks in the Sean Hornbeck case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone read your grammar wrong. Moreschi 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was quite clear to me and, presumably, a bunch of other folks who didn't de-sysop him , so 'everyone' is a bit of an overstatement.  :) Don't panic, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is an arbcom case open and if so where? If not, who's bringing it? This all seems to have happened rather hastily... -- ChrisO 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The numerous "her"s are certainly not a smoking gun, and given that Night Gyr has now clarified the matter, I hope a bureaucrat will resysop him promptly. CMummert · talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, I believe you may owe Night Gyr a bit of an apology. Considering the seriousness of the accusation, a critical read of the text is warranted, and it's quite clear that he was speaking of sending a copy not to the press, but to the subject of the article. A rap of the knuckles on other folks involved might be appropriate too, c'mon guys. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I may well owe Night Gyr one. I'm still running around trying to find a current arbitrator online - David Gerard 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider leaving a note on an ArbCom member's talk page and not taking action until then? It's awful when people aren't on IRC, I guess. A block would normally work a bit better than a demotion, unless the person then unblocked himself, and then you might have cause. Sheesh. How many "instant super fast" actions do we ever really need? Geogre 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The writer was the subject of the first clause, so it's entirely natural to assume that it's the subject of the second clause. Hence the confusion. Moreschi 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and I was pretty sure the writer was a dude, so her was unambiguous to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Not to me, I'm afraid :) Moreschi 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that his name is "Eli", I feel that his "dudeness" was a reasonable assumption, although I suppose it could be short for "Elizabeth"? JavaTenor 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to tell Night Gyr that his/her suggestion was inappropriate. I did think, though, that it needed wider circulation, which was why I brought it here. I apologize to Night Gyr if he/she did not intend what a read of the comments would have led a reasonable person to assume that he/she meant. but I still think that this should have been addressed here. And *I* wasn't the person who did the desysopping, I don't have that ability. Corvus cornix 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to be fair, my wording could have been clearer before I went back and edited it. My attempt to contact her was sparked directly by this comment on my talk page. I just figured I'd send her the text directly instead of such a biased opinion on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's okay to send deleted content to other people, as long as we don't send it to the press? Sorry this won't wash. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the Sean Hornbeck precedent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, to be clear, he was talking about sending the text of the article to the person the article was about. Does your objection stand? If so, this may be a grey area of BLP that should be hashed out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this Sean Hornbeck precedent, and I'm not amused by the suggestion that our deleted material can be leaked. It cannot. Has Night Gyr has sent deleted material to the subjects of articles in the past? Is that why he claims a "precedent", because he got away with it? --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the statement quoted from Newyorkbrad at the beginning of this section? or the Sean Hornbeck DRV? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just to be clear : Night Gyr's statement was ambiguous enough to require an emergency procedure (that was asked by people from your wiki). I knew there was a possibility of misspelling, but there was also a possibility of disclosure. I desysopped him to let the time for the ArbCom to look into this case or for him to explain himself. If he was really about to disclose deleted bio content, risks were high and action was necessary. If it was only a misunderstanding, losing his admin tools during a few hours was no big deal, and any bureaucrat would give him his tools back without any problem. Cheers, guillom 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem ambiguous to me, he specified the person he was sending it to by name. Poor, hasty judgment from folks on this wiki may have contributed to the confusion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not originally, I edited it after I got a message on my talk page about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the original diff actually is clear-cut (the wrong way) if you don't know about the gender of the writer. Moreschi 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

or that I was writing it in response to FCYTravis's request to email the subject of the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the ambiguity: . The steward action seems wise given the implications. If Night Gyr just expressed himself poorly he can of course be resysopped but guillom seems to have acted correctly. WjBscribe 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur; the desysopping was entirely appropriate as a preventative measure. The log notes it was an "emergency" desysopping. There was a serious concern that a sysop might be intending to release BLP deleted material. I suggest we drop criticism of the desysopping and focus on the issue at hand. KillerChihuahua 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am baffled as to why we would consider that it's OK to say that a bunch of guys who type with one hand drooled over this girl even if she did "approve" it in some way. And anyway, OTRS is the channel for that kind of thing. Tis was an incredibly bad idea, whatever the motivation. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the concern was that she wouldn't want it on the internet... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well either way, do we send the article to this lady? Is that, as it were, the proper course of action? Seems to me we might want to sort that out. Moreschi 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? No we do not. And we do not contact her at all unless and until she contacts us. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

tell that to FCYTravis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that FCYTravis was employing a rhetorical device to get you to come to your senses, not actually advocating that you actually contact the victim here. But I suspect that if you are ethical in the way most of us are, thinking about what you would say to the victim would indeed have brought you to your senses. I hope so anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Would you mind having a brief biography of you listing your records and explaining what happened in wikipedia?" or "What do you think of this article text that we're thinking about using?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and by the way, we can't promise it will stay as that version, and anyone can come along and change it at anytime" --pgk 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this situation including the fact that comments I made earlier in the week in another DRV are being referred to. What happened in that case was that I deleted two articles that referred to abductions of and sexual assaults upon two minors, out of respect for the privacy interests of the minors and their families. In one of these cases the deletion has raised relatively few eyebrows, but in the other (Shawn Hornbeck) it has been pointed out that the Hornbeck family has affirmatively sought publicity as advocates for missing children and established a website and a charitable foundation for this purpose, which led some of the commenters on the DRV to question whether my concerns were misplaced in this particular case. The DRV is still ongoing and I would welcome additional comments there (see, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby).

During the course of that DRV, Night Gyr indicated that if a major ethical question about our article on Shawn Hornbeck was whether the Hornbeck family would consider that it invaded their privacy rights, a reasonable step would be to contact the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation for their input. This could obviously not be the course pursued in every BLP-related deletion but under these circumstances it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. In any event, Night Gyr's statement that he had done this and my comment that I endorsed this step in this particular instance was not commented on, adversely or otherwise, by any of the dozen or more other editors, including relatively senior admins, who have participated since that time in the DRV.

Frankly, the factors present in the Shawn Hornbeck case are not equally applicable to the present situation. Extrapolating from that situation to this one was unwarranted and I would not have and certainly do not endorsed Night Gyr's proposed initiative in the case of Alison Stokke, in part because there is no evidence that this subject or her family have affirmatively sought any form of publicity and in part because the policy arguments for retaining her article are much less strong. As a general matter, we all know that we must be careful about reinstating or deleting any deleted material, even though in this case it is apparently that little harm would actually have been caused by relevation of the material (although more harm might have been caused by unsolicited contact by a perceived Misplaced Pages representative in general, no matter what the person had to say, given the history of the past couple of weeks). In the limited cases where outreach to an article subject is warranted, this should be undertaken only by an approved OTRS volunteer and after appropriate senior-level consultation.

The fact is, however, that if Night Gyr had actually undeleted and restored the entire Allison Stokke article, this action would have been criticized and he would probably have been added as a party to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff or a similar arbitration case, but I doubt there would have been an emergency desysopping. If reinstating the article for the entire world to read would not have warranted emergency desysopping, then it is difficult to see that suggesting an intent to disclose the content to a single individual should do so, particular where the content, although highly troublesome under BLP, does not pose an imminent danger and consists of material that was on the front page of the Washington Post last week.

I would suggest that Night Gyr's sysop bit be restored on condition that he clearly and definitively drop any plans to disclose any deleted material to anyone or to contact the subject of any article or any member of the press. Further measures, if any, can then be considered by ArbCom if anyone desires to bring a case. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense. You argue that Night Gyr shouldn't have been desysopped even if he'd threatened to leak to the press (which I disagree with) but then impose conditions before his sysop bit is restored. Surely if you think he did nothing that warranted losing them, he should just get the tools back... WjBscribe 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of my post is not to finally evaluate the merits of this matter; that's ArbCom's or the community's job. I think that Night Gyr used very poor judgment in this instance. However, my purpose here was to suggest an interim solution that everyone could hopefully live with. Obviously if Night Gyr states that he will not do any of the actions that he was desysopped for fear he would do, and assuming that no one disbelieves him, my hope is that the circumstances that led to an emergency desysopping would be alleviated. (It is ironic that Night Gyr is on the other side from me in pretty much every one of these BLP debates, yet I find myself here to an extent defending him. That seems to happen to me a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that a few of them should be deleted/redirected/stubbed, just want to see a little more civility and respect (for process too) around here. Anyway, I thought was pretty unambigious that I wasn't going to do what I got desyssopped for seeming like I was going to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would note in passing that there is a huge difference between contacting the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - a charitable body - and attempting to contact an individual who has been the subject of some pretty unsavoury attention on the Internet. I would hope that this would not actually need pointing out, but apparently it does. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In neither case I did I contact the subject directly, just someone who could place me in contact with them to ask if they would forward a message or place the subject back in contact with me at their discretion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Guy is obviously right and I believe I said this above (using more words). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I tried contact the news outlet that interviewed her. Obviously she's talked to someone about her fame, and I'm not trying to stalk her down at home. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, if you're suggesting that Night Gyr undertake, as all administrators have, not to disclose the contents of deleted pages, then resysopping may be merited provided he agrees to it. As suggested any decision on desysopping could be taken on due consideration by the arbitration committee, in the light of this and other problematic incidents involving that admin. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's left me a note to say I may have misstated things here. Just going by my reading of the signpost article, so don't take my word on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a problem here. NightGyr's choice of words gave the impression that he might do something undesirable, but probably not so undesirable as to warrant emergency desysopping. He has no intention to do so. The probably-unnecessary emergency desysopping should be reversed forthwith, and Ma'at shall look indly upon the world. The Land 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious over-reaction. Night Gyr should be re-sysopped at once. This is the first I've heard about any undertaking to not disclose the content of deleted pages. Things get undeleted all the time. In this case, the blp problem seems to have been the existence of the page, not its content. Tom Harrison 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, it was absolutely an overreaction. Almost Bostonian in scope. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirded; I'd even go for Chicken Little in nature. Ninety-nine percent of people willing to release confidential information to the press would either (a) not say that in public or (b) make a copy of said confidential information before saying that in public. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. I've seen a number of admins in the past state that they would provide the content of deleted pages upon request. If there has been a recent uproar, and people keep mentioning some ongoing arbcom case, it might be worth noting that not all admins spend their days following the latest development in wikipolitics, and may have no idea about the latest panic. The sheer length of this discussion is evidence that there was ambiguity. Admins are required to follow policy, not be immune to bouts of stupidity. If people are saying that the idea is stupid, but can't make an uncontroversial argument about why his idea is clearly against policy, there is no cause for an emergency desysopping. The fact that resysopping is taking so long is ridiculous. - BanyanTree 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was an overreaction. We don't leak info that's deleted due to BLP to the press. But given Night Gyr has clarified that this was not his intention, I propose he be resysopped without further condition. WjBscribe 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering to copy controversial deleted content off-site is a poor decision regardless of whether Night Gyr meant to send it to the journalist or to the article subject. Undeletion, in fact, is less of a bad decision, since it can be reversed; copying it outside Misplaced Pages can't be.

I also wonder at Night Gyr's reasoning for wanting to contact the article subject, who's already bothered by all the unwelcome attention, purely to send her the content of a deleted Misplaced Pages article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

that, as linked earlier in the post, is why I sought her opinion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A note, he didn't threaten to leak it to the press, and the corrected confusing wording had been fixed well before the hammer dropped. It's an important distinction, and compromises one of the many missing inanimate carbon rods that are supposed to keep this type of meltdown from happening. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I corraled Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking into the thing right this moment - David Gerard 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting a handle on this, but let's be absolutely clear about something: it would be completely and utterly improper to disclose potentially libelous/slanderous/bad revisions to the media (or anyone, really), and on reading that diff that sounds like what Night Gyr was offering to do. Text can be deleted and undeleted on-wiki, but once emailed it's gone, out of our hands and control. Imagine if we'd caught the Siegenthaler problem in time, but somebody decided to email him the article regardless. This may have been an overreaction but I cannot fault the people responsible. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the article was inaccurate, though. It wasn't libelous like Siegenthaler, the concern was whether the subject would be harmed by existence of an article that didn't violate anything else. So I decided to ask, as I was prompted to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know something? If Night Gyr's reaction had been "Jeez, you're right, that was dumb, wasn't it. Oops", I dont think we'd be having this conversation here. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I went to change and clarify within minutes of the first message on my talk page, but the wheels were already in motion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • like if you check this I actually changed the wording before the ani post was made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • first I hear of it reply on his talk page, not realizing that I was misunderstood, then I fix the wording in the next three minutes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• But your follow up indicates that you have not seen why this was such a dumb idea. Which it was. I mean, I have done some abysmally stupid things and got away wiht them, there but for the grace of God and all, but really - really - the mere idea of takign this to either the press or - infinitely worse - the subject was so wrong that there is no sane response but to slap yourself on the forehead and say "duh!". Guy (Help!)

• no one had ever said anything but positive things to me about talking to the subject... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• JZG, I've asked for clarification on the subject of sending the BLP deleted data to the subject on WT:BLP, your insight would be appreciated. I'm not sure it's as obviously abysmally dumb as you've asserted, it seems like an area of BLP that has yet to be defined. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me why people are referring to this as an "overreeaction", when, in the best possible reading of events, an en: administrator intended to use their ability to read deleted content to track down the subject of unwanted internet attention in order to email them an article about their personal life and the harassing incident. Should I take the "chicken little" comments above to mean that en: administrators think that this is responsible use of adminship privileges? I'd much rather have one less en: admin than a news story about how Misplaced Pages's deleted content was emailed to the latest internet meme victim by one of Misplaced Pages's "trusted users". If we are going to say that this is okay, further thoughts here. Jkelly 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, you are misreading it. All I did was click this link on this article and type in a message asking if he'd let her know that there was a discussion on whether wikipedia should have an article about her and her opinion was being sought. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This desysopping was way out of line. I've had it with BLP fascism. There is no evidence that the information in the article was not verifiable and well-sourced, and it is absolutely clear that the article was deleted out of process. So much for Misplaced Pages is not censored. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE MORAL JUDGMENTS. WE'RE A GODDAMN ENCYCLOPEDIA, WE REPORT RELIABLE SOURCES, WE DON'T PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM. *** Crotalus *** 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fascism as a type of government involved a merger of the public and private spheres, an assertion of economic autarky, a promotion of mass nationalism, and the rejection of the transcendental and the Enlightenment. What this has to do with BLP I can't fathom. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was of course using the term in the metaphorical sense, to express my level of disgust at this witch hunt. (Oops, there's another metaphor.) *** Crotalus *** 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I know what you meant; I found it to be in appalling taste, and I doubt very much I'm the only one. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Godwin's Law, game over, you lose. Corvus cornix 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't be misusing their tools to undelete articles in the interests of outside bodies. Articles should be deleted and undeleted in the interests of Misplaced Pages only. Exceptions are where someone has written an umambiguously harmless thing that was deleted because it wasn't policy-compliant and he doesn't have a copy; then okay, maybe e-mail it to him. But if in even the slightest doubt, or if there's any controversy, then definitely not. SlimVirgin

In this case, it was supposed to be in the interest of wikipedia to settle once and for all whether the outside party would object, given that many arguments were based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You were going to send it to a newspaper! We have a communications committee to decide that kind of thing. SlimVirgin 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

...No I wasn't. I've clarified this many times. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view admins contacting article subjects independently is a bad idea. If article subjects come here and involve themselves that is all well and good, and we can then communicate with them, but approaching private citizens who have not involved themselves is intrusive. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno but if I were a reptilegentleman from the press I think my first reaction to this would be a folow up article on how wikipedia has decided to start asking subjects of articles what they think about them. Que 5,00 word op ed on whats wrong with wikipedia. For this reason, if no other, I do think that this wasn't the brightest idea we have had for a while. The last think we need is more wikidrama - especially with all the BLP stuff going on right now. Spartaz 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a press handler, I shudder at the thought. But I don't think PR hypotheticals should be a consideration here - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping

I think the more important point about this discussion is not the rights and wrongs of NightGyr's intentions, but the emergency desysopping. As I understand it there are three levels of speed to an involuntarily desysopping

• The normal speed: Arbcom opens case, makes judgement, steward desysops
• The emergency speed: Arbcom hastily corresponds on irc/email and authorises desysopping pending review
• The 'imminent threat to the project' speed - someone convinces the first available steward that there is a really really good reason to desysop someone.

I am unclear whether anyone from ArbCom at all was involved in the decision to desysop NightGyr, so whether it's in the second or third category. In either case I do not see anything in his comments requiring desysopping right this instant. I think the speed of the desysopping, and the lack of clarity about procedure, is what makes this incident particularly concerning. The Land 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't see anything requiring an immediate de-sysopping doesn't exclude the fact that others did. Read the comments above. The specter of an administrator emailing content not meant for publication to third parties clearly bothers a lot of people, and it sounded as though he was about to act. A series of misunderstandings perhaps, but at the end of the day he gets his bit back and no harm done. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see why Corvus got very worried when seeing the comments. I don't see why it requires the same level of action as if NightGyr's account had been compromised by Willy on Wheels. Particularly as NightGyr was promptly explaining his actions. We should not be spooked by a 'specter'. The Land 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Were the account compromised he would have been blocked indefinitely, which did not occur. Further, your comment fails to account for the fact that what he actually proposed, per his own clarification, was also quite inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. If admins act inappropriately then you talk to them, raise the matter here or with Arbcom. You don't immediately get someone to desysop them. The Land 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If I'd been able to find an arbitrator it would have been second; as it was I thought doing something quickly was in order, so I went to the stewards and went "WHAT ON EARTH". I'm not an arbitrator, but I'm an ex-arbitrator and a noisy bugger and so forth. So the steward who acted said "emergency desysop, resysop quickly if the arbs say so" and I immediately continued in search for them. The AC is discussing this actively and Fred has spoken on Night Gyr's talk page - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Were he about to act, he would've already had the deleted article on his hard drive anyway, and desysopping would've made no difference. As it stands, however, it appears his intentions were good even if possibly misguided. This makes no sense. I'm as much in favor of BLP as anyone, but it's being seriously overreached recently. It's a good policy, but WP:ENC is worth remembering too. There will come times when it's encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to a good person, and while I don't think this particular case is one of them (15 minutes of fame stories belong on Wikinews), we need to be prepared for that case when it does happen, and not shy away from it. Seraphimblade 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has NightGyr been resysopped yet, now that it's been clarified, or is arbcom still reviewing? Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no buttons. I answered Fred Bauder a while ago back on his talk page, not sure what's left to say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... why do people call them buttons??? Maybe I'm using the bootleg version of Misplaced Pages, but they look like tabs to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can access deleted pages for administrative/janitorial purposes. Nothing else. Transcribing and sending deleted pages is not what that access was meant for and it's an abuse of position. If an article was deleted, it should remain hidden. (Remember copyvios? wikipedia keeps them and is on the safe side since it isn't disclosing them to public, admins are expected not to make public deleted stuff) -- drini 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of admins openly advertise "I will hand you a copy of the contents of a deleted article" for review purposes or to see if a salvagable new version could be done using some of the old content. Presumably admins are expected to not abuse BLP deletions in that manner, and can't overcome oversight in that manner, but I think you're overstating the expected secrecy level for deleted pages... Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole thing was rather abusive -- the "emergency" demotion -- and shows some serious flaws in the way things are going around here. Did anyone decide to talk to the supposed dangerman? Seeing how easily this was cleared up here, why was it not cleared up first? Did anyone consider a block? If the admin were set on causing massive legal damage, then he would unblock himself, and then there might be grounds for a demotion. Finally, what makes anyone think that they were catching a rogue admin bent on world domination? If one of us really were about to go bonkers and betray the Foundation, then that one would simply do it, and not suggest that he was thinking about doing it.

This business is horrendous. How was it even possible? How was such a quick, unreasoned demotion possible? The demented decision making at the speed of light suggests that reasoning and acting were being done by some medium other than Misplaced Pages.

I am not blaming anyone for wanting to stop a BLP violation. I am not blaming anyone for misreading the post. I am not blaming anyone for thinking that we had a fire that needed stamping out. On the other hand a demotion and without so much as a "did you mean it?" And this happens in how much time? Bad, bad, bad. Geogre 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not over-react to the over-reaction. Not everything is evidence of IRC conspiracy. David Gerard made a judgment call. There was some miscommunication, and the situation finally turned out to be less urgent than feared. It sounds like Night Gyr will be re-sysopped shortly with no prejudice. There is little damage to him or the project in his not having buttons/tabs for a few hours. If we want to discuss the procedure for emergency de-sysopping, it might be better to do that tomorrow and elsewhere. Tom Harrison 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's no different in character to a block. It's done to prevent a perceived problem. And then we can talk about it (as we are). No big deal, although I'm glad it's not me. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration to user sandbox space?

So as a point of clarification, does this mean that restoring deleted articles to user sandbox space is also inappropriate? I have seen admins that accomodate this quite often. It now appears that this is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on why it was deleted. It has never been acceptable to give away material that was deleted because of potential libel issues, or other BLP concerns. Admins need to use good judgement and the consequence of bad judgement is desysopping. In this particular case the deleted content does not appear particularly sensitive, but getting into an argument at DRV and saying, "I'm going to send the deleted article to the Washington Post" (which is what he seemed to be saying) is bound to trigger a red alert, at least until the situation can be clarified. Thatcher131 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

So I've read through all of this, and maybe I missed it, but if an admin says their going to do something that is not a good idea, isn't the best response to assume good faith and assume that the admin is operating with the best of intentions? Would it be difficult to leave the admin a message on their talk page or e-mail them saying "I don't think this is a good idea, here's why..." or "Did you know that this is against XXX policy?..." If that had happened in this case, the matter might have resolved itself very quickly with a reply that de-obfuscated the pronouns. If we can't assume the good faith of our fellow admins, Misplaced Pages will become a very unpleasant place to hang out! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the admin in question has already shown a tendency to disregard gently worded suggestions not to do things, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content is rarely secret content

Just because something got deleted doesn't mean it's necessarily secret. In this case the Misplaced Pages article contained nothing not already very widely published both in online and offline sources. Anyone can cobble together an article like that in five minutes. There wouldn't have been any "leak". Haukur 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an easy and obvious act to copy a page, along with its history and the associated discussion to one's own hard drive when it looks like an interesting or useful article might be deleted. Not rocket science, does not require any admin powers. Beside any Google cache or Answers,com mirror, anyone could in fact copy any articles up for deletion to an alternate site they created for the purpose, "Deletopedia" or some such, under the GFDL license and keep it there forever, if they had the bandwidth and server space. This action made way too much of "special admin powers" and was closing the barn door after the horse departed. Edison 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More like burning down the barn with the horses still inside. (if we're gonna go wrong with our metaphors let's go really wrong)Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the exact text in question was still publicly available on the Internet when Night Gyr was ostensibly "emergency" desysopped so he couldn't get his hands on it. It still is publicly available on the Internet. If Night Gyr had really set his mind on sending the text to person A or B the desysopping wouldn't even have slowed him down. It makes a mockery of the essential process of emergency-desysopping. Haukur 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a status update on the arbcom proceedings or anything? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any? Fred Bauder accepted your explanation and is fine with resysopping you. Morven was fine with it too, he just asked for a confirmation that you wouldn't do "this or similar in future". It's a bit unclear what 'this' means in the context (i.e. where Morven thought you were going to hypothetically send the content of the article, the subject of the confusion) but I'd advice you to just go over to WP:BN say that you've learned whatever lessons there were to be learned and ask for your bit back, citing the arbs' posts. Haukur 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question@User:Stevewk

User:Stevewk seems to want to put in hard spaces into the following article ... could someone look at the situation ...

Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Edward Gibbon

... thanks ... J. D. Redding 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point him in the direction of the manual of style? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SanchiTachi

Recently, SanchiTachi was indefinitely blocked following a discussion on this board, and some related edit warring on a variety of pages. A few days afterwards, another post was made here, detailing "disruptive" edits to a number of the same pages. I noticed, as did several other users, that these edits were similar in nature, and tone, to those made by the blocked user. As a result, I filed a check user case, which was then added to by another vigilant editor. As a result, it has been confirmed that SanchiTachi has been block evading, and using sock-puppets in this content dispute.

However, that's not really my question. So far, none of the IP addresses involved have been banned - but, I can't find a sock-puppet template to put on their userpages that says as much; all of the current ones say "this user has been banned". I'm not sure what to do at this point. --Haemo 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Write, and document, a new one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could try writing a new template - it will be my first shot at it. --Haemo 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't seem to be an easy fix; all of the current sockpuppet templates inherit from one which doesn't really work how you suggest - and it's editprotected. It's not worth the hassle. --Haemo 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is {{IPsock}} helpful? -- Flyguy649_contribs 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi's sock-puppets have been blocked now. --GentlemanGhost 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z for the xth time

As most of you might know User:Gon4z has an incredible history of vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits,… some of the former bans he got can be seen: here, here, here, here and here Now he is back and at it again: misquoting his own sources, putting in POVs and calling me racist... Anyway: I continually keep an eye on his edits to spot his sometimes outrageous edits like: "a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova" is his reason for an increased interest in Islam in Albania today.
Users User:Sthenel, User:Bluewings, User:PANONIAN, User:Denizz and User:Reinoutr had problems with him this week, but nothing on the scale of what User:MrMacMan or I experienced. I kept an eye on his edits and they were all unsourced, POV, disruptive, erroneous and/or plain lies. Some examples from just yesterday:

• He left the changed sentence unfinished and has no sources for his edit.
• The source he gives has no information about the topic he writes about and every other editor disagrees with his edits- but he states that other editors additions are “vadalism”.
• He deleted 10 lines without sources-just stating that the other user’s additions are “vandalism”.
• He changed the number of Albanians killed from 10.000 to “tens of thousands” BUT that was after he inserted the number 10.000, which was after he had deleted the number of civilian deaths and before that the number of dead Albanians in the article was given as 4300.
• He removed a very well sourced data (4 sources!) with some of his unsourced numbers and inserted the following: “The war (in Kosovo) had a big influence in the growth of Islam as the world saw that as a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova where the Serbian Orthodox people tried to expel all Albanians from Kosova, over 550,000 were forced out of Kosova and 20,000 were murdered, also the backing of the KLA by most Muslim countries and the 3,000 Mujahideen’s who volunteered to fight in Kosova helped widen Islam to the Albanian people.” The reason he gives for his edits is “Reverted vandalism”.
• With his edit the the number of Albanians in Turkey suddenly jumped from 50,000 to 5,000,000 people. This time his reason to inflate is a bit more colourful: “This stupid vandalism has to stop, I ahve sourced all of my edits…” but no source is given at all by him.
• Furthermore he has returned to reedit his “Albania is ready for war with Greece or Yugoslavia” stance into the article Military of Albania…

In my opinion Gon4z’s only purpose is to disrupt the hard and good work of Misplaced Pages editors and to push a nationalistic Pro-Albanian stance. I haven’t seen one useful edit by him! I.e. the edits he made in the last days to Greek diaspora, Islam in Serbia, Montenegrins, Greeks, List of countries by the number of billionaires, Muslims by nationality, Religion in Albania and Islam in Austria were all reverted by other editors.

• This morning he continued and made edits to Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish Army doubling the military expenditures and giving as source the official site of the ALBANIAN Military: a site that doesn't even mention Turkey! and in good tradition he has once more reverted every other article saved by other users to his version and calling all other edits "vandalism".
  

Here is a comment he made on April 20th that explains his insistence to insert his "Orthodox people are on a Crusade against Muslims" stance. He is also deleting paragraphs he doesn't like from talk pages! and now a bit more of his insulting stuff , , ,
I collected the worst insults here below:

• "you need to take you head out of your A** and smell the roses things are not what you like them to be just because some of you Albanians in Albania want to be European and become AMERICAS SLAVES AND PUPPETS"
• "POLITICIANS have a hand up their back sides"
• "so be quiet ignorant KID"
• "Your brain is clearly not advanced enough to comprehend the truth that's why you keep repeating you self and DENYING evidence that if served to you on a platter that's a sign of defeat"
• "these things your saying are bullshit propaganda"
• "I can see you an (scuse my language) American ASS licker"
• "But I have no intention in continuing to fight with you because you are pretty Ignorant and a Super nationalist but don't forget not all of our people are like you"
  

I believe this has to stop now- once and for all time! Anything but a indefinite ban is not enough anymore as he has learned nothing and proceeds with the behaviour he already showed in his first edits! noclador 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has vandalized the Serbian Air Force article, posting unsourced information, and reverted all spelling corrections into incorrect english along with reverting sourced information by replacing it with biased and unsourced info. Zastavafan76 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recently given him his final warning, any more and I will deal with it appropriately. Prodego 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Gonz4's inappropriate actions here on Misplaced Pages, he does not source his claims and worse speaks of heavily biased subjects on very sensitive matters which cause offense to others. It is clear that Gonz4 is not mature enough to follow the rules of Misplaced Pages. I leave you to ponder and deal with this matter as best as you see fit I trust your judgment will be more than fair. Regards Bluewings 22:16 1, June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is, to take this matter to WP:ArbCom. Mads Angelbo 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to trouble ArbCom with this. This is a highly disruptive user who's been given the benefit of the doubt numerous times and has exhausted any pretense of good faith or collaborative editing. I think that the next offense (now that User:Prodego has left a warning) should result in a lengthy or potentially indefinite block. I'll keep an eye out. MastCell 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the matter is to far gone. In the case that he/she won't get a permanent ban right away. Then take it to arbcom. Mads Angelbo 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Could an admin take a look at WP:AIV? Corvus cornix 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? —Kurykh 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time that I made my request, there were six names on it. Corvus cornix 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having six names is quite normal. When the list goes over 10, then notification may be necessary. —Kurykh 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so concerned. Are you an admin? if so, why not start doing your job? Corvus cornix 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, this is a volunteer position. Therefore, not our "job". (If it isn't, I really want to know where the crap my paycheck is!) As for backlogs: they do happen. Ideally it would stay lower than this, but six is really not worth worrying too much about. It happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I realise you (Corvus cornix) were genuinely concerned about a developing backlog at AIV. User:Kurykh was trying to be helpful; the sarcasm wasn't necessary. Flyguy649_contribs 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh was not trying to be helpful, he/she was more interested in belittling my concerns. If you don't want to get involved at AIV, don't, but don't put me down when I'm trying to fight vandals and am not getting any help. Corvus cornix 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Flyguy's analysis. There is nothing belittling in Kurykh's comment. Please assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the AGF from the other side? I guess vandal fighting isn't a high priority around here. Corvus cornix 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Corvus cornix, for tossing WP:AGF straight out the window and start accusing me of slacking off on a thankless job. I will remember that. —Kurykh 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And for your information, I don't see the absence of AGF in my initial statement. —Kurykh 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to comment? If you weren't interested, you could have just not said anything, but by making the comments you made, it was clear that you were basically telling me, "go away, you are not important". I don't know what that last sentence means, either, unless it's a threat, but I will remember, too. Corvus cornix 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we please take this somewhere else? This board is not the WP complaints department, and the original issue has now been resolved. Continuing this discussion here is not helpful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I will not stand by such an insult to my intentions. And I never implied that you were not important, and I apologize if you misconstrued it as such. And if you're going to blow this completely out of proportion, then be my guest, but I stand by all my statements that I have made here, minus your interpretation. And if you're going to look at everything as a threat to you, then I have nothing else to say. This will be my last statement regarding this matter. —Kurykh 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, you're completely out of line in your comments here. Please chill out. - Merzbow 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dynaflow babble 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Heimstern had asked that discussion not continue here, I had decided not to post on this subject any further, but since there's a gang up on Corvus cornix going on here, I will say one thing further, then nothing more on this topic: If you don't feel the need to do anything, why comment on it? Corvus cornix 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To inform you there are better things to do with your time than leave a notice here when AIV has 6 names listed? - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a couple of notes on this on Corvus's talk page. Perhaps it can be dropped for now? Flyguy649_contribs 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Well thanks to that sad **** BetaCommand (the username itself just sums it all really), Misplaced Pages has lost yet another editor. His stupid bot is just vandalising my pages. I have explained very clearly that I do not understand this rationale and asked for help, but instead of helping he is just ripping up the pages of simple low resolution Sports logos and then trying to 'boast' how many he has done with his pathetic little bot in its talk page. Try being constructive instead of attention seeking. I used to enjoy my editing but utter losers like this has finished Misplaced Pages for me. Now my sport I was trying to support via this project will suffer.

I have several of my own photos on Misplaced Pages which I will now also remove. I just don't see why I should waste my time and I know of many others who now feel the same. Good luck to all in the future. Hammer1980 09:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you've licensed your own contributions under GFDL so removing them is not necessarily that simple. In an ideal world there would be no need for Betacommand to be doing what is being done, but the sheer volume of this seems to demonstrate how far we are from conforming to foundation policy (i.e. we've been relaxed, ignored one here, ignored one there - end result we now have 1000 upon 1000 of "problems"). When I notice edits of yours like this, I wonder if you read the results of your work - the page is left with just a generic tag which states quite clearly "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." this of course is not met, even you are tagging the image to specify the requirement you are apparently unable/unwilling to meet. --pgk 09:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it before, I dont understand any of it. The bot is just a pointless ego trip. Try making a bot to replace with Sports Logo rationales. They will be more or less similar to each other. Then there are surely less violations than there are with no rationale. BetaCommand is just a stat junkie. Good luck with Misplaced Pages.Hammer1980 10:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no rationales. That's what the bot looks for. Either add them or leave.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't create the rationales, it can't examine the way in which the image is being used and create a suitable rationale. It certainly can't guess the source information or the copyright status of the image. (i.e. what is the real copyright status which forces us into using it unlicensed under the fair use doctrine). I can't understand how you feel that reading policy and not understanding it is a good reason to ignore it, then edit war over the proper tagging of the images. If I know there is a requirement but I don't understand it I either (a) avoid that area or (b) seek help --pgk 10:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can also explain how having read it and "don't understand any of it", you can then conclude that "They will be more or less similar to each other". --pgk 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it, hence the reason I took changed the tag was s to save images until I got some help. I have asked and better asked but all I get is robot type answers and basically get talked down to like a bloody tool. Well I am passed all that now, just do whatever you all see fit. Its this high and mighty attitude, the blatent vandalism of peoples hard work buy a bloody bot run by some plum on an ego trip and the total lack of help that is killing Misplaced Pages (especially here in the UK). I can conclude that they will be more or less the same as sports team logos ARE the same. Not rocket science is it. I have previously looked at other football team logos and everything seems to have the same thing referring to not causing monetary hardship. If that is an acceptable rationale then why not make a template to that effect. Surely slightly wrongly tagged images are better than no tags. Clearly Misplaced Pages is center of some people's universe but it isn't mine. Good Luck to you all. Hammer1980 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, what Hammer1980 is saying has some legitimacy. I frequently add {{frn}} tags to images, however, if there is sufficient information already on the page to put together a rationale, then obviously that's preferable. I've added a fair use rationale template with minimal information to his images, which took me 15 minutes. I would suggest this could probably be automated, even though improving the rationales may have to be done manually. Addhoc 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And the source and copyright information? Many will be similar (or the same), some won't so a bot cannot do that, items with incorrect rationales are worse than no rationale. As to it taking 15 minutes, that's great it also makes you wonder why User:Hammer1980 is making such a big deal of it, threatening to leave etc. Instead spend the 15 minutes and bring us closer to 100% compliance with our policy for fair use images. --pgk 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pgk ... How about you spending 15 minutes helping instead of trolling through an admin page ! Hammer1980 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember not to make personal attacks. its the responsibility of the uploader to make sure their images are compliant. so stop your complaining and make your images compliant with policy. Betacommand 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Beta ? What ? Does the truth hurt ? Why not try taking a leaf out of Addhoc's book. He has started to put the rationales on the items and is actually HELPING. Just do what you have to. You have now put a halt to a sporting section and you obviously get some sort of pleasure out of it. Easier to destroy than create. Each to their own. For the record.... Thank you Addhoc, shame there are not more like you.Hammer1980 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, your sarcasm and personal attacks will not help you in any way. Do you know that there are close to 25000(!) images with missing fair-use rationales? Multiply that by 15 minutes and that would be nearly 250 days of work that Betacommand would have to do. There is no one here who will support you in your case that these images are not violations of policy. What this tagging is doing is alerting each and every user who have uploaded bad images that their images are in violation of policy and that now is the time to do something about it. If nothing is done, then the images will be deleted. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is out of line. BetaCommand is doing a humonguous task that simply NEEDS to be done because we were not careful enough in the past. Unfortunatly we cannot wait for all of this to be corrected by the editors. It simply would not happen. As such, whenever Betacommand tags your image, see if you can correct the rationales, and if not, let them be deleted and upload new images that can have a proper rationale. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. A message left to you about by a bot is in no way belittling you or your contributions to wikipedia. If anything, it is a reflection on us as a community that we had not enforced our image policies in the past. But now things are changing for the good. If you choose to leave wikipedia as a result of this, it would be unfortunate. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This bot is a hellish bureaucracy at work. I've had a few corporate logos tagged. The license says it all "fair use, corporate logo." It's obvious from the "where this is used" link that the logo is decorating a page about the corporation. It's clearly fair use. Asking me to go back to each page and type "Duh, it's the company's logo and it's being used on the company's page" is pedantic. Jehochman 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a complete and total pain in the ass for you to follow our policies here. I've never heard that one for as long as I've been here. -Pilotguy hold short 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was following policy, but thank you for cursing at me in the edit summary. I think you need to have a quick read through WP:CIVIL, speaking of policy. Jehochman 12:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yada yada. Instead of arguing the toss, you could fix the problem: go through your images before the bot does and put the rationales in. Or go back and fix the issue on the ones identified. This reminds me of drivers who bitch about road rule enforcement cameras - they won't stand up and say they want the law changed to allow them to drive in bus lanes, jump red lights or speed, they just want enforcement to be restricted to other people so they can carry on being selfish in peace. Get with the programme! Foundation has reinforced fair use policy, policy is what it is, it has a basis in copyright law and the fundamental ethos of the project - providing a free-content encyclopaedia. Accept it. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An opinion of a concerned editor

I must admit that I am deeply concerned about what's being done here. Obviously the tagging of images is being done by the book and there's no denying that however, it contravenes the following points:

• WP:PANIC - yeah, well, it's a panic alright. A "zOMG they'll take us down!" shouting like if it was really an issue. It's like some new law was instated yesterday and suddenly half of Misplaced Pages became a copyright violation. No, it's simply a new interpretation of it issued by the Foundation is what pushed us in this direction. It's fine, but should be done with consideration, not haste - we don't need "deletion heroes" (and it is my completely personal opinion that Betacommand is creating himself as one) here - we need to expend some effort.
• WP:LAZY - used to be an essay about deletion being a substitute for improvement. That's exactly what's being done here - deletion is easy, improvement is difficult. The sports logos are an example of content we're losing by haste and laziness in this matter. They're obviously irreplaceable by free alternatives - that's all the more reason to actually expend some effort in providing those damn rationales (which ain't that hard - just not enough people to do it). This ties to the situation with {{spoilers}} - I used to go and remove them, but in some cases I have found it better to do some cleanup at the same time. It is trivial to write a bot that will indiscriminately remove all these tags, but it takes some effort to improve things while at it. So, having discovered that such bots are being run, I had to give up (both being merely a slow human and not having enough time to pursue the issue) - as a result, when the storm's over, we'll have a lot of articles which could be improved in the process but haven't. Back to sports logos, when the time of deletions is over, we'll find ourselves impaired by a loss of significant content the images constituted.

As final words, please don't get me wrong and refrain from throwing copyright policies at me - I know many of them all too well and by all means support the removal of excessive non-free content from Misplaced Pages. I am only concerned that the solution being implemented here is a lazy approach at a problem where some effort could lead to a significantly better solution. Миша13 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Us being sued, or not, is irrelevant. For many years it's been a free-for-all. The words "💕" have become a joke. We've slowly turned into FairUsePedia. Half of Misplaced Pages may not be copyright violation, it just defeats the whole purpose of us being a 💕. Moreschi 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But then again, will what's the difference (legal-wise) whether we 1. butcher the images in one month and 2. give it a chance to do a proper cleanup in three? None. And the difference for Misplaced Pages is tremendous. Like it or not, some media are irreplaceable by free content - there's a golden proportion we have to seek between being free and being an encyclopedia. We won't reach that in a rush. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a new thread on this every day? The fact is that we need to follow the law of the land that the servers sit in, Florida. So what Betacommand is doing is absolutely necessary. Do we need to make a template that we subst onto threads on ANI that complain about betacommand enforcing policy? It is getting so common we may just need to write one. 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed my point completely here. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A bot can't do a human's work. Case 1: Non-free image with bogus fair use rationale. Bot's conclusion: has fair use rationale - keep. Case 2: Non-free image with no fair use rationale stated, but the fair use rationale is obvious from the situation. e.g. a corporate logo used for a corporate article. Bot's conclusion: delete.

The bot should flag all these images and make list, preferably sorted by category, and then a human should review every one of them before deletion. Will that be a lot of work? Sure, but we have a lot of volunteers who can get involved. In the process, we can improve a lot of articles and images. Jehochman 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that in place now? The bot isn't deleting the images, rather, just tagging them to be deleted. Metros 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't they then deleted automatically by some other bot, or is a human going through each report to see whether the image should be deleted or not? What would be really helpful is if the creator of this bot followed good programming practices and documented what the bot does and how it functions. That would eliminate a lot of this tiresome discussion. I've look at the bot's user page and top of the talk page, but there is no clear explanation of what exactly the program does. Jehochman 16:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I do follow good programming procedures. Just because I dont publish the code means nothing. Ive see some really dumb people come through both WP:BRFA and WP:BOTREQ that could use my code, the issue is I want to avoid the damage that stupid people can do with the scripts. (I dont make my programs stupid proof) its the essence of WP:BEANS. if you look at the request for bot approvals that I have filed you will see how my bot operates. if you have any further questions/feature request please bring them up on my talkpage. As for deletion there is currently no bot with administrative privileges so they cannot delete images. Betacommand 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, I am sure you are a very good programmer, but could you put a short list of steps on the bot's page that explains what the bot does and explain the surrounding processes, and links to the relevant discussions. We don't need to see the code, just clear documentation. You might also add a note to the bot's warning messages with a link to the documentation. I think you're catching a lot of needless flack because people don't understand what's happening and why. Jehochman 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all being deleted by people (at least in theory). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misza - I do see your point, but OTOH the levels of fair abuse are IMO quite reasonable cause for someone to go "NO! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING? STOP THIS SHIT! REALLY!" There's gotta be a sea change in attitude to just copying stuff onto the encyclopedia under the "I Wanna" clause, and it's hard for me to see this as a bad thing - David Gerard 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Tfoxworth

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds. He would frequently verbally harass or attack me at that time, as he is doing now.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case (an article where he has absolutely no prior involvement). Just before that edit under his username, there was an edit by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him signing the IP address' posts. From the 68.3.32.53 IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna article and talk pages, even creating what is probably an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose first edit was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits (, , , , , , , (this last one days after an editing spree of his)), inserting his specific point of view about certain people (, ) or him running his mouth about me on talk pages (, , ). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. I hope this draws an administrator's attention to the situation so that Mr. Foxworth may be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Charles 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to find somewhere else to post this because it seems to not be getting any attention. Charles 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

School children - vandalising

Earlier this evening I blocked Murlock (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism including moving Indonesian Declaration of Independence to Fake Indonesian Declaration of Independence. He responded to the block with this in short claiming that they are at school and all login at the same time causing vandalism to be attributed to the wrong accounts.

the other accounts

• Haggawaga - Oegawagga (talk · contribs)
• Blowland (talk · contribs)
• Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

Any suggestions on what to do with these editors/accounts. Currently I've blocked them for all for 24 hours Gnangarra 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) has responded here Gnangarra 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable explanation is that the kid is lying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some association - they have edited each other's user pages without any comments or discussions, before or after. See discussion here. Merbabu 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for an indefinite block and a hard IP block of all involved. I've asked User:Ciell who's an admin over at Dutch Misplaced Pages to comment. Kermanshahi is currently indefinitely banned as a sockpuppeteer and a known troublemaker over there. I gave Kermanshahi the benefit of the doubt last time Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, but from the looks of it, he's outstayed his welcome. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is remarkably serendipitous - just yesterday, I made User:Neil/hmm because the above users' activity seemed hinky. They award each other barnstars, voted keep en masse on some very hoaxy articles (anbd I have a strong feeling a bunch of articles on medieval Frisian people are still floating around that are utter hoaxes with no references or references in Frisian). I would imagine we would need to checkuser the above users and also:

• Mrlob (talk · contribs)
• Ezza61 (talk · contribs) (note, I think this one is less likely to be a sock, but he edits the same articles, has the same barnstars, and edits 15 minutes before Murlock most of the time)

There also seems to be a raft of ropey walled garden articles that need going over. Neil (►) 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

School on a saturday? It is established with a dutch checkuser, that there are several accounts working from this (high)schooladress. I would advise you though, to contact User:Oscar, who did a cross-wiki check when I last requested a checkuser on Kermansjahi and his friends and told me he found more interesting stuff. Gebruiker:Blowland (user:Blow?) wasn't found to be a sockpuppet. The dutch policy about checkuser isn't that open as the english one, so I can't tell you what he found out. Ciell 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear this is not a schared school IP these guys are using. I'll doublecheck User:Blowland's contributions but I think it's a pretty obvious sock. Neil (►) 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the three adresses is a school IP. Ciell 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an open proxy? -- ChrisO 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, don't think so. RonaldB would have blocked them by now. I know someone else who edits from that adres, so am pretty sure. I'll alert Oscar, maybe he's up for it tonight. Ciell 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have talked with some Iranian users and they claim that there is absolutely no way Kermansjahi might be a Dutch schoolkid. He shows quite deep knowledge of Iranian history and culture that only Iranian or a professional researcher on Iran could acquire. He might be an immigrant from Iran but he must leave the country as an adult. This seems to contradict the sockpuppeting allegations. On the other hand, he obviously connected with Mrlob and some other members of the gang. I have asked Kermansjahi to explain his version of the events be Email Alex Bakharev 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, even if there isn't a link with Mrlob (which I am convinced there is) is a confirmed sockpupeteer and troublemaker aside from this one incident. Given that, the checkuser seems to confirm things. Neil (►) 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait for his side of the story Alex Bakharev 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil, do you want me (a Dutch admin with Frisian roots living 10 miles from Friesland) to verify the possibly hoaxy articles? If so, can you provide me with a list? Aecis 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken from WP:AIV

Well, I am not sure if this is the right place to post for a troll but here goes. SteakNShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was being disruptive and generally rude at Talk:General_relativity. I posted a message on his talk page User_talk:SteakNShake that asked him to cool his jets and find some sources. He replied and asked me to point out where he was being pejorative. I pointed out those instances, he replied in a fashion that would lead me to believe he is a troll or a crank of some sort. Also User_talk:Ems57fcva contains another instance of his rudeness. Oh and he just started vandalizing again at GR. He just threatened User:DVdm.--Cronholm144 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cronholm144 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN undeleted

The Cunctator just undeleted the BJAODN series. I ask you all DON'T GET INTO A DAMN DELETE/UNDELETE WAR OVER THIS because that would be unutterably WP:LAME. Instead, could the BJAODN advocates please get on with fixing the credit under the GFDL? I thank you - David Gerard 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, did I miss the DRV? 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to degenerate into a wheel war very, very quickly. Sean William @ 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Already has. Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted them again. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just asked him on IRC, he's stopped and is leaving it now - David Gerard 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey just asked for a 24-hour block in contrition for his delete-warring, so I did: "16:57, 2 June 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeffrey O. Gustafson (contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (requested block in contrition for delete-warring) (Unblock)" Um, weird. But he's very sorry - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly never like wheel-warring, even in the mildest cases, I don't believe Jeffrey needs to throw himself on the sword here. I doubt he'll continue in the same manner, and I'd support anyone who removes the block...or would we be wheel-warring? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a compromise could be to allow a (say) 2 week period of grace. A challenge to the advocates to fix the GFDL problems - after that all non-compliant stuff gets nuked. They might want to start with the stuff that is actually funny.--Doc 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YUO ARE TRYING TO DISTORY WIKIPEDIA WITH SENSE! - David Gerard 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed in my review of the lifecycles of innovation that they last about seven years (see the Augmentation Research Center and Xerox PARC) before they degenerate or calcify, so we're right on schedule for Misplaced Pages to become utterly humorless about itself. --The Cunctator 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read all of the archived discussion about BJAODN. Sean William @ 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're two years too late. 2005 was it, when Process became Important - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cunctator, I don't go to a joke book to find useful information on a subject, so why would you go to an encyclopedia to find a collection of jokes? 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN wasn't really that humorous, unfortunately, and because of the GFDL issues, I don't see how we can undelete it. Cunctator, did you read any of the previous discussions before wheel warring? --Cyde Weys 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is really against Misplaced Pages's best interest to restore so many GFDL violations, especially considering it had about 0 encyclopedic value. 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't 'fix' GFDL violations. Once you screw up you are screwed, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Kotepho 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion will make the process we'd put in train at the BJAODN talk page much easier as more people can help us mine out the good ones for proper scrutiny (previously this could only be done by admins). I agree with you that most of them weren't funny, but some were classics and should stay - I'd guess about 1 in 60, you could probably make two pages from the good ones then rule out half on GFDL untraceability. Orderinchaos 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops - they're actually gone again. Oh well, still doable. (For the record I actually agree with the issues on GFDL and BLP, and am glad to see there's now going to be movement on that issue and inclusion standards for BJAODN - I just disagreed with the process by which it came about and lack of discussion beforehand.) Orderinchaos 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I always remember where my favorites are. Keegan 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Anything retained must be (a) correctly referenced or history merged to comply with GFDL and (b) be compliant with WP:BLP; there are numerous examples where childish vandalism of the form "Jimmy Doe is a retard" has been added to BJAODN. Anything that references the name of a living individual should be approached with extreme caution. In addition, since there is no bar to inclusion, there should be no bar to exclusion. If any editor on good standing thinks the thing is not even slightly funny, violates WP:BEANS, glorifies childish vandalism or whatever, then they should be allowed to remove it without an edit war. The main problems with BJAODN historically are the inclusion of utterly unfunny trivial vandalism; GFDL violation; and most importantly the preservation of attacks and other defamatory content. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that editors who want to have articles in BJAODN stop griping and wheel warring, and show instead, after three years' notice of the copyright violations here and many "I'll work on this." offers on this noticeboard dating from three months ago that have not been followed up with any action, that they are actually willing to back their talk up with effort to actually fix the problem. There's a to-do table at Misplaced Pages talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#List of deleted articles to be undeleted and renamed to sub-pages, if they satisfy several checks. I've started you off. Work on it. Uncle G 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicous editing behaviour?

I noticed a a user I disagree with in an article has an incredible number of daily edits on countless other articles. Many edits are only 1 minute apart (in some cases the same time) even though they are on completely different articles. Is that fairly typical behaviour by a heavy Misplaced Pages user or am I dealing with multiple people sharing the same account? Sorry if this is not the right place to put this question. Just let me know where to if I need to move it. If it wrong to even ask the question, then I apologize in advance. Thanks!
Typical daily edits, in this case for May 30th:

Page 1
Page 2
Notice these two edits, on completely different articles but at the same time? How is that possible?
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Embudo Pass (→Battle) (top)
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Walter Synnot
Page 3
In short, 172 edits in one day... LordPathogen 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything suspicious here. 172 edits is nothing for lots of contributors here. Nick 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non admin comment I think this user is just enthusiastic which is good, if a user is just making minor edits then you can easily get two within the space of a minute, the first edit might have been made (unintentionally) just after a minute had passed on the clock so then another minor edit which doesn't take too much time could easily be done in the same minute, I dont think their is any need to worry about his speed of editing; as long as he/she is not vandalising. Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - Alison ☺ 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (wishes her edit count was that low :) )

(e.c.) Editors who "go that fast" are often using semi-automated tools to help them do what would otherwise be rather tedious maintenence tasks quickly and effortlessly. You can learn more about them at WP:TOOLS. --Dynaflow babble 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. If you look at the two 16:44 diffs using popups, you can see the first was made at 16:44:14 and the other at 16:44:52 (38 seconds apart). - auburnpilot talk 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors who use a web browser which supports tabbed browsing (I am one such editor) may also appear to make a bot-like number of edits in rapid succession. Looking at my recent history, I logged eighteen edits in one minute rolling back the addition of a spam link to a series of articles—and I've never used any automated or semi-automated editing tool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I use Safari, and have repeatedly gotten close to ten edits in a single minute. 172 edits in a single day isn't that hard, either... in looking over my editing milestones, I see that I averaged 500 edits a day for a bit (broke 11k on Nov. 23, broke 12k on Nov. 25). I have no doubt that someone with more free time than I could approach a similar number, especially if they use a semi-automated tool (which I don't). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - anyone who's ventured into the murky world of WP:WSS can easily get their edits up to 5-600 a day without particularly trying even working manually, and easily over 1000-2000 in a day if you're doing something like mass-changing categories using AWB. As regards the simultaneous edits, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for this - if I move an article I'll submit the edits to the double-redirects simultaneously, to avoid either creating temporary links to a redlinked page, or temporarily leaving them as double-redirects, and I'm sure a lot of editors do the same — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are actually WikiProject tagging of articles, something I do all the time. It's possible to do 600-700 a day even reading each article carefully, and I've in fact had to set up a second account for those so people following my contribs as an admin and editor don't get lost in pages of tagging. Orderinchaos 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

policy on reverting change?

Has anyone tried to use the UNDO button lately? There's a new box at the top that says something like "If you are reverting someones edit, non vandalism, you MUST use a edit summary different than the default that explains why you are reverting." That sounds like an undiscussed policy change to me. It's certainly not reflected by the meta page master at WP:REVERT. It's certainly not reflected by the admin rollback button, which does not even give you the chance to change the edit sum. When did this happen? ⇒ SWATJester 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier, but didn't pay it any attention, as I was already in the middle of reverting some bad interwiki links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how to find out what the page for that MediaWiki template is so we can see who edited it? ⇒ SWATJester 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's MediaWiki:Undo-success, and it was Cyde. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on it's talk page ? It has not that much to do on the ANI i guess. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "please" rather than "you are required to", because you're not required to ... it's a courtesy. Neil (►) 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. I asked Cyde on his talk page, so maybe we'll hear from him here. ⇒ SWATJester 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He's edited the template since, so I would imagine he's down widdit. Neil (►) 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven new User:MascotGuy sockpuppets

There are seven unblocked MascotGuy socks that are listed at WP:LTA/MG. They are Public vs. Private (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Coppertop Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dream Lover Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mr. Spoke-'em (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wildfighters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Baxter's Glowball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Zapper Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Tregoweth usually blocks these types of sockpuppets, but he/she hasn't edited since 22:54, 28 May 2007. Pants 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon editing and User:Stevewk

Seems similar ... could someone look @ this ...

Contributions 70.110.157.87

Special:Contributions/Stevewk

Thanks. J. D. Redding 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific pages are

• The Work of J.G.A. Pocock
• Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• Edward Gibbon
• The Club (Literary Club)
• Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

I don't want to revert them ... but 70.110.157.87 seems like Stevewk (talk · contribs) ... J. D. Redding 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry Sun

He made fun of me and called me a idiotMarioman12 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Could you provide some context for this? I can't really tell what's going on. --Haemo 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably this. Other than claiming you are psychic, it's original research to claim something that was seen in a dream, in the future, or as a weird hunch. If you want to put something in an article, especially in an article about an unreleased game, please source it. That diff and the text above wasn't a personal attack, but it was a tad uncivil. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who wants to write WP:PSYCHICPOWERS to cover this defense against original research. --Haemo 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My ascended planar consciousness is telling me that would be needless instruction creep. Marioman12 certainly earns points for originality though. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that policy is added during april 2009. --Fredrick day 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if you are psychic it's no different than adding something because you say you saw it with your own two eyes. If it's not published in a reliable source, we can't really rely on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not helping the situation and my mind is f***ed up so that's how I see into the future for once it wasn't something completly useless like the side of the building I'm sorry if this sounds ridiclous but I think its true I think he over did it by calling me names and he could of just counted it under original research not been so meanMarioman12 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He never called you names, so I don't really see what the problem is here. --Haemo 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because it isn't exactly nice to call someone "kid" or a "Yoshi-fan" as a response to something that goes against guidelines. Probably not a personal attack, but uncivil, and maybe warrants a nice gentle message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I got no beef with Duris Bane that link is not right this is what Angry Sun said to me:

The only people that are psychics are people in cartoons and shows like Pet Psychic. Face it kid. You are just a die-hard Yoshi Fan. Angry Sun 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First off. I did. Second that was not a personal attack. I suggest you read the policy. For it to be a direct attack I would have said..."You are not freaking psychic idiot." But I did not. Therefore I didn't attack you. Also IP...Don't freaking trust everything you read. This guy is full of himself. I have dreams that I'm Godzilla. That doesn't make it true does it? Angry Sun 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman12 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned what he didn't say to make it a personal attack. That doesn't make it a personal attack. I think maybe one should pull away from this issue a little - it is incivility rather than personal attacks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He said i'm full of myself and freakin psycho idiot Marioman12 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this isn't his first time: == Please remain civil ==

Comments like this are not helpful. The uncivil behavior of other editors (even anonymous editors) is no excuse for making uncivil comments yourself. Everyone can read the comments you write, and you may give others a bad view of Misplaced Pages. Often, editors will behave rudely in an attempt to provoke others — do not allow yourself to fall into this trap. (This and more is discussed at Misplaced Pages:Civility. Please take the time to read it, if you have no already done so.)

This editor is apparently unfamiliar with our policies. There was no need to be insulting to him. Instead of an edit summary of "Go ask Nsider for god sakes. We aren't GameFAQS.", try something along the lines of "Removing discussion unrelated to article." Remember — Edit summaries are intended to give a description of your edit. User:Pagrashtak|Pagra

Look - everyone just needs to be civil and stop jumping at every little comment. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. --Haemo 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He made me feel bad Marioman12 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have a serious problem, start a request for comment on him. Other than that, the admins are not your personal feelings police. I'm sorry you're upset, but sometimes people will do that to you, and all we can really do is ask them nicely to stop. I see you haven't decided to talk to him about this - perhaps that would be a place to start. --Haemo 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman, I don't think from reading this that Angry Sun really meant to call you an idiot, though I can understand why you think that they have and why you feel bad about it. Sometimes people are not nice to you, and you just have to remember that they are a name on a screen and they don't know who you are or anything about you. My advice would be not to reply to or deal with Angry Sun for a while until you have both calmed down, and just edit the articles. I would also say that you should read What is a reliable source? and No Original Research for what you can and can't put in a page on Misplaced Pages. Orderinchaos 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

3bulletproof16

Affected articles: Staples Center, Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, Pontiac Silverdome.

3bulletproof16 is a prolific editor of pro wrestling articles (and not much else) who is apparently part of a small group of Misplaced Pages editors who feel the need to insert pro wrestling references into as many unrelated articles as possible, including articles for sports venues. Judging by his edit history, he has been flirting with violating (if not outright violating) WP:OWN for a number of months. His only response to my counsel that pro wrestling is a fringe topic and not a sporting event was to "tell that to WP:PW". Can an admin with some weight to throw around set him straight? Thanks in advance, I Always Win 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a Chadbryant sockpuppet to me. In his last run before being banned he was attempting to remove the same information from various articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. How about addressing the issue at hand instead of throwing out the SP accusations? That seems to the the course of action when a Wikiclique feels threatened. I Always Win 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Chadbryant, but I'm not a member of the wrestling project. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous request - firstly, no admin can interfere in content disputes. Secondly, pro-wrestling is not a fringe topic. Thirdly, whether or not a pro-wrestling subject matter deserves mention depends on individual articles. I would recommend that you discuss these content disputes on the article talkpages and at worst, open an article RfC. And 3bulletproof16 is a respectable editor. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that much of the rasslin' content on Misplaced Pages needs to be purged, and that WP:PW seems to not take WP:OWN very seriously. The sockpuppet junk merely reflects the immaturity often associated with fans of this pseudo-sport.I Always Win 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hypnosadist 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't lump together all editors of a project together, because of actions of a few. That's very rude. Just because wrestling is scripted/fake (and for whatever reason: you seem to hate it): it's still a notable subject for Misplaced Pages. As for sports venues: if a notable wrestling event took place at one, then it should be listed on the sports venue article. RobJ1981 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Calton | Talk 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Smells like socks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try bathing. I Always Win 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some on-wiki proof? User talk:Tv316/Archive 01#I think they were Chad.2C yea.. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Save your manic accusations for someone else. You can have your precious rasslin' back. I have no interest in having a single-purpose account. I Always Win 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out what his user page says now. Hypnosadist 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with I Always Win that wrestling is an overexposed pseudo-sport, it is also highly notable, thus his arguments are baseless. Personally, I think this entire string should be added to a new and improved WP:BJAODN. Its never wise to be uncivil on an administrators noticeboard... ;o)Resolute 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sockpuppet

Staysswungbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you block someone for not spelling correctly at all on talk pagesMarioman12 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not really - but if it becomes so persistent, and the user ignores requests repeatedly, that it becomes disruptive, then possibly. --Haemo 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And even then, only if the misspellings become so incoherent that it becomes disruptive. Nobody wants to spend minutes decoding "wt i ths thg u r talkin but" is. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he says he is spelling impaired when I ask him about which is Bs is you ask meMarioman12 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has perfect spelling, and some choose not to bother with spell-checking as long as the message gets across. We don't go round handing out warnings because you spelt tomorrow with too many "m"s, for example. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He spells "to" and "try" wrongMarioman12 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Diu you rilly want me tue fix it. Anubiz 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Marioman12 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're complaining about spelling mistakes when your sentences suffer from a distinct lack of punctuation and separation of sentences? Pot, meet kettle.

The user is question is Anubiz (talk · contribs), with comments by Marioman here and here. Phony Saint 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The admins are not spelling police, and they're not going to hunt down a user on that basis. Talk to the nicely about it before seeking some kind of administrative action. --Haemo 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not an end-all for all complaints. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling is *not* a matter for AN/I. In some cases, the user may have a disability (note - it seems the user in question *does* - see his user page) or very poor education, or maybe just not very good at English, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them editing the encyclopaedia so long as they conform to our policies when editing. Misplaced Pages does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to edit in good faith. Orderinchaos 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:New block for Hayden5650

Although Desiphral began this discussion based on the above-mentioned user's edits on Romani-related articles, Romani- and Holocaust-related articles are not the only ones he has vandalized. He has also deleted Maori names under edit summaries like "rm nonsense," just because he does not speak Maori (he gave this reason here, using his IP address). Even in the article and talk page on Aquamarine (color), he attempted to change the spelling of "color" to British English "colour" with absolutely no discussion, usually through redirects , , . As is clearly shown in the current version of the article, all three of the edits to the last article were reverted. --Kuaichik 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He has violated Misplaced Pages:Civil on the Marlboro talk page, using offensive language ("nanny-state PC drivel," "you really do have your head up your rear end"). He knowingly removed the part of Misplaced Pages:Introduction that was not supposed to be removed, not once but three times , , . He has vandalized the article Homosexuality as well, including one offensive edit summary , which was reported as vandalism on his talk page . The list goes on and on (see and ). --Kuaichik 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked. While some of the edit diffs above predate the first block, his editing patterns since his last block expired demonstrate no difference in behaviour from what he was originally blocked for. As it was for the same offence I bypassed the 4-level warning. Orderinchaos 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Vilerocks

I put it on WP:CN as I simply do not have any more patience. User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte has been editing disruptively since January. I am very interested in getting something very, very quickly. Evidence here, here and here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem With An Anonymous Creationist

It was recommended that I post this complaint/concern here, rather than Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Anonymous user 12.214.122.176 has been making repeated edits to Behemoth in order to make its POV more creationist-friendly , and , and now, in Leviathan, too, . When I warned him about this back in May, he became . Is it possible to do something about this anonymous person?--Mr Fink 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to argue the case on the edits as all of them were unsourced possible original research (quite likely true, but an independent source is going to need to be found to back them up. I note the other editor is guilty of the same, for the record - Dinosaurs-Unleashed is a tertiary source effectively.) The last comment on the linked talk page appears to point to a more conciliatory tone. I don't think admin action is required - it would seem the IP editor is quite young (I'm guessing < 13). If they get into edit wars over sourced content in articles or over non-RS sourced content that they are contributing, let us know. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I left a message on the IP's talk page. Orderinchaos 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" "This Annonymous User is so stuped." "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, ,. He has been warned numerous times , , . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order.

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" refering to other users as idiots and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this .. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After you blocked EdwinCasadoBaez He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. YoSoyGuapo 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked, original block extended, firm explanatory response e-mail sent. Let's keep all future discussion in one place. Grandmasterka 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Otane

I have noticed two editors creating substantially the same article Otane in the last hour. It was created by User:Tabletoptuna, deleted, and then re-created by User:Lollypop land wow. In both cases, the article was virtually empty; the latter version consists solely of the text: "hi there no info on otane." The former version was similar but added the information that "otane is a dump."

A similar article was deleted twice a few days ago .

This may be a case for WP:SSP but I can't determine exactly what is going on, and I don't know whether the earlier deleted versions were created by either of these editors or by other editors. --Metropolitan90 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a town - so, probably people from the town making test edits. --Haemo 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a redirect to the district it's a part of, so people will no longer be inclined to make such edits. I'll watchlist it, too - that should solve the problem. --Haemo 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. It should be a redlink so that people will see there's no article and maybe someone will make a legitimate stub. (Unless you want to open the "small towns are/are not notable" can of worms) --Random832 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a little stub, like the other ones there instead. --Haemo 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC needs admin approval

I posted this at WP:AN but no one has taken action on it yet...I'm told that an RfC that I opened on myself yesterday needs admin approval or else it will be deleted tomorrow. I understand that opening an RfC on yourself doesn't require a second endorsement or certifier, but I didn't know admin approval was still necessary. If so, would an uninvolved admin please review the RfC, approve it if appropriate, and move it to the "approved" section of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct? If not approved, please let me know why and what the appropriate next step is. Thank you in advance. CLA 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to the approved section. Not sure you needed to ask an admin to do it. But if it is necessary, I approve it :-). WjBscribe 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note. I have commented further on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Cla68#comment. WjBscribe 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stepping in and taking care of it. CLA 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxwellTeke's User page

Could someone (other than me) please have a kind word with MaxwellTeke? His user page doesn't seem to reflect our guidelines for user pages. I know this is pretty trivial but he has been antagonizing me so I don't think it in our mutual best interests for me to be the one to address this issue with him. Thanks! --ElKevbo 07:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And now he's labeled me a racist (twice, actually). Sigh... --ElKevbo 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for multiple forms of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" template as I still think it appropriate for someone uninvolved to address this User page. It has gems like the phrase "WHO WANTS SOME NAPPY HEADED HOS?" and a list of "What I Am Against" which includes Gays and assertions that several people/organizations are racist. I'm not comfortable removing this from this editor's User page myself but it probably should be removed. --ElKevbo 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I go ahead with this, would someone give me an idea of how we usually handle this sort of thing? It seems to me these statements on MaxwellTeke's userpage are against WP:USER, which says polemical statements shouldn't appear on userpages and that they shouldn't be used for soapboxing. Do we just summarily remove these (which is what I'm leaning toward doing)? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've previously seen them just removed, so I would say that is how to proceed. --Haemo 07:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Riana ⁂ 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll keep this in mind in for the future. Thanks, folks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The user appeared to have been indefinitely blocked before; perhaps we should reset the status quo?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a gesture. Looking over his contributions, his disruptive edits far outweigh any positive input. Riana ⁂ 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it might be good if Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) talks to him. Judging from MaxwellTeke's user name, they're both Tau Kappa Epsilons. Might help to bring him to his senses, might not. ⇒ SWATJester 08:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no User:Teke, anymore. I have fixed your comment to reflect that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia and racism

Speaking of accusations of racism, could an admin other than I warn Migospia (talk · contribs) that just because someone templates an image of a black artist, or !votes in a *FD about a black individual, it does not mean they are racist. I've tried, but i'm just a "fucker" who wishes to rid Misplaced Pages of any reference to black people, apparently. I'm not going to get a favorable response talking with her any further. For your attention, a choice selection of her quotes from the last two days alone:

1. "... it seems you are just going for the small time black artist." In an email to me 2 days ago.
2. "...if this is not rascit then either add that image thing to all cd/album covers here on Misplaced Pages or delete them"
3. "...I am starting to know why people hate Misplaced Pages it is because of admins like you and you were cleary awae of the race"
4. "...how can you vote to delete this and not be racist"
5. "...I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist"
6. "...I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here"

See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tangeline. Rockpocket 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left Migospia a note about this discussion. I suggest dropping her a strong {{uw-agf3}} - if she persists in the ad hominem attacks, further action can be taken. Riana ⁂ 08:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a similar comment about this user on the noticeboard. I had already warned her in the AfD about throwing around charges of racism, and yet she continued. When I left a message on her talk page about leaving defamatory comments, she deleted my warning from her talk page and replied "Ah! I can't believe this another editor!" on mine. DarkAudit 08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of warnings from friendly to stern have been offered, e.g. . Doesn't seem to make much difference, even when faced this the litany above she appears to think it proves her point about racist motivations. I don't feel there is anything I can say that will have a positive outcome, so I'm left with taking action. If someone else wishes to try an avoid that then be my guest. Rockpocket 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really suggest you start looking into your own policies and definitions of words, because this is beyond belief and sickening, it is like that time someone broke a 3rr and got away with it and another not really breaking it got blocked, you guys have to stop twisting things around and bending policies, it really is hurting people in the process, or at least person--Migospia †♥ 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting the old "Assault With An Olive Branch" approach, let's see if that works. I see that the initial concerns of this editor have not been referred to, so I have suggested at her talkpage that she checks out WP:CSB (once I got the link to work, ha!) to see if she can address her concerns there. Unless there is something new someone can bring to this debate I suggest we don't pile on on over there. If the folk that has already tried cannot get a result I'm not sure what more of the same will do to improve things. LessHeard vanU 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I've said my last, so hopefully you may have more luck than I. One note though, while I'm very aware of Misplaced Pages's systemic bias where it exists, I'm not convinced that is the relevant issue here. The reason I say this is because I was also accused of racial motivation of an entirely separate issue a day or so previously (a fair use query of this image.) I was genuinely flabbergasted, since I hadn't actually registered what the subject of the image was of when the allegation was made. Prior to that she was accusing those who were editing the veganism article of holding an anti-vegan agenda (despite the fact the editor she was accusing is a vegan himself and was sourcing his info from pro-vegan websites). Since Migospia edits quite heavily in these divisive issues, I'm getting the feeling that anything that she does not concur with is immediately perceived as an issue of bias or discrimination by the other editor. As I'm sure you are aware, that simply is not conducive to constructive editing. I felt that should be made clear. Rockpocket 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The perception of bias (which can include any subject where there is more than one opinion) is as important as the actuality. If Migospia can address her concerns as it relates to WP:CSB then at least her interactions should be more civil, and better addressed according to policy/guidelines. In my brief interaction with her I think that she is responding better. Perhaps a (semi) sympathetic ear was all that she needed to calm things down. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Migospia (talk · contribs)'s talk page about all of this. As I told her, there has long been systemic bias at Misplaced Pages and some editors are racists (such as the skinheads who pop up here all the time and vandalize articles). But in this case, none of this applies b/c Tangeline simply isn't an article that should be kept.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, her userpage indicates she is civil, so her action is contradicting her words, I guess? Wooyi 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like everything else, what happens generally is an abstract. When it happens to you then it takes on a different hue. Pointing out the obvious is not always advantageous. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

appropriateness of POV question

User:Fighting for Justice. Username is borderline. User page states "Always on the side of the crime victim and their loved ones." User has been blocked before for 3RR, and blocked again for BLP violations on crime victims, despite being well aware, and has a long laundry list of complaints made against him/her.

Is there action to be taken due to a) partisan/polemic name, b)Express statement that user is going to be pushing POV, c) Single Purpose Account status, and d)history of disruption, with no apparent desire to change? ⇒ SWATJester 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard? Neil (►) 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously being an evil bastard my first instinct is to prevent disruption by limiting the locus of this user's edits to his talk page. If you see what I mean... Guy (Help!) 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil. I'm not asking for community sanction. I'm asking whether it is appropriate to take some sort of action, if there is a username violation, or if I'm just off the wall. Not to mention, this is a BLP issue which I do not believe belongs at CSN. ⇒ SWATJester 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Anonymous One

On 3 June 2007 The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made these , , , peculiar additions to talk pages. They obviously have nothing to do with improving the articles, and appeared to me to be off-topic trolling, so I've reverted them and asked the user to desist from disruptive editing. There seems to have been a lot of disruption from this user. ... dave souza, talk 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Each one of the above diffs was simply the text "Look at the pictures of these two following people. What do you think?" with the key picture of the article in question, and a picture of Adolf Hitler. One was a *coin*, not even a person. Orderinchaos 11:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The coin has an image of Britannia, like the other images a personification of a country. Bizarre. As of now, the last edit by the user was at 09.23 (UTC), so we can hope that the advice given is effective for a while. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deletion

I have just had an article -- Shakti mantras -- deleted, and that's ok. I'm not complaining about that, but I am complaining about the person who listed it for deletion in violation of the Guidelines. The latter make it clear that articles should not be listed for deletion without first contacting the creator, discussing it with him and giving him a chance to fix the problems. Also, it is courteous to inform him of the article being listed.

Both these guidelines were violated completely by TheRingess when she did the listing. She never got in touch to discuss the problems with me, and definitely did not give me a "courtesy call".

This obviously does not show good faith, and Wiki should not be run this way. Someone please have a talk with her.Sardaka 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No need for admin intervention here. You are wrong on all counts. Shakti mantras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted properly through AfD. You were among the first users to comment on the AfD, so notifying you was apparently not necessary. Also, deletion policy does not require notification and discussion either prior to or after initiating an AfD. Such steps are optional. You, on the other hand, should have addressed your concerns to TheRingess before coming here and it would have been polite of you to notify her of this post; see WP:DR. Sandstein 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not convinced TheRingess (talk · contribs) has acted out of turn. Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination certainly recommends nominators "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator" and suggests "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator." It does not insist those things be done. However, you were obviously aware of the nomination, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shakti mantras, since you commented on the page extensively. You might consider politely informing TheRingess that you would appreciate being notified prior to an AfD in future, and suggesting others might also. Rockpocket 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats by Administrator llywrch

• llywrch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrator llywrch (talk · contribs) made this bad faith AFD nomination, in which he admits "I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue". Several editors expressed distaste for misuse of the AFD process, I suggested a speedy keep with an admonishment of the nominator for such a gross violation of WP:POINT. Llywrch made this response (which he has now reverted), and then issued this direct threat on my talk page: The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page.

Administrators should know better than to violate WP:POINT, but what's really disturbing is his willingness to threaten editors who point out such. Other than pointing out that making spurious/bad faith AFD nominations only clog the system and waste editors' time (AFD was speedily kept as a bad faith nomination) and suggesting a word of caution regarding WP:POINT, I have had no interaction with this admin nor made any other comments regarding the incident.

Instead of responding directly to his threats, I'm requesting ANI advice and/or intervention on how to deal with an admin who is making inappropriate threats. Help is appreciated. /Blaxthos 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can see it wasn't WP:POINT, it was a good-faith attempt to find a way of resolving a problem. Not a particularly productive one, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominating an article for deletion that one admits shouldn't be deleted simply to "encourage disccusion" on a policy/guideline is absolutely violating WP:POINT. However, as stated above, my bigger concern isn't the WP:POINT; the meat of the problem is the very blatant threat made by an administrator when it was completely unwarranted. Do you think that admins should be able to threaten editors who, as far as I can tell, did nothing wrong? /Blaxthos 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not disruption. It's a common mistake. And the way to handle it is not to say "nominator should be warned for disruption" but to explain things by saying Don't bring articles to AFD where an administrator hitting a delete button is not what you want. and to point out that Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox., directing people to the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. You can also point to the notability guidelines, where merger into articles with a broader scope is given as the appropriate option. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things for more. Uncle G 13:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand how it is a common mistake for someone unfamilar with wikipolicy - but an admin? I'd also like clarification of what was meant by this remark. --Fredrick day 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the entire evolution of events is downright disturbing. I will attempt to reiterate the problems:

1. A (by his own account) seasoned admin (who is tasked with the responsibility of properly disposing AFDs) either doesn't understand the purpose of AFD, or ignores it entirely.
2. After no fewer than five editors express the inappropriate nature of the AFD, the admin makes this statement, in which he expresses his intent to take unilateral action in the future (presumably because the community forcefully rejected his malformed attempt to instigate discussion in an inappropriate manner)
3. The admin then makes a statement on my talk page that can be construed as nothing except a threat of punative action because of comments made regarding his AFD (additionally, I wasn't the only editor to point out the "abuse" of the AFD process by this admin).
4. When I bring it to ANI, it appears (note I'm not saying actually is) that other admins are circling the wagons and seem unwilling to address the significant inappropriate actions of a fellow admin.

What am I supposed to do? This could be fodder for WP:RFARB, however I'm trying to find some other avenue in which these concerns are addressed. How about addressing the points above? /Blaxthos 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads like frustration to me. HE asked for a discussion of expandable stubs, and what can be done with them. in stead, he got a long set of standard AfD arguments for Keep, and a couple of 'POINT' shouts. No one actually addressed his problem, instead, IF they reallized what he wanted, they POINT'd him. I'd be frustrated too. Heck, I'm frustrated more often than not by WP these days. I see his point, and agree, there's probably a need to figure out how to address the issue. He got blown off, ignored, and attacked by various people instead. he reacted. Not a good reaction, and a stupid thing to say. Since his nom wasn't about deletion but discussion, saying 'i'll delete what I want' is foolish. All the same, I'd chalk it up to an Admin identifying a problem and trying to get broader community consensus, picking a less than optimal method, and getting frustrated by the response. ThuranX 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not brush it off as frustration... HE is an admin, HE abused the AFD process (or used it for an inappropriate purpose), then HE issued threats of unilateral inappropriate action and threats of punative action against editors who did nothing wrong. How is this appropriate or excusable for an administrator? /Blaxthos 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he looked for a resolution to a problem, but looked in the wrong place. Go away and help him find the right place, or just go away. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ThuranX 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin outright attempts to bully an editor who has done nothing wrong, and states his intent to completely ignore proper protocol in the future, and instead of addressing the issue (which isn't the original problem, but rather his reactions to it) and I'm told to "just go away". Unbelievable. No wonder most editors hesitate to enlist administrative assistance... you guys should be ashamed. /Blaxthos 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But you did do something wrong. Being rude and unhelpful is something wrong in my book. If he actually deletes articles without consensus then that's a different matter of course. But for now, let it drop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to follow Theresa's advice, & let the matter drop, but I only discovered a few minutes ago that I was the subject of a discussion here, & thought I tell my side of the matter.

1. I don't frequent AfD much nowadays, so I'm not up on the rules or the mood of the place. When I was there more often, it was not unusual to nominate articles like this one. (I'm still somewhat disappointed in the response I received there, because I felt this was a hard case, AfD serves best to deal with hard cases like this, & no one appeared interested in discussing why I felt it was a heard case. But at least I received some discussion.)
2. One instance of an act like this, whether or not it was intentional, is not what WP:POINT is intended to address. Sometimes one has to be bold, & push against what one perceives are unspoken rules of Misplaced Pages in order to learn what fellow Wikipedians currently think, then act accordingly; this should be done, I admit, in the most minimal manner possible. I don't think I am being disingenuous here in saying not every convention on Misplaced Pages has been debated & addressed in policy -- nor is every question about such matters met with a prompt response.
3. Much of what I do on Misplaced Pages, I tend to do in isolation, without direct input from other Wikipedians. Sometimes I wonder if my "Wiki compass" has drifted too far away from what the consensus is -- & asking questions from time to time is a way to check this.
4. Hmm. So if someone posts something intemperate on Misplaced Pages, afterwards recognizes that it was the wrong thing to say & reverts her/himself as soon as possible, it still counts as if that person left it unreverted?
5. Frankly, I am a bit surprised -- & gratified that anyone "stuck up" for me. I consider myself a lone wolf on Misplaced Pages, & unaffiliated with any faction or philosophy expressed here on Misplaced Pages. I just try to contribute useful content, & less often I express an opinion about policy; occasionally I contribute something that other Wikipedians agree is actually useful.
6. Lastly, I am unaware that telling someone that they have offended me is a threat. Blaxthos twice mentioned "WP:POINT" in this post -- once in the body, once in the comment line. I asked one question -- & he believes is I am disrupting Misplaced Pages to make some kind of point. (What it is, I can't fathom -- perhaps it's that "don't nominate orphan articles about historical people of borderline notability"?) -- llywrch 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for popping across to explain that - I think this comes out "nothing much to see here". while you might consider yourself a lone wolf - don't be too hesitate to "howl out" if you want an independent second view about what you are upto. regards --Fredrick day 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from an IP Address registered to "City of Westminster Council"

I might just be being paranoid here, but I'm fairly new and I'm sure I read somewhere that vandalism coming from government IP addresses needs to be reported. I reverted an edit by this IP and I decided to do a lookup on it. The lookup said it is registered to the City of Westminster Council. I'm not sure if this may just be a library or something, but I'm posting this here to be on the safe side. — Taggard (Complain) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:195.110.75.89
• IP Lookup

UK parliament range is 194.60.0.0 – 194.60.63.255, so it's probably just a library. --ais523 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably just a library. Any old council isn't very exciting anyway - and most people wouldn't be working on a Sunday afternoon. Secretlondon 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

There's currently a full scale edit war going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales between two anons. One is claiming to be a German Misplaced Pages admin, and another is claiming their privacy is being violated. I can't make much sense of it because it's all posted in German. I posted at WP:RFPP but nobody's gotten to it yet. -N 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected for 25 hours (because I pressed 5 instead of 4 and now don't feel like changing it). You should be able to just remove the squabbles now. Neil ╦ 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the thread entirely from the page. Carrying over disputes from another project to here is inappropriate. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, since this is where Jimmy's User page and Talk page are. However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate. Corvus cornix 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image on a user page.

Hello all. I hope I'm bringing this to the right noticeboard- these things seem a tad Byzantine at times. Anyways I deleted two fair use images from the talk page of Kingzjester (talk · contribs) diff & diff- I admit that I only left an edit summary and didn't use the {{Fuir}} template (which I didn't know about because it's not listed at WP:UTM). Kingzjester responded by undoing my last edit and restoring one image to his talk page diff. I then wrote a short note diff explaining about why I had deleted the images. Kingzjester responded by refactoring my comments diffdiffdiff and adding a rather nasty notediff- all of which he eventually erased and replaced with a URL for a websitediff that McAfee reports has a web exploit. He also posted one of the images onto his user page diff, where it remains. I wrote a second note, apologizing for not writing before deleting the image and more fully explaining the wherefores of the fair use policy diff. The response was the replacement of my comments by giant image of LBJ. I notified him/her that I was bringing the discussion here. I welcome your suggestions, comments. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use images are not allowed outside of article space, period. You have every right to remove them and revert them being put back in. If the user keeps re-adding them, warn and then report them for violating copyright. -N 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know if they are related, but Kingzjester (talk · contribs) has uploaded images and placed them on the userpage of Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs). I also applied db templates to all of the images; user pages should not be used as MySpace entries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I'm also speedying the other images that Kingzjester (talk · contribs) has uploaded; they appear to be copyright violations, taken from . Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of not biting the newbies. Fair use images in userspace is one thing, but personal photos are another. WP:NOT#myspace is not a speedy deletion reason, furthermore you need to WP:AGF. Please step back and not attack this user so much. He probably feels very threatened. I used to think the same as you, find one small thing with an editor, attack everything wrong about them. I will leave a note for the user. I encourage you to all step back a moment. -N 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At least take the time to read her user page. She's a constructive editor, but her posting of 10+ images of herself, plus others that are orphaned, is just insane. This is not MySpace; none of the images are encyclopedic. If they are not speedied, then I'll apply for them to be all deleted at IFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And she's not a new user, FTR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

_{And please cite where I "attacked" the "new" user. Furthermore, if these are violations, why did you not apply IFD templates for the images instead of doing plain reverts and then not assuming good faith when you sprouted up at my talk page?} Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Kingzjester, not Carly. I'm not going to get into a fight with you over this. -N 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How were applying tags for copyright violations "attacks"? Furthermore, if you go back through his edits, you can see a prior history of very crude remarks. Certaintly he was not applying good faith. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is something else that creates a question. Kingzjester (talk · contribs) uploads this at June 3 around 2:04. Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs) then uploads this and this June 3, around 2:15 that are from the same set. Possible sock? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, or more probably meatpuppeting, but they aren't violating the policies on having multiple accounts, as far as I can see. -N 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible death threat

May be I am wrong, but this seems to be worth reporting. User:ellol recently asked me on my talk page using slang of Russian mafia the following:

Do you understand Russian well enough to realize that "...it is better to come to an agreement than to be killed by knife" (Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок) and that "someone must be punished for making too much noise " (Западло не отвечать за базар)? Of course, he told later that he only "proposed this user a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia".

I wanted to ignore this incident, but ellol became very active recently and started making other outrageous claims, such as that I support Russian fascists (Movement Against Illegal Immigration ), and others, so it it might be a good idea if someone checked this. Of course, this is difficult to check because not every native Russian speaker understands well this criminal slang. Biophys 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are these users conducting whole talk page sections in Russian on the English wiki? It precludes a vast number of interested editors from checking the facts alleged in the citations. They don't provide translations or anything. Seems like that would be some sort of vio of OWN, since it ensures that many can't even discuss the matter. And in a section about citation, one guy states 'Here's what the cite said - big russian quote - , and that's what I put in. He didn't quote his edit, nor link the diff, and so on. Shouldn't most of the english wiki's discussions be in english, so as to make them most accessible tot he majority of the editing audience? ThuranX 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. He intentionally makes his threats using not just Russian, but Russian criminal slang, so few people can understand and block him. This is link . This is his diff from my talk page where he came uninvited: .

• This is one of his statements (Russian):"Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок)." My approximate translation: "Anything can be done for money". "I am not satisfied with Putin" "It is better to decide everything at the gangster's "court" meetings than to get a knife into the heart"
• This is his another statement (Russian): "Западло не отвечать за базар". My translation: "Someone must be punished for making too much noise" (according to the context)Biophys 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain more. "заточка" means not just knife but a self-made knife, something more similar to a screw driver. Killing with "заточка" is a traditional way of killing "traitors" (like me) who betray secrets of the gang. "Cтрелка" ("распальцовки на стрелках") means a meeting of a gang (usually several gangs) where they decide who is guilty of violating "laws" of criminal world, and the person who is "guilty" is often killed immediately. That kind of nice message I have received.Biophys 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it means a shiv. I have asked Ellol to explain himself (and I would also like someone else to translate the above to confirm). I think a warning would be best if the translations are correct. Neil ╦ 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to limit his comments about other editors on the english Misplaced Pages to english. That should make things easier moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, he explained me already that he only "proposed this user a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia" - just as I told above. Biophys 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1

Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to bypass redirects because he dislikes redirects and "a guideline...cannot be violated". The latest can be seen at User talk:NE2#Redirects, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Misplaced Pages" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing, and tells me to "do us a favor and leave Misplaced Pages, troll." Can I please have some advice? --NE2 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of these changes seem to be in piped links, not changing redirects TO piped links. Since they are already 'hidden' links, I don't think the changing from redirects is such a bad idea. I read the relevant section, and it says not to turn a solid redirect into a piped link, but doesn't seem nearly so clear about the changing of the destination of a piped link. I think it's better anyways. Why give people confusing information? If they see A on rollover of the link, but wind up at B, they might go check A anyway, to check against vandalism. I've done that before, and I've even found it before. Perhaps an Admin might have a better insight to the policy here, but I don't htink he's done anything wrong. ThuranX 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing the link to New Lots Line to point to IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line makes cleanup a lot harder if the article, which talks about two lines, is split. The bypassing of Times Square–42nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) means that if the heading in Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway) is changed, changing the redirect to point to the new heading will not be enough. --NE2 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point, ThuranX. This NE2 character is really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish there was some type of anti-troll patrol on Misplaced Pages! –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To NE2, then copy that reasonign to the talk, and revert those two. Imdanumber1, he's NOT being a troll,, he's got valid concerns about the links. I think that the problems aren't as big as he thinks they are, but he's not a troll. ThuranX 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd actually have to work with him for six months like I have to realize how disruptive he can be. He doesn't listen, he has a bad attitude towards other users, and he refuses to engage in a consensus to reach a decision that everyone may agree on, As much as I have tried to assume good faith for him, I can say no more than the fact that he is blatantly being spiteful, which I believe is and can be considered as trolling. Check his contribs and his talk archives. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told him that repeatedly, but he only responds with claims about consensus. --NE2 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor out of control

Gryffindor keeps on moving Meran to Merano against the consensus and WP:NCGN. (see also the above report by Pmanderson).--Supparluca 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he has protected the page abusing his admin powers.--Supparluca 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to work this out with Gryffindor. On first sight, it does look like rather questionable use of the admin tools to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that this isn't the first time at all. He started to abuse his powers in 2005, always with his strong point of view, and always (for what I know) on articles related to that province, usually with subtle and bully behaviours.--Supparluca 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor made one controversial move in a questionable interpretation of the results of a straw poll he had himself initiated and voted in. On being reverted, he today repeated his move three times within few hours and then protected his version. I've reverted his move to the status quo ante and kept move protection on that version in effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch List on Project Space

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=135583956

An editor issued me a fake warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

The watchlist in project space was a keep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&diff=next&oldid=135581510

However, an editor(s) is trying to speedy delete it after it was kept. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An article can still be speedily deleted after an MfD, so long as it meets CSD requirements. Passing an XfD does not give an article immunity against further deletions. Phony Saint 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

what confuses me is that the stated reason for the XFD is reposted material - but what's it a repost of if it survived it's MFD? --Fredrick day 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's not a repost, but QuackGuru didn't state that in his edit summaries or here. After the original article - this article - was moved to project space, someone recreated the article in mainspace, and that was the article deleted. I was about to revert myself when I saw you already did it. Phony Saint 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. This sounds settled then. Mr.Guru, in the future don't remove an AfD template, but rather follow the "hang on" instructions contained within. Removing the AfD template as you had done is considered vandalism. Hence, my warning to you. -- Levine2112 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Levine2112, he still believes my edit was vandalism when it was not. He knows it was not a repost. He voted in the MFD. He knows it was a keep. It can't be a repost in project space when it survived the MFD. Levine2112, do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point with your unfounded warning. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 has issued me another unfounded warning. This time, I made a single edit to an article and he has dumped on my talk page a warning of edit warring. This is harressment and uncivil behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing an AfD is considered vandalism. Separtely, your involvement in the editing of Coral calcium constitues edit warring. In each case, the warning template I placed on your page was appropriate. -- Levine2112 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. In the beginning, I created an article in mainspace. It survived deletion and was subsequently moved to project space. To make a long story short. I did a lot of work and made considerable changes to the article and posted it back and mainspace. It was not a repost. It was deleted as a repost. It was a logical fallicious argument made by some Wikipedians. Of course you know how things can get on Misplaced Pages sometimes. I opened a deletion review. I have provided proof it was a different article with substantial changes to the text of the article. After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. I want many experienced administrators to overview. Per deletion review policy any administrator can undelete and overtrurn deletion. If you agree, it may be possible to return this article back to its proper place in mainspace. Thank you very much. Please advise me if there is any options for me left. A good article deserves to be in mainspace. I have provided proof it was a different article. This article is a great resource tool. A library of information. And belongs in mainspace. Please return this list to mainspace and explain on the talk it was not a recreation. In fact, it was a substantially different article. All in all, we should not reward people who take advantage of Misplaced Pages's openness who misrepresent the quality of an article just because they don't like it and who pretend it was a repost. Godspeed and hooray to Misplaced Pages!

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&oldid=99780515

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_1

Sincerely, :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet

Please block Sugarkisser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user has created a bunch of hoaxes just like the other likely sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot going crazy

The Bot that adds a date to the Citation Needed tags seems to be messing up an article I'm working on. See this version right after the Bot hit it. . All the refs in the article are messed up. Before the Bot did its thing, all the refs were fine. For now, I've deleted the Citation Needed tags. Wonder what's going on. TimidGuy 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the bot. The references in the article were...unorthodox. I'm working on fixing them up some. --ElKevbo 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Glad to know that the Bot is fine and that it's the editors who messed up. : ) TimidGuy 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Could somebody take a look at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker/sandbox? I do not think the editor intended to start that page after investigation. I have placed the csd tag, it has however been removed. Thanks in advance, Navou 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Neil ╦ 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

about the username Sinepgib

recently, the admin. Anthony.bradbury blocked the user Sinepgib for being inflamatory because it reads backwards, bigpeniS. I feel that this is going slightly out of control on the rules because I know people with the last name Fruck and there are plenty of people with the name Dick. That does not mean that they can not have usernames like that so why block Sinepgib. This username could mean millions of things and picking out an innapropriet is slighty out of hand. I feel that they should not be blocked for having an inflamatory username and should be unblocked. There has to be a limit to what is inflamatory. --Salnjm 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh what an interesting edit history for a new editor. --Fredrick day 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear the username is inappropriate. There are over a billion possible usernames... please chose another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser extremely flawed

The checkuser is extremely flawed. My roommate is over 1000 miles away from the location of a known bad apple. Yet the checkuser claims they are using that bad apple's IP.

I am not mentioning which case because I don't want to get involved (happened within the past week). They will just accuse me of being the same person as the bad apple. There is a certain gang mentality in certain parts of wikipedia. This is bad.

I expect to be blocked but a reasonable administrator would look into the matter unless they have a gang mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfulmind (talk • contribs)

<Quack quack> Well, logically, if someone's first edit is to ANI complaining about checkuser, they are highly likely to be someone blocked because of checkuser. Moreschi 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be related specifically to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anacapa. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checklist, let's see: New account's first edit is to complain about someone else (such as their roommate) being blocked. Check. Mention of corrupt admins. Check. Acknowledgement that people will suspect he's the same person as the blocked user. Check. Statement that a good admin would investigate instead of blocking this new account. Check. ChazBeckett 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, for obvious reasons. Block log message: "Goodbye". Moreschi 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an easy case to solve. Anaconda is in the University of California, Santa Barbara. Is that complainer near Santa Barbara? If not, checkuser is flawed. If so, checkuser is correct.

Feddhicks 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Kasun Ubayasiri. "PHD thesis" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.