Revision as of 19:52, 10 July 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Current issues

Archiving at talk:Creation science

I recently performed a cut-and-paste repair to the archive of this talk page, which was repeatedly reverted by a user whom I consequently blocked. I have received considerable flack since. I would appreciate other admins taking a careful look at my actions and giving me some feedback. I have placed an outline of my actions on my talk page, at User talk:Banno#The sequence of events.

In addition, the archiving of the page is now a mess. Some independent advice to the present editors might be appreciated. Banno 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the problem of the history of the talk page being removed, which caused considerable concern. Hopefully, the archiving is now getting back on track by agreement all round. .. dave souza, talk 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, despite the repetition of the same error by two people, one an Admin. Oh, forget it, this is a conversation that will go absolutely nowhere, and it's a shame. I think Banno was acting in AGF as far as the archiving (the block of ornis was bullshit and probably definitely an abuse of Admin powers), but he seems incapable of admitting that his rearchiving helped nothing, and only exacerbated a bad situation. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that, when Banno's "authority" was challenged, he reacted with threats, and then with blocks. If you make an honest mistake, as Banno appears to have done with the archiving, you don't make threats, you don't block people for fixing your mistakes, and if you claim you are acting because someone violated of some policy, the onus is on you to find a diff where the policy is actually being violated, something that Banno has refused to do. The simple fact is that Banno was edit-warring with CO (the editor he blocked) before the archiving and he admits to edit-warring with CO and Silly Rabbit over the archiving. So under no circumstances should he have even considered blocking. In the midst of a heated battle you should never block. There are hundreds of other admins on this site - making a highly dubious block in the middle of an edit war shows terrible judgment. Refusing to consider that you may have made a mistake, despite the intervention of 4 or more admins (and solid contributors like Jim and OM)...just because you're an admin doesn't mean you have the right to behave like George Bush. Guettarda 05:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem at the heart of this is that a couple of editors, acting in good faith, understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, then inviting other editors to add back current discussions. That's not my reading of the guidance, which appears to suggest that the archiver leaves or pastes back current discussions. A bit of patience all round and discussions before acting could have avoided a lot of upset, but of course that's easier said than done. The block of CO seems to have begun with a dispute over deleting off-topic trollish ramblings – that's sanctioned under WP:TALK, and in my opinion the block should be formally withdrawn to leave CO's reputation unblemished. Of course I've been known to make mistakes, and so these can only be suggestions. .. dave souza, talk 08:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered comments. It's not the case that I had understood WP:ARCHIVE to favour archiving the whole talk page, but rather that pretty much all of the then-recent discussion (in the few days before this happened) had been contained inside the "trollish ramblings", and had been removed by CO himself. That is, it's not that I chose not to re-insert them because of a misunderstanding of policy, but because they appeared to be several days old, and so not recent discussion. But since this was a value judgement, I did invite the editors to re-insert any discussion that they wished to continue, and offered to help them in doing so. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I continue to think that CO's editing was disruptive, I now accept that it was more likely to be the result of ignorance of the archiving process on his part rather than deliberate malice, and that I acted hastily in blocking him. I will formally withdraw the block. Thank you Dave, for providing an independent opinion. Banno 11:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd hope that settles everything. These articles are part of a very touchy debate, as Talk Radio Evolution points out rather eloquently, and when dealing with what appears to be trolling we should try to remember Grey's Law. ... dave souza, talk 11:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of Hanlon's razor as I wrote my comment above. I promise to take it into account, and to count to ten before I block someone next time. Thank you for finally completing the archiving task. Banno 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Talk Radio Evolution, too. As a foreigner, I've always found the apparent inability of America to come to terms with evolution, and the level of passion it arouses, a bit of a puzzle. Banno 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta, it's really quite extraordinary and as an outsider I too find it hard to grasp the extent of the anti-evolution mindset. .. dave souza, talk 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this issue appeared at one stage to be resolved, Orangemarlin and User:Jim62sch have chosen to escalate it at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Banno. Again, I'd appreciate any independent comment. Banno 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox criminal

Use of Infobox criminal in the upper right corner of an article generally is reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murders, old west outlaws, convicted murders, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, and mobsters. Infobox criminal also is use as a secondary Infobox in the middle of articles, such as Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. I went through all the current uses of Infobox criminal and believe that it's use violates WP:NPOV and to some extend WP:BLP in the following 12 articles:

• Andrzej Lepper -
• Bernard Ebbers -
• E. Howard Hunt -
• G. Gordon Liddy -
• Jack Abramoff -
• Jeffrey Skilling -
• Kenneth Lay -
• Lewis Libby -
• Mark Whitacre -
• Michael P. Fay -
• Samuel D. Waksal -
• Webster Hubbell -

By positioning Infobox criminal as the main infobox in the article, it singles out a relatively small aspect in comparison to the overall lives of these people to give undue weight to that criminal aspect of his/her life. This seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Some of these individuals have significant fame, so WP:BLP might be a secondary concern rather than a primary concern. Also, there may be a political motivation for such Infobox criminal use. I think the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be resolved if Infobox criminal for these 12 articles reduced to a secondary use, as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay corruption investigation. If you agree with my assessment for any of the above 12 articles, please consider tackling the issue at that article and the entrenched political motivations that may come with it. Please comment next to the name above if the matter is resolved. -- Jreferee 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the articles are properly referenced, I see no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues with the use of {{Infobox Criminal}} on individuals convicted of felony charges (Bernard Ebbers, Jack Abramoff, etc.) --Kralizec! (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and ... Jack Abramoff? -- Jreferee 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate infobox for specific types of criminals (white collar, racketeering, serial criminals)?--Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jreferee's view that if the person is notable on there own the criminal infobox should just be used in a later section. That being said, it may be difficult to determine if certain people were notable before they committed a criminal act or really only because of it (e.g. Scotter Libby would probably not have been heard of by 99% of the public but for the charge and conviction although he was probably notable before conviction). Remember 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the US criminal code does not differentiate between "kinda bad felons" and "really bad felons" (which are ultimately just value judgments). However it strikes me as being a bit over the top that someone like Winona Ryder would warrant a {{Infobox Criminal}} since her felony convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if a person is convicted of a felony (not a misdemeanor), the info box is appropriate. Note my suggestion above about creating separate types of criminal infoboxes.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having different infoboxes for different criminal convictions really is the best idea, as any attempt to screen out "white collar" crimes (such as those of Martha Stewart, Lewis Libby, etc.) will also remove the infobox from people like Al Capone (who was ultimately only convicted of tax evasion). --Kralizec! (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the definition of the word criminal: "A person convicted of a crime" with the added[REDACTED] stipulation that it was a notable crime. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just a name of an infobox...a template that the average reader doesn't see. It could be named {{Infobox of male people}} and it would still do its function – transclude useful information. hbdragon88 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always been under the belief that that infobox was used solely for the articles dealing with persons notable only for their crimes, not persons who are notable for other reasons besides a crime they have committed. Winona Ryder, for instance who is known for her acting career not her criminal career. It also seems rather random to have that infobox appear in the midst of her article when that information is already covered in a section. For someone like Jeffrey Dahmer having that information displayed at the top, near the lead paragraph, helps give an annotated version of what makes his criminal career notable. --Ozgod 00:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The prominence of placement of such infobox in the above articles is what is raising the WP:NPOV. -- Jreferee 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is a lot more interesting than I thought - I thought it was going to be vandalism of the George Bush article. Although the US criminal code does not distinguish between different crimes for calling them felonies, we do. That's why we are an encyclopedia. Just like the the Actor's Guild does not distinguish between different kinds of actors and yet we use the Presidents infobox for Ronald Reagan, not the one for actors. It is still up to us to assess for POV concerns whether a bio fairly balances the overall achievements of a famous person. Having said that, the people in the list are known primarily for their crimes. Nobody would have any idea who Lewis Libby, Jeff Skilling, or Kenneth Lay are but for their notoriety as criminals. Although you could argue that their criminal deeds were but a small aspect of their life's work, one could also argue that their crimes had a bigger effect on the world and its culture than everything else put together. You go over that line when you get to people like Martha Stuart or James Brown and of course Paris Hilton and every other star who gets a misdemeanor or felony DUI. Whatever their crimes, they are not as notable as their accomplishments.Wikidemo 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Bethell

I've stumbled across this page which has been blanked due to BLP concerns. Can someone take a fresh look to see what needs to be done; either revert or delete the page. Thanks Kernel Saunters 11:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as G7. The original author removed the entire article and replaced it with something that was obviously not able to be kept. That looks like a G7 to me. Chick Bowen 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it might be possible to write a appropriate article about the guy, if the unsourced assertions are true. Try finding some reliable sources and maybe prepare a version at User:Kernel Saunters/Sandbox that's appropriate given WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and it could be put up without difficulty. Cheers, WilyD 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While Chick Bowen was correct in giving a G7 to the version that he saw, there is a previous history of the article in which it was in a much better state. See the entry called 'Vincent Bethell' in Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9. At one time a fairly balanced and neutral article existed. The problem was that the subject kept trashing the article, alternating between self-promotion and simple vandalism, and demanding that he be allowed to control what was in the entry. User:Vincent bethell was indefinitely blocked by User:Nick on 5 June, and the block seems fully justified. This user also edits via IP addresses, and that must be how he messed up the article again. I suggest that the history be restored, and that we go back to a neutral version and semi-protect that one, and keep User:Vincent bethell blocked. The last version that I could see did not appear to raise BLP issues, since there was nothing very alarming, and in any case this is someone who seeks out press coverage to promote nudist issues, even risking arrest to do so.

Take a look at the version at answers.com to see a surviving fragment of the neutral version of this article, overlayed with a bunch of POV edits by the subject. (The good version was much better than this one). EdJohnston 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that there was stuff in that history that Walton monarchist89 felt it necessary to expunge, which is why the earliest revision in the history at the time I deleted it was by User:Vincent bethell. I understand why it's frustrating to lose the work, but given that I don't see any way to preserve the GFDL-neccessary info without undeleting everything, and that doesn't seem ideal either, it seems to me the best thing would be to start over. There's been no afd and the title isn't protected, so a carefully sourced, WP:BLP-compliant article can be written now. I know this isn't an ideal solution either, so I'm happy to be shot as the messenger here. Chick Bowen 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "find it necessary to expunge" anything. The article was tagged for speedy, as it was full of nonsense; I speedied it, but only then noticed that there was a much better version in the history, so I restored it. Subsequent deletions are nothing to do with me. Walton 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been replaced by a protected redirect. See User_talk:Kernel Saunters#Vincent Bethell for details. EdJohnston 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your entries in the logs, then, Walton (since you didn't restore all the revisions, I assumed you meant to remove things from the history). It was a troublesome article from the start, because of edit-warring about personal info. As Ed says, it's now a redirect, and I think that's best unless (as I said above) someone wants to take it over. Chick Bowen 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunn O)))

I noted on the talk page at Sunn O))) that as the "O)))" part of the name is a representation (and not a really accurate one) of a picture / logo rather than a word it should not be included in the title of the Misplaced Pages article, and Sunn (band) would be the way forward. One editor described the O))) as an "ASCII picture" which strikes me as something we really shouldn't allow. Of course, the fans of the band who edit the page seem to be of the opinion that this should be an exception, despite the fact that the manual of style disallows such interpretations of stylistic features. Any thoughts? I'd like to be clear about this kind of thing for future reference. Deiz talk 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The NYT calls them "Sunn0)))" a bunch of times. I think it would be reasonable to use the name that the NewYorkTimes uses. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this further, it looks like in the Outsideleft.com interview they are referred to as "Sunn 0)))" and their official website refers to them as "sunn 0)))". The "0)))" seems to be officially part of the name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that the letter O or a zero? howcheng {chat} 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's edit-war over it for a few months. --Carnildo 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{PD-font}}

I don't think many people have that template watchlisted, so I am going to seek consensus for the proposed change here. Scalar fonts are considered computer programs and hence copyrightable whereas raster fonts are considered text and hence pd-ineligible. I am seeking consensus to change from the current wording to something like "This does not include images from raster fonts that have been converted to SVG, nor does it include bitmapped images of raster fonts" because as I understand it the original vector coding itself is what is copyrighted, not any image you can produce from the font. This is the same reasoning that allows AMD to copy Intel chips...the circuitry of the chips is copyrighted but the circuit logic is not. Any alternate circuit that produces the same results can be produced legally. -N 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at Template talk:PD-font, and encourage others to comment there (as opposed to here) as well. --Iamunknown 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe WT:ICT is the correct location for this notice. howcheng {chat} 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History merge help

In Brian Whelahan, I attempted a history merge. Can someone review my efforts and explain to me how to handle history merges in the future where there are edits in the source article after the cut and paste move? Jesse Viviano 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• It looks fine. I think you should be okay if you just move the articles in question to the same spot, then restore all deleted edits (unless in rare situations where an edit contains personal info and should stay deleted). --W.marsh 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep. In the basic case (two pages to be merged, no deleted edits, no splitting to be done, no distinctions to be made), you can just move the one page over the target, which will delete the target; then, restore deleted edits, and make sure the currently displayed page version is the right one. Personally, I recommend copy-pasting the preferred version to Notepad or a similar application before moving things around, it can get a bit confusing once everything turns into redirects. ;) If there are deleted edits present, or other issues, things can get much more complicated. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious userpage

Compare the new User:Similaun0807 with User:GTBacchus. THF 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

people do clone userpages from time to time.Geni 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

appears to be a subtle vandalism account, duplicating same tactics as User:William Reid Blyton, also a cloned userpage. THF 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde? I'll take to AN/I. THF 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't discuss this further. Obvious User:Panairjdde sockpuppets. --Palffy 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? Userpage cloning isn't something used for sock accusation. Wooyi 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is his contributions. He creates a sock with a similar name to the one he had blocked recently, User:Similaun, and begins his "WP life" by reverting my reverts of User:Panairjdde sockpuppet edits (see contributions). --Palffy 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into it. Thanks. Wooyi 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But regardless of whether or not you agree that he's a sockpuppet of Panairjdde, it's clearly not a good idea to revert back to a user page that claims that the user is an administrator and gives names of 24 articles he has worked on, when the contributions show that he registered that day, and has a total of five article edits. By the way, a checkuser has now blocked him indefinitely as a Panairjdde sock. ElinorD (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, creepy. I've never seen someone try to get away with something by pretending to be me before. Did he really think that was going to work? Perhaps I should feel honored?? -GTBacchus 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's an annoying habit he's gotten into, thinking he can avoid his sock blocks by pretending to be credible. Not sure if you really want to be honored by a person who's gone through this. ;)) --Palffy 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect you to keep a lid on your impersonators, in the future! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting response from StormRider

I have yet to be notified as to wheather or not StormRider will be allow to get away with making completly and blatanly Racist remarks about American Indians. I will not contirbute to a site that allows this kind of behavior. He himself even admits that it is racist and continued the personal attacks on the administrators page by accusing me of Trolling. If Misplaced Pages is going to allow this kind of behavior then I will have no choice but to consider Misplaced Pages a fellow contributor to the spread and condonment of racism.--Billiot 13:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diff-links that show where he made those comments? Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the edits of one person means that the entire editing base of 10,000 is racist. Yeah, thats a logical conclusion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (striking out my own incivility... sorry, my comments were uncalled for. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

• I'm going to leave you a note about this issue on your talk page. Perhapse we can find some common ground between you and User:Storm Rider. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see there's been some discussion, after this; as far as this board is concerned, it seems to be resolved, for the time being. Feel free to make additional reports as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza

I just changed the protection level to full protection because of edit warring going on among registered users. Would someone take a look and let me know if you think my decision was correct? Thanks JodyB _talk 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I don't think it's needed. User:Narinen needs blocking for WP:3RR and what amounts to vandalism. This is a fringe viewpoint trying to push over the article from an unreliable source, not standard edit warring. Ben W Bell talk 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back to semi after talking with other admins and after the editor was blocked. Thanks for your input. JodyB _talk 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Looking at the edit history, I counted at least 28 reverts so far today and at least ten socks. Someone sure has an axe to grind! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a dynamic IP, or open proxies? Is there any reason he's not permabanned? - hahnchen 12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for checkusers to block the IP address(es) involved, if possible; until then, or if not, we can only be vigilant. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page?

I'm not sure if this is the right place, so apologies if not... The user page User:Felker30 seems to violate WP policy, WP:NOT etc (and is a little bit creepy). The user has made no edits except to this user page and uploading images for the user page. --Belovedfreak 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as per Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:T--top

I have listed User:T--top at MfD, but this really should be speedy deleted. Not only is it nothing more than some sort of community notice board, but it's got some serious BLP violations there, as well. The supposed User associated with the page only has edits to one article outside of the User page in the several months that this page has been here. Corvus cornix 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion - Democide

An outside admin would be helpful on the Articles for Deletion, Democide page . I do not think the majority of the participants understand the issue with Misplaced Pages:Avoid Neologisms that brought the deletion case. Abe Froman 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. Corvus cornix 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I posted this in one place, here. That is labeled "acceptable" in WP:CANVASS. Abe Froman 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this is not a place to make such a request. You're asking administrators to come and support your reading of a Manual of Style guideline. That's not what this noticeboard is for. Leebo /C 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Long-term abuse from a floating IP

The permabanned editor Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just can't seem to kick the Misplaced Pages habit. He edits from the Tiscali DSL IP pool in the UK (apparently 88.108.0.0/14, though Tiscali officially owns all the way out to 88.104.0.0/13), usually anonymously. (Occasionally he will go to the trouble of creating sleeper socks so that he can edit semiprotected pages or engage in pagemove vandalism.)

• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Light current
• Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Light current

Typically his abuse appears on the Reference Desks and associated pages, but he will also show up on the user and user talk pages of admins who revert his edits.

• Today's history of the Science Ref Desk: . Note large number of edits (reverted) from 88.108.* - 88.111.*.
• History of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guidelines: . Note large number of sleeper sockpuppets used to evade semiprotection.
• Move log for User:TenOfAllTrades
• Move log for User:Friday

The guy's obviously got problems, but I'm not sure what our next step is. Revert-block-ignore is of limited effectiveness due to the floating IP. There are technical limitations in place to prevent me placing a rangeblock of the entire /14 involved; even if that weren't the case, I'd be hesitant to place such a substantial block. (Is there someone who can work some database magic to determine if much useful stuff does come from IPs in that range?)

I also have his email address from dealing with him before his permaban; it provides the name of his Tiscali account, and presumably represents his (or his father's) real-world name.

I would welcome any suggestions or advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he's promised to be back tomorrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we send it to WP:ABUSE for an ISP investigation? -- ReyBrujo 23:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Short of blocking half of Tiscali's IP addresses, an ISP complaint may be the best way forward. I wonder if Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/88.109.x.x 88.110.x.x and 88.111.x.x Ranges is LC's doing also? Rockpocket 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but I don't know that Light current has ever demonstrated an interest in the Malamute. Perhaps there are two nuisances in the one IP range? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a report at WP:ABUSE: Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. Additional comment/correction/expansion is welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving

I cannot move pages on the English Misplaced Pages. On the Simple English Wikpedia, I can move pages, but somehow, on the English Misplaced Pages, I do not have the "Move" tab on my account. Please explain. I am a newbie (on both wikipedias), but I have been on Simple longer than I have here. --bibliotheque (Talk) 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account has to be at least four days old to be able to move pages on the English Misplaced Pages. I don't know what the policies are on Simple English.-gadfium 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They are much...simpler. HA HA. *flees* hbdragon88 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any bored admins?

PROD has a 2 day backlog, and there are plenty of NowCommons deletions to take care of :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm game! ;) Phaedriel - 08:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Have started Riana. Thanks for the heads-up. --VS 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too, for fear of incurring Riana's wrath --Steve _(Stephen) 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*cracks whip and cackles insanely* Good work, all ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, too. Though Riana is always welcome to hurt me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not as welcome as I thought, I internal error-ed with you a few times last night :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You all have way too much fun :). That's why I like ya! **Heads back to prod deletions** Jmlk17 05:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no board admin jokes, there needs to be a board admin joke. Prodego 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Or seems to be. Remove if not.

Resolved – talk page moved to proper location

Resolved – deleted article and page history restored

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards