Revision as of 23:11, 31 October 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

WP:TURNIP

A new essay. Durova 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that picture a radish? — iridescent 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it straight from the turnip article. Durova 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might go well with some MUSTARD. Will 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And BEANS... Caknuck 06:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"WP:TURNIP" is fine as a shortcut, but the essay itself needs a more meaningful title than "Misplaced Pages:Turnip". Hesperian 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Durova 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the whole crew is here. El_C 04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems Misplaced Pages has to have an essay on every old saying. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..Durova, have anyone in mind I wonder when you wrote this? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of the workshop at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar in particular, but really it's a culmination of a lot of experience and mistakes (in some cases my own mistakes). We may hope a difficult editor will reform, but creative initiatives intended to foster reform really have a very low batting average unless that editor expresses an intention to reform. More often, the effort extended on that person's behalf is a waste of everybody's time. Durova 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess WP:GONZO is not far behind -- "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- llywrch 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Qst (talk · contribs)

I'd like to request community input into Qst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's been three months now since he was banned, and after talking to him on IRC, I strongly believe he now understands his mistakes, and believe he could come back as a constructive user like he once was. He actually sounds very sincere about how he acted previously. There have also been no further instances of sockpuppetry since the ban started. I'd like to have the community ban removed under two strict conditions;

1. He is placed under community civility parole - any administrator may block him for upto one week if any of his edits are deemed to be incivil.
2. He is placed under mediation - he has already agreed on IRC that I could be his mediator.

I really hope that as a community we can forgive a user that although has made mistakes, did give a lot to the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we also ban him from interacting with "certain" editors? -- John Reaves 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's workable in a collaberative environment - the civility parole should cover that anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little idealistic, but I say we give him a last chance. -- John Reaves 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear what others say, but I think it's a good idea to unban him if he is truly sorry about his actions. He actually did make a lot of good edits in his time here. I support the unblock and unban, but at the same time, also support a re-instatement of them if he strays back into the behavior that got him banned in the first place. I assume he'd be editing under the Qst account as well? Acalamari 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He wanted to start a fresh account and let a couple of trusted users know the name of the account - I made it clear that this was not going to happen, so yes, he would be editing under the Qst account. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine then; I didn't think he would get to edit under a new account or one of the others. Acalamari 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I supported his ban, but I'd also support letting him resume editing. One further suggested condition would be a prohibition on running for adminship for several (at least 6, preferably 9-12) months. Much of his problematic behaviour emerged in conjunction with his RFAs. -- Flyguy649 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I too would be willing to allow Qst a chance to come back and edit, and to reintegrate himself into the community, because, following my discussion with him on IRC, I believe that he is truly sorry and has realised his mistakes. I also agree with FlyGuy's idea in relation to RFA; that seemed to be the source of the problem last time. However, if he can prove his stability, if he can successfully prove his ability to administrate, he may yet make a good sysop sometime in the future. -- Anonymous Dissident 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that his RfA's normally cause him to be disruptive, so I would certainly endorse no RfA's for 6 months. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, an unban sounds ok, with the civility parole for a period of time, I see no need for RfA prohibition since any RfAs the community dislikes will be unsuccessful anyway. GDonato (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1.) We need to know what his username is. 2.) He needs to completely stay away from the editors who he has been in conflict with (me, Riana, Moreschi, etc.) 3.) Put on RFA probation 1 year. After this, I can not see giving this person any more chances, because he has exhausted my and others patiences. Another sock made after he disrupts if he is unbanned and placed on parole, indef. ban. Miranda 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't make him stay away from users in a collaborative environment. The civility parole would mean that if he approached those editors in a an incivil manor, he would get blocked. Let's be honest though, some of those users who he went mad at did inflame the situation and weren't the most civil themselves. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note, Miranda, that he will be editing under the name Qst. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent/edid conflict) To others, let us remind ourselves why he is banned. He has also sent harassing e-mails to people after he was banned, which to me was very disrespectful, but I apologize I cannot forgive what he did. I know that you may be friends with him, Ryan, but I cannot interact with Qst anymore due to running out of patience with him. How many apologies/chances are we going to give him until we are going to be firm and say, "we are through with this, sorry but due to your behavior, you are not welcome to edit"? I have seen users who make lesser offenses and given fewer chances than Qst and are banned indef. Miranda 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He got banned after a tiny discussion. I'm not friends with him, I think he's been a dick at some points, but as I said previously, other users didn't help the situation and often made it worse - it takes two to tango. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It may take two to tango, but let's not forget how many chances Qst has already had: Qst, The Sunshine Man, Rlest, Ds.mt, and maybe I'm missing one or two. I'd say Qst represented more than just one person in this tango. - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict...that's the one I missed. - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Aquasplash was the other one, which he used very briefly. Acalamari 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with an unban provided he uses a declared account and any administrator (even those who "dealt" with him last time) can apply one week blocks for any incivility, personal attacks, etc., and the ban becomes one year after five blocks (following traditional RfAr enforcement). This 'parole' extends to reverting to readd comments on other people's tak pages in addition to any incivility towards anyone. Sarcastic "Ha ha, I'm back" comments included.

Furthermore, any sockpuppetry, vandalism etc. incurs an immediate indefinite ban, with no avenue of community appeal. I would also agree to a twelve-month RfA parole, but looking at it Qst will never be granted administrator rights within the next couple of years, so it's no worries. Daniel 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with Qst on a number of occasions, and I found that he had good intentions (most of the time), but he always screwed up along the way. I think an unblock is appropriate, permitted he is placed on civility parole. Any future violations of Misplaced Pages policy (namely sockpuppetry, vandalism, civility) will result in a unquestionable indefinite ban. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment on the proposed RFA ban. The reason I am suggesting this is not because I think he would pass (it would take a very long time for him to recover from several blocks and a community ban). It is to protect User:QST from himself. I hope, if the ban is overturned, he comes back and contributes positively. But I don't want him to confuse "things going well" with the possibility for a successful RFA. If he starts an RFA I am concerned that the problems would resurface. So the RFA ban is merely to ensure that he understands that adminship is not an attainable goal for some time. -- Flyguy649 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an unblock on the conditions noted at User:Daniel/Qst Provisions, and these only. Daniel 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that civility parole and mentorship are enough - civility was his only cause of disruption, not revert warring really. I've studied Qst quite a bit and I think the other paroles are a little too much. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's provisions to unblock this user. And, Ryan, yes, he did revert war. Miranda 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The revert-warring was for other user's talk pages, so I have qualified it. Daniel 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Input: Terms of unblocking (probation)

Actually, simply this provision:-

Qst (talk · contribs) is placed on civility parole for two years. If he makes any edits which are judged by any administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, provocative in nature, readding removed comments, or dickish in nature, then he may be blocked for a period up to one week at the blocking administrator's discretion. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Much simpler. Daniel 01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair, but I would decrease it to one year. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

<mediation>18 months? Daniel 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I guess if he's been an angel after a year he can always request it to be shortened. 18 months it is then if everyone else agrees. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user's "final chance" should consist of five chances at which point he's blocked for a year. Personally, I support him being allowed to edit again iff he knows that if he is disruptive again, that he will be indefinitely blocked. --Deskana (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Qst off-Misplaced Pages and have observed his increasing maturity over the month, and agree with very little hesitation that he could now be allowed back into our community, albeit placed under very close supervision for the initial period. He seems to have seen his errors and is willing to correct them. I agree to the terms of the parole laid out above (and believe, from my previous conversations with him, that he believes these to be fair also), but I think 6 months of parole is more than enough - it's a long time on Misplaced Pages. (A few months and he's almost a different person, now. It's a long time when you're a teenager too, you do a lot of growing up). ~ Riana ⁂ 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC) edited 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Further Comment - Its good to see that this prolific editor will be back editing on Misplaced Pages. He had issues which was mentioned above and while chatting with him on IRC and through e-mail, he has shown that he is remorseful for what he has done and and as Ryan noted he will return as a constructive editor and as far as his adminship dream, hehe, it will remain unfulfilled for I believe 1 year (that will be good enough) and Ryan is a really a good Mediator and his interaction with Qst has been excellent and he might just as well steer him to a better path..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment – Like Riana, I have also talked to Qst off-wiki, and feel he is genuinely sorry for the actions he made under his accounts. He is growing in maturity, and is very meticulous about what he says. The provisions were prudently made and should help him become a functional member of Misplaced Pages again, as is his wont. Yes, he revert-warred; yes, he was a dick at some times; yes, he was uncivil at some times. But we've all been or done those things at one point or another in our wiki-lives. I have one more condition that may not be liked by some, though I will lay it out to be discussed: Qst is barred from violating any of the provisions off-wiki as well. Multiple infractions may result in a block not more than 48 hours in duration (note that this will not count toward the possibility of the one-year block). (This is purely precautionary, as some people will inevitably try to bait him on and off-wiki about various matters.) Other than that, I have no further things to say, and wish to welcome Qst back into the community. Regards, —Animum (etc.) 13:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from PrestonH - I talk to Qst via IRC chat, and I believe Qst has cooled down and has learned his lesson. Based on the fact that he is prone to trolling after RfA, I can support his unblock under two conditions...

1. Put on civility parole for at least 6 months. He has cooled down but who knows what will happen next.
2. Put on RfA parole for a year based on what I said above.

He is a great user and I wish Qst would be back in the community soon. PrestonH 16:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that Qst be allowed to edit his talk page, so that people who are not IRC regulars can have a chance to talk to him? --Iamunknown 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Qst was unprotected about 12 hours ago, so I don't see why he can't use it now. -- Flyguy649 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for point that out, I did not notice it. --Iamunknown 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this party, I know, but for the record, I support unbanning and I agree with the terms outlined by Ryan in the link in the next section. Personally, I think two years is way too long; I don't know if we've had two year paroles (I haven't noticed one before) is but it seems most paroles are up to a year and for the sake of fairness and consistency, I think the decision to stick with one year is fair. Sarah 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbanned

I've unbanned Qst per these conditions, I've shortened the parole to 1 year, per consensus and my own belief that anything grater isn't required. I hope everyone can work constructively with Qst now and refraid provoking him. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope Qst can work constructively with everyone and refrain from feeling provoked by little things. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. I'll hold off on my "what did you expect?" comments, but expect them to appear soon. Corvus cornix 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's got several people willing to give him another chance. Please at least extend him the courtesy of not appearing to "wait" for for a reason to reblock him. It causes undue stress to all involved. Picaroon (t) 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware the Vandalbot

Just a heads up, there's a vandalbot using open proxies which has been very active recently. Examples: 81.201.58.55 (talk · contribs), 80.190.245.164 (talk · contribs), 208.48.253.137 (talk · contribs), 140.128.20.205 (talk · contribs), 213.85.226.110 (talk · contribs), 69.227.233.133 (talk · contribs). Please keep an eye out for this very distinctive type of edit and block (or report to AIV) on sight. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• 66.210.246.144 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 217.66.212.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 59.14.174.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

A few more. MER-C 09:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Those three now blocked and one that I blocked earlier as a simple vandal now has an extended block. WODUP  09:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked the following:

• 192.18.100.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 85.97.7.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Hut 8.5 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

THe same one (or one very like it) has been targetting the Literate programming wiki too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it should be too hard to program our anti-vandal bots to detect this. Has anyone contacted their maintainers yet? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've now got an IRC bot grepping the recentchanges feed for suspicious edits. Just caught 218.110.80.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that way. Working on a HTTP front end to do automatic reporting and reverting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also 204.90.101.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which curiously has some valid recent edits. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I now have a very quickly written antivandalbot running as Apostrobot (talk · contribs) (an old account I'd previously registered for a different bot project). I don't think it's going to run amok, but do keep an eye on it... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross wiki phenomena for what it's worth, been very active on en wb, en wq & Commons in exactly the same way, probably elsewhere --Herby 10:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspected so, from the sporadic editing. I'll try to extend the code to handle multiple wikis, but that'll take a bit more work yet, both technically and to figure out how to handle stuff like reporting the IPs on different wikis. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a bot or other automation that doesn't require a recent changes feed to IRC, and doesn't require using the API? Two small non WMF wikis I help out at are being hit by this (as are many others we are not aware of I am sure) and setting up an IRC feed or changing the installation to enable the API may be beyond their maintainers skill levels. I wrote some crude perl code (with some considerable help from Eagle_101, thanks!!!) that helps me revert and block more quickly but it still requires a human to look at things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent versions of MediaWiki have the API on by default, I think. --ais523 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one of these wikis I know for sure is too old to even HAVE the API and the other doesn't have it either, I don't think. Even so, I'm not sure how one would set up the IRC feed needed for the other part of using a modern bot like Ilmari wrote. The code I have uses the perl MediaWiki package to fetch the recent changes page (via HTTP) and parse it out to figure out what is going on, it's not very reliable at this point. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got code for accessing a wiki without the use of the API. If someone could give me the vandal-detection code, I'll see about integrating the two. --Carnildo 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Brion came up with an improvement on a fix I'd suggested to him: as of about two hours ago, we've been serving CAPTCHAs to confirm any edits that look like the vandalbot. So the problem seems to have been solved for now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-vandalbot-bot did a great job. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment

It seems that a lecturer/tutor at Macquarie University has set his students an assignment which involves adding contributions to Misplaced Pages (see page 25 of this).

In recent days, this has resulted in large numbers of bad-quality, unsourced, POV essay-like edits from multiple new accounts (all containing "mas214" in the username); see e.g. the following edit histories: , , . (There are too many affected articles to list them all here...)

This was originally suspected as sockpuppetry, hence User:Icairns reported it here: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/TUMAS214; this report contains a list of the accounts involved (20 so far).

Any ideas on how to deal with this? Using Misplaced Pages as a testbench as part of a coursework assignment is just bad form; should we contact the tutor involved?

Regards, Oli Filth 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just treat them as normal editors, explaining how they can improve the quality of their contributions. A.Z. 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that these particular students will never use these accounts again, hence, will never read their talk pages, etc. But this problem will recur every time this course is run, which is why I suggest that the tutor be contacted. Oli Filth 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tried that. The problem is they disappear as soon as they're done with their work, and none have them have tried to talk to any of us. The main problem, I think, is the root of this -- they're writing essays to put into wiki articles, which just isn't kosher because essays are POV'd almost by definition. I think the professor needs to understand and explain to the students that they should be adding cited facts, not essays. If they do that then this would be a great way to have the encyclopedia improved once a semseter. Gscshoyru 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict — The response depends in part on what the assignment was, I think. This could be used as a learning experience in the area of collaborative working or the value of business rules (only using the term as it's generic = specifications for action and contribution) as part of an information product. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to give into the temptation of blocking the users and forgetting about it, but that's not really in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I believe we should contact the course tutor and tell them that Misplaced Pages is free- they can make their own copy of relevant articles and host them on their own server for people to add to. Or if the tutor insists their students should add to Misplaced Pages, we should inform them they'll keep getting blocked and reverted if they don't follow our policies. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they are any different than other new users who don't understand what we are about. 1 != 2 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the individual users are transient. It's the fact that they're being "forced" by a tutor to edit en masse. In effect, it's organised vandalism (albeit non-malicious). Oli Filth 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the "forced" comment - this would appear to not be a voluntary editing activity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana, and the forced comment -- and additionally, Until, the other major difference is that they post what they need to and then disappear, and never see the comments we leave them. Gscshoyru 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting and leaving is common amongst new users. It is a good idea to contact the university, but I don't think these users pose any sort of unique challenge to us. 1 != 2 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true. However, it theoretically has the possibility of becoming a constructive source of content. Which is why... we should contact the instructor. I think we're all agreed on the "contact the instructor part." Gscshoyru 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like all new users they have a tremendous potential to add to Misplaced Pages. We also have the opportunity to influence their behavior and expectations before they edit and never come back which is a good thing. 1 != 2 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see the problem as he essentialy lets his students loose after telling them "here's how you create an account, here's how you edit, now go wild". If the assigment did at least mention ever so briefly, say, if I can only choose two, at least wp:npov and wp:v... I think that properly handled, these assignments could potentially be a positive contribution to wikipedia. Does anybody know if he himself is a wikipedia editor?--victor falk 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a professor, this whole thing intrigues me. I was thinking of having my students next semester do an assignment where they had to add one cited sentence to a relevant wikipedia article. Is this not welcome? I think an assignment like this could benefit both wikipedia and the students. Or is it just an issue with the specific assignment? Rangek 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it has the potential to be useful, I think that in all probability, forcing a bunch of newbie editors to go round making edits may result in more harm than good. The above is an example of this! From the professor's point of view, I don't understand how this could make a good assignment; why does it have to involve editing a public website? What's wrong with normal essays? If the students get an essay wrong, no-one else has to sort out the mess. Oli Filth 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is much easier to grade 200 sentences added to wikipedia than it is to grade 200 2-3 page essays. Plus, I would hope that if the student added nonsense to wikipedia the professor would revert it as they graded it. (Eliminating or at least minimizing the "someone else sorting out the mess" aspect.) Also, I would think it a public service to add a hundred or so cited, relevant, sentences to wikipedia. Scholarship (even in this most modest form) should be shared, not just relegated to the classroom. I also think that it would make the students work harder, since their work will be "in the public eye". Rangek 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With no disrepect intended, if 200 essays is too much work, then why not get the students to each hand a sentence in on a piece of paper? Regarding the "professor reverting", as we've just seen, inevitably that's not what would happen. In this case it took 3 or 4 editors to figure out what was going on and try to undo 2 weeks' worth of damage. And unless the prof happens to be an experienced Wiki editor, they're probably not in the best position to judge what is/isn't appropriate for Wiki. I agree that scholarship shouldn't be consigned to the classroom, but at the same time, Misplaced Pages isn't a testbed for experimentation and foul-ups that professors should be falling back on to save themselves some effort. If the students' work is good enough, then add it once it's been graded! Oli Filth 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit on something here. It could be some kind of wikiproject maybe? If mentored properly it could be a great way of fostering good editors. Here's some interesting info Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2006-12-26/Wikipedia and academia Just a caveat: I'm afraid it could increase the risk of articles becoming academic instead of encyclopedic.--victor falk 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Misplaced Pages:School_and_university_projects#Suggested_exercises there seems to be a project just like I was thinking of doing, i.e., having students add cited sentences to wikipedia articles. I don't think we have to worry about "articles becoming 'academic' instead of 'encyclopedic'" with contriubutions from an introductory level class. Rangek 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth making some kind of an effort to track all these university-lead edits? I know that a friend of mine has a similar assignment task at his university, involving editing wikipedia. Although this has some potential to really improve wikipedia, i do wonder if we should compile a list of known assignment tasks and which topics they cover, to help us keep an eye out for a flood of bad edits. As a side note, does this in a way fall under the category of meatpuppets? Hugzz 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you folks have eventually found, the question of how to deal with students, professors and assignments in Misplaced Pages is not new. I was one of the folks who kicked this off in 2003, and as you can see from the above page it can be pulled off successfully. I hope you will not go with your earlier sentiment and try to prevent this type of dynamic from happening. Professors need to give good guidelines and learn about the Misplaced Pages community culture, rather than just telling students, "Go wild," but you should know it can be done well. As to the earlier comment by Oli Filth, despite what you'd think, grading stuff on Misplaced Pages is about 5x harder than grading individual handed-in assignments. Think of tracking what account is what student, doing all the diffs, figuring out the quality of an edit versus others, et al. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been using Misplaced Pages now with my students this semester and it is really a great experience for English as a foreign language students. We have had to adapt to Misplaced Pages culture as well as improving writing skills. My class fits in well with the notion of taking time to adapt the students (and the teacher) to Misplaced Pages norms but I can understand why some classes may not want to "waste" time in that way.Thelmadatter 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the instructor yet? There is still a lot of this stuff coming in. - Ehheh 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If no one has then I think I shall do so. And the assignment is due today, so it'll stop after today. But it'll make us better off next semester if we explain this. Gscshoyru 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the useful things about school assignments is that we have the potential to explain to the teacher how to do it, who then will show the students. Our present tutorial material are actually quite useful for this, especially WP:FIRST. But if anyone wants to a specialized page, let me know and I'll help. One of the problems they have is finding appropriate topics that are course related. for some course it might be tricky, but I think anyone experienced here could help make suggestion--mine would tend to be bios.--it's adaptable to almost any course subject. (It occurs to me that we might have a button for "missing articles possibly related to this one") DGG (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing backlinks to deleted articles

Maxim (talk · contribs) spent some time today removing backlinks to articles that had been deleted because of expired PRODs. However, some of the removals were from User space, WikiProject space, and AfD space. Is this considered acceptable? It seems to me that this sort of thing should be confined to mainspace. Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you raised it with him first? Generally, you only come here if discussion on user pages fails. Daniel 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured I should find out whether it's a problem or not before I start arguing the point.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not. Looking at this example, that is a clean-up list where it would be useful to have a redlink to click on to find out what happened to the article. The alternative is to copy the delinked name to the search bar or browser URL window, which is inconvencing the person who made that list. Also, if ever there is a problem with a deletion, it helps to be able to check "what links here" for deleted articles to find out where it was discussed. Short answer, only remove from mainspace. Carcharoth 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal should not be automatic,it should be a judgment call based on whether or not we should ever have an article on the topic and if we should, on whether we should now have a redlink in whatever place. Nor should removal be restricted to mainspace; the Template and Portal spaces are also reader facing content that would often need to be reviewed. Other namespaces generally wouldn't merit review. GRBerry 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that these concerns were first addressed on my talkpage. However, while we're still kinda at it, Twinkle was buggy yesterday, there was an error in the script I used to delete the pages. Sorry for the mess, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot opened

An Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User requests account deletion

User Popperian requests account deletion. --Mperry 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't delete accounts, but the page can be courtesy blanked.--Isotope23 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unless I'm missing something, there is nothing more to be done. Article is gone, AFD courtesy blanked, and all indentifiable information has been blanked from userpage/IP.--Isotope23 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:ANI#Should this edit be reversed? (permanent link). Popperian's IP is also deleting the relevant WP:SSP and WP:COIN records and I'd like some advice. Thanks, --A. B. 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted his talk page per the right to vanish. -- John Reaves 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Knoxskorner

I'm not entirely sure, but something in the back of my mind is telling me that this page - User:Knoxskorner - is breaching something. This guideline, perhaps? Any advice gratefully received. Giles Bennett 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Knoxskorner. Corvus cornix 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE resolution

This is to inform you that this long standing issue (a dispute of almost 2 weeks based on long other disputes) has come to a resolution in which all parties (editors of both sides of the conflict) are subject to 1RR restriction for a period of 3 month and are advised to use the already existant WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation to discuss their differences and try to reach some sort of understandings and collaboration. Indef blocked accounts of User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k will be unblocked ASA this report is reviewed by other admins in this board. There are already four admins who are dealing this case, User:Chaser, User:Haemo, User:FayssalF and User:Rlevse. All four admins are ready to move forward and let this issue be sorted.

The admins' work consisted on a mix of mediation and administration roles. Both parties have been trying to resolve their issues through mediating for so long but in vain. We tried to avoid the ArbCom for now as it is so backlogged plus the fact that the results would be the same as this resolution or most probably worse as in the case of the Eastern Europe case.

For all details, please refer to the resolution. Please, note that not all editors showed up or signed even being formally notified. Some participated but didn't get back to support or reject the proposed resolution. Most of those who couldn't make it are editors who rarely edit those sets of articles but there are other usual 2 or 3 other editors who couldn't finish the discussion since a few days now. So all the 4 admins w/ the support of 6 users (3 users each side) are ready for resolving this issue. -- FayssalF - 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please verify when lahiru_k and netmonger will be unblocked from the proposal ? Because whats written in the proposal contradicts what you are saying here. Sinhala freedom 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial proposal is different from this and I can support the wording of FayssalF here; there has been discussion on this in various places. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It disturbs still the Admins consider Netmonger and Lahiru_k are separate individuals. The findings and statements of this, thisand this can’t be compromised for the Netmonger/Lahiru_k’s testimonies via e-mail communication for the disruptions the accounts have caused for a long time.Migales 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This means that you haven't accepted the resolution while having followed the mess since a long time w/o understanding what's going on (assuming good faith). The thing everybody is sure about is that you are a sock puppet of someone editing those articles and for that you have been blocked by an admin. Any "disruptions the accounts may cause" will be dealt accordingly and of course this applies to all parties w/ no exception whatsoever. -- FayssalF - 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• In case it's unclear, we're looking for some external admin support here for this resolution. We've managed to form a majority of active users on record supporting the proposal, with no opposition so far, and we'd like to move forward. --Haemo 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I've perused the case. I'm totally uninvolved, and support this resolution. It seem much better than edit warring or having the articles locked. I am willing to use sysop tools to enforce the terms if users come to me politely with diffs that support their claims. - Jehochman 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have not reviewed this matter, and have no opinion regarding the participants. I do have experience of some of the admins who were mentioned above, and wish to place on record that I am willing to support this initiative by independently reviewing any matter bought to my attention by any of the above named admins (and only the admins, please) should this service be required. I hope it isn't, and best wishes to all concerned. LessHeard vanU 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

Ok. Fair enough and see that everything is in order to start applying this. I've just unblocked Netmonger (talk · contribs) and Lahiru k (talk · contribs) for the record. Thanks everyone. -- FayssalF - 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with this are templates being added to the relevant articles themselves, as here - should these not be on the talkpages? WjBscribe 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the template has been marginal but i still agree with you. -- FayssalF - 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying it was a big thing - I meant to convey overall support for the arrangement. Just thought I'd raise the matter having noticed it. One thing I'd hope everyone can work on is merging June 1990 massacre of police officers in Eastern Sri Lanka and Kalmunai massacre - articles about closely interlinked events, which occurred in the same place over the same period. Both refer to the other but each told from one side's perspective: one into describes an LTTE massacre (of the police officers) and the other a massacre by the Sri Lankan Army (of civilians) that followed. Seems like rather problematic content forking. WjBscribe 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Elonka starting a merge discussion at both tak pages. In parallel, there would be still some other options (AfD or an RfC) to see what can be done. The work of admins is limited to the resolution itself and has no authority over content. -- FayssalF - 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the proposal page was to do the templates as I did them, one on talk, one on article page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at Featured picture removal candidates

see Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length. Any thought? The Placebo Effect 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this with MER-C, but he refuses to respond to me. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Featured picture candidates#Sorry ... but wikipetan closed as delist?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Wikipe-tan#Wikipe-tan image considered for delisting from Featured Picture
• User talk:MER-C#Wikipe-tan (FL)

-- Ned Scott 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked both parties to stop cold turkey and come here to discuss. I haven't protected the pages because of my high esteem for both of you. I'm fairly confident you can leave the files as they are. - Jehochman 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another opposer in the discussion has closed the delist discussion. A hand full of Wikipe-tan haters are forcing this issue closed, brushing off the community discussion, guidelines, and policies we have regarding the issue. And given the multiple requests for discussion on this, we have nothing. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this comment stand for itself. MER-C 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I was doing other things earlier today and so I couldn't really respond in a detailed manner. The nom had run it's course (7 days) and was due for closing. The main problem with the image is the obvious aliasing (see anti-aliasing for those not familiar with image processing), which was not addressed at all by the keep side of the debate. This is a problem that can really only be fixed by redrawing the image from scratch. All the beating about the bush re: enc value missed the main reason for delisting. Also, I believe there has been partisan canvassing by Ned (see and ). Before the canvassing occurred, the outcome of the debate was a very clear delist as recommended by the FPC regulars. I also find it rather suspicious that almost all of the votes after that point were to keep the image. I also made it very clear that disputed closures were to be discussed at WT:FPC.

The original nom, Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan, also showed the same symptoms.

As for the vector version, we can easily wait for that and nominate it when it comes. This wasn't bought up in the debate, so I didn't even know it existed (it still doesn't). The question is not whether a different version of the picture will meet the criteria some point in the future, it is whether the nominated picture meets the criteria now. And it doesn't. (Given that there's petabytes of anime churned out annually, such an image is highly replaceable). MER-C 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might have been OK to let the Anime WikiProject and Wikipe-tan talk page know about this, though it is kind of shopping for certain users. But you can't tell people: "everyone should definitely go over there and comment to keep this bullshit delisting from happening". At least keep the text neutral. Wickethewok 06:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to notification concerns that arose during the debate I came up with {{FPdelist}} so that users watching the page would know about the nom without the nominator having to decide on the users/projects that need notification. If someone can help me fix the template so the links work properly, this might be a viable fix for the future. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C, could it be that the reason supporters turned to keep after my message was because I was the first one to clear up the self-reference issue, which even resulted in people who had previously voted in changing their position? The reason I urged people to go to the delist discussion was because it was being hammered by people who were attacking it for it's encyclopedic value and for a policy that did not apply, and the tone of "get your pitch forks" was obviously poking fun at those who thought there was canvassing during the first FPC. It's easy to assume that "anime fans" are some kind of hivemind, despite the WP:ANIME opposers and the anti-anime supporters. Most, if not all, of the users who left comments on the FPC and the delist discussion had rationales that spoke for themselves, that had good, independent reasons for their views.

The fact that this image had passed FPC before, and the image was still of high quality, most of us did not believe the aliasing issue was even a serious concern. The image has been featured in at least two print magazines and one print newspaper, as well as on large posters for Wikimedia events. But because you see some pixels at 100%, you took the criteria out of context. At first glance the debate seems to be nothing more than the self-reference issue. It had been said in both the original FPC and the delist discussion that a fix was possible, but since that did not seem to be the real issue, it's not surprising that people didn't spend time on it.

When I came across a past vectoring of Wikipe-tan's artwork, Commons:Image:Wikipe-tan Birthday.svg, by Commons:User:Editor at Large, it became evident that a fix was not an empty promise. I figured your close was based on your judgement of "irreparable" and wasn't about bureaucratic nitpicking at deadlines. I then listed the delist discussion under a section specifically made for these situations, nominations on hold for technical reasons, Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates#Suspended nominations. Given the support for the image, it's proven value, and evidence of a real fix, that you would have granted us this courtesy instead of making people jump through hoops. I believe you have done this because you feel the image is supported by "screaming fans" rather than the merits of the image itself. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The aliasing is a problem, yet fixable, when viewing Wikipe-tan at full resolution. At a smaller scale such as a thumb you see no distortions. However, given that it was passed the first time around regardless of personal opinions on both sides, shows that the image succesfully fulfilled the criteria for Featured and was such that way since August of 2006 meaning more than full year had passed without incident, and given the image was used in publication, that adds to further credit. Still though, a vectored version was called for and this just gives more reason to speed the making of one to ensure a better quality image for all.

Throughout the debate, aliasing was brought up rarely and took a backseat as both sides were focused on clearing up the "self" issue among the rest. Only at the end when the majority of voters were steamed out and didn't want anything else more to do with the debate, that it was really focused on. Unfortunately the debate is heavily laced with personal opinions and taste regarding anime, not just the image itself, which sadly can't be avoided. Personally speaking, she's a great piece of imagery. Time, thought, work...I do image editing, drawing, etc.. and being able to pull out something like Wikipe-tan takes skill which is why I can appreciate it above the fact that it's anime. Even though it's not some elegant picture of a blossoming flower or an astounding shock and awe photo of a war-time scenario, Wikipe-tan has proven worth even if one feels insulted or ashamed because there's "some cartoon" on the featured list. Unlike with a photograph, aliasing is by no means as big of an issue as it's seemingly caught up to be and as such a higher quality vector of her can be uploaded soon.

Hopefully there's no hard feelings and it can all be resolved, keeping an open mind when going through the proceedings. Fox816 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture candidacies should always be reviewed at full resolution with an image editing program, as they may be used outside the context of the encyclopedia. It becomes fairly obvious when reviewers haven't done so. Plus it's unprofessional of us to call an image that looks good in a thumbnail but horrific at full res (perhaps due to compression artifacts or obvious stitching errors) our best work. MER-C 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On a good note, Ned has recently apologized to me and taken responsibility for his actions. That takes courage and responsibility (which distinguishes him from some of our tendentious editors) and I commend him for that.

However, as I stated on my talk page, I believe his conduct should go onto the public record. As a regular closer of FPCs for eight months, I reckon it is pointy for someone with relatively little experience with featured pictures to revert it and then question my ability to close nominations. To put this into a more familiar context, this would be similar to a non-admin reposting a deleted article on afd, reverting the closure and then questioning the trust the community has put in the admin. There was also personal attacks and incivility.

I think this is resolved, and we should be getting on with reaching 1000 FPs (currently 938). MER-C 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

revert to the debate closure of Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length?

On a side note, any reason why I shouldn't revert to the 01:44, 29 October 2007 revision and protect this page from editing? That's when the debate was closed. I am feeling like spanking the people who continued arguing there afterwards. Seriously, discussion pages are here for something... (I know this is not AfD, but...) -- lucasbfr 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, i would have done it, but i voted. The Placebo Effect 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I support reverting to the debate closure by MER-C and protecting (if needed). The discussion had grown stale with no new points being raised or addressed, which is why I had suggested restarting the nom. With a new version on the way, there is no point in restarting, and none of the edits since has been constructive. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody is yelling, I reverted to version by MER-C at 04:30, 29 October 2007. I did not protect because I trust you guys to behave -- lucasbfr 18:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. If you insist, please move the additional comments to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles Closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:UKFlags

If Administrators are going to block the editing of a template, the very least they can deign to do is to respond to queries on the relevant Talk page. Or has somebody blocked this article from editing and then removed it from their Watchlist? Not a very satisfactory situation either way. --Mais oui! 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of the previous comment section above this was not lost on me :) The UKFlags template was fully protected by an admin (not this one) due to its being subject to revert-warring by the abovementioned parties. If you need a change made, maybe put up an {{editprotected}} request? The problem with article protections is that someone can do many dozens of these per day as part of WP:RPP patrol work. An admin may not be familiar enough to make comments on content other than to judge when edit-warring or vandalism is occurring and protect accordingly - Alison 10:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Duly applied said template. --Mais oui! 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now could be a good time to unprotect the article, IMO. The article is protected since August, and beside the small revert war there was at the time, I don't see any other instance of a revert war there. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth a shot now that the arb case above has ended and some of the previous warriors now risk probation as this template comes under the category of Troubles articles. Note, however, that there was a similar edit war on another UK template over the exact same flags issue only last week - Alison 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't aware of the arb case. I'll drop a note to WjBscribe then. -- lucasbfr 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a mediation in progress (Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage) that should conclude before this template is unprotected, in my opinion. Andrwsc 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious vandalism over Shane Ruttle Martinez

I posted an advisory about the article Shane Ruttle Martinez on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. User:UnionPride who, along with User:Frank Pais and User:SuperVideoGameKid "own" the article vandalized my entry int he following manner by rewriting my post so that it was about a completely different article! These three users have been working in tandem to revert any changes to the article Shane Ruttle Martinez even though the article is filled with vanity phrases and unsourced or poorly sourced claims. UnionPride has also attacked me by accusing me of being a "fascist" because I've edited his article. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez. Cheap Laffs 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cheap Laffs is causing problems, and has already been ignored on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User:AnnieHall, User:Mista-X, and User:UnionPride are all contributors to the Shane Ruttle Martinez article, and have identified it as a target of vindictive vandalism by User: Cheap Laffs. As User:UnionPride stated on the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard:

Cheap Laffs has already been confirmed as being someone with an agenda to cause more Wiki-drama on here. His "complaints" come at a time when investigations are ongoing into the vandalism of the Shane Ruttle Martinez and Richard Warman pages. The Shane Ruttle Martinez article has long been settled, as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_23#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Entertaining the outdated whines of a fascist determined to upset our Wiki-community serve no purpose. UnionPride 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Pais 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Confirmed as being someone with an agenda" by who? Where? The fact that the article may be the target of "vindictive vandalism" by others doesn't justify having vanity statements and poor sources. UnionPride and Frank Pais look like they're the same person. They may have other identities too. Cheap Laffs 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop that accusation, bud, it's counter to the Wiki rules of conduct and cordial behaviour. User:UnionPride made one recent edit to the SRM article. You're angering lots of folks on here, don't take it as a shock that folks are combating your obvious agenda. Frank Pais 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge consensus

Could a neutral admin possibly close the merge discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics#Proposed merger with WikiProject Superman? If the decision is to merge, I can pull all the legwork, but as an invested party I can't close it. Thanks. Steve block Talk 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take my word for it (as I'm not too good with consensus), I'd say it seems unlikely it will be merged, there are several valid oppose comments, thats just my thoughts, it's up to an administrator to handle this. Qst 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

More User:Grawp fun

Moved here from WP:ANI#More User:Grawp fun as this is a more appropriate board for this. -- Flyguy649 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found the talk pages of a bunch of Grawp socks I blocked the other day created with the Goatse image. I've deleted them and placed them into WP:PT to prevent their recreation. I've also protected the user pages of these accounts. Admins may wish to do this pre-emptively with other socks of this highly disruptive user. -- Flyguy649 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Who added the image to the pages? -Hit bull, win steak 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The accounts added the image to their own talk pages, at least for five of the socks (e.g. User talk:Givesnake was done by user:Givesnake). I also went through the Grawp sock categories and found a couple of more socks with that fine art on the talk page. -- Flyguy649 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I've indef-blocked Jfwg22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for repeated link spamming. He didn't get a level-4 warning yet, but his contribution shows a hisory of periodical spamming TV show articles with links to an AOL user page stuffed with copyrighted epidode videos. As those are his only contributions, I think he would simply try again next month and not be bothered with policy. Review welome. — Edokter • Talk • 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems there. There are plenty of times when issuance of a test4 won't be preventative and an on-sight block will. No tolerance for advertising. Keegan 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly even an automated account. I've left them a talk page message as to their block and directions for using {{unblock}} should the return. — xaosflux 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, righteous block. Copyright status of the content is not relevant, spamming is spamming. This may just be a case of over-enthusiasm, though, since the links were to AOL not some private site. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • While the links (video.aol.com) appeared to be 'legit', I've tried some of them and got a 'page not found', suggesting one can sign up for a page to post videos, and that the pages were summarily deleted for copyright infringement. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Wales

Apparently in the pages history Jimbo Wales confirmed that it was not him. Now, in the Block Log he was not blocked. He should be because Jimbo confirmed that it was not him and the user is still open to vandalism. This user should be indef blocked. --Coastergeekperson04 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That block log shows that User:Jimmy Wales has not blocked any other user. The log of where User:Jimmy Wales was blocked is here. WODUP 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report. Happy editing. - Jehochman 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, it should be observed that, when checking a block in the block log, one should enter, as does WODUP, "User:Whomever" in the "Title" field; entering the user's name in the "User" field returns only blocks that have been placed by that user—hence the confusion here. Joe 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A moment of amusement

...with a slight admin-consideration side to it. Thought I'd share, as it's at least a bit of a chuckle.

Does it mean that I've got WP:AGF right when self-admitted vandals compliment me on it? (I had reverted this blanking and left this note on the talk page in response to the vandal.) And (here's the admin bit) should the IP get a preventative block considering it's self-admitted? If so, can an admin take care of that please? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Anetode blocked the IP for 24h using the {{Schoolblock}}. -- FayssalF - 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB request list needs processing

Please, process the AWB list because it is 4 days old. I am impatient to use this nice software. Lantonov 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue. Please post to the application discussion page. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jody, but it is an administrative issue - only admins can approve users, I think by adding the username to a protected page. The instructions tell the users that if their request is over 24 hours old, to mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. This is exactly what Lantonov has done. I would clear the backlog if I had anything to do with AWB, or just knew what the procedure was to approve users, and the criteria for approval. Neil ☎ 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It says any admin can do it, so I went ahead and approved three (including Lantonov). Cheers.--chaser - t 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

David J. Tholen

For several months there has been a lengthy content dispute in this article about his Usenet reputation. Several IPs were adding information about it with some sources but coming from Groups.Google although several others were removed but reverted sometimes by admins mentioning that it was removal of sourced information example - but other admins had reverted for WP:BLP issues and removing the content. The article was once protected due to the issue in May 2007. Now recently, User:Nightingale0 and several IPs have been continuing the edit-warring with adding the same content mentionning with Nightingale01 reverting it mentionning in the talk page that the sources are not reliables thus not meeting WP:V and WP:RS.

I was looking for some better sources but it seems virtually inexistent outside of Groups.Google, so it would be debatable whether the info should be kept (would hope that there were non-internet articles such as magazines and newspaper ones). I would agree to kept in part the content but with more solid sources and third-party sources as well as been neutral and meeting WP:BLP.

I'm hoping that they will discuss the issue on the talk page, but soon I will have to be forced to protect the page and block the involved parties for WP:3rr violation. So we will have to keep an eye on this issue. The recent two parties have been warned on it--JForget 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to FA Halloween II

I have reverted vandalism at today's appropriate featured article (and also added a bit of content). I may have violated WP:3R inadvertantly, but I think it's an exception under WP:3R#Exceptions as fighting vandalism. This article may need to be watched all day. Bearian 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry... it is. And don't worry about reverting more than 3 times... if it's reverting vandalism, it's okay. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just another day at the office, Bearian. Keegan 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For your amusement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales. Oh dearie me. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is going to step up and close this? This is outside the realm of dispute resolution since the engaged and aggrieved parties are not involved. We went through this with Essjay, need not repeat ourselves. Keegan 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to close it. I think the talk page could be a useful centralized discussion location but as Jimbo has made it clear that he made the block as Jimbo (and not as just any other admin) then there is no real point to continuing. Thatcher131 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's deeper symptoms here, but not from Jimbo's side, there's issues from the other one. Jimbo has a grant of trust from the community. That grant is made even stronger by the fact that he doesn't need it as god-king, but we freely give it regardless. The trust in the core philosophies of the community, as articulated by Jimbo originally and believed in by all who contribute productivly is what makes us us. There are failures of enculturation that have occurred in the last couple years, with new users who either fail to get or outright reject our core values. The all-prevelent wikilawyering used by, in this case trolls, and in other cases by users wishing to ignore the desire for free content or fanboyish rush to save unneeded articles is nothing more then a symptom of that. We are not a democracy nor are we anarchy. We are wikipedia. There are portions of the project, users whose goals place them at odds with the values we stand for, that are not in any way compatible with wikipedia. It's time to cleanse. 3 cheers for Jimbo. -M 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for always backing up Jimbo because he is the founder of the project, some of his actions as a admin/bureucrat (god-king sysop?) have been quite bold and I do agree that the desysoping of Zscout370 may have been overkill. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend him soley as founder, he took a needed step. Zscout isn't permanently gone, he get's his bit back in a few days, and honestly, he isn't dumb. I've talked to him before. He should've known better. A bad judgement, but we all make them, and that's how Jimbo appears to feel, too. He specifically said that Zscout remains in good standing, will get the bit back, and they just need to have a brief talk. Everything seems fine and we got rid of a troll. Where's the problem? -M 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zscout already has his adminship back. Jimbo restored his rights within 24 hours. . - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not that Zscout is gone, it is the fact that the reason for desysoping seems invalid and looks like overkill. Zscout was desysoped for "wheel warring" but when one checks Miltopia's blocklog he only unblocked that account once , now I'm not complaining about the block but the desysoping was out of order, Jimbo should have tried to "have abrief talk" with Zscout before removing his sysop status for wheel warring that is clearly non existent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Just once in a while, just once, we need to block a bloody troll and be rid of them, without everybody else screaming loudly about abuse of process, WP:BITE, giving extra extra extra extra long rope, rules, guidelines, precedent and all the other bollocks that we always hand to the nasty little bastards, scattering good editors to the four winds in the path of being "reasonable" to unreasonable, irritating little gits who will run to WR or WT to bemoan Misplaced Pages policy and how we all persecute them by tolerating them for far, far too long. This is the 9th most popular website in the world. It's time we started vaporising trolls with prejudice and stopped wikilawyering and extending pointless, pointless "I really mean it next time" extra chances just because, if we don't, all hell lands upon the admin/crat/godking who does. I'm sorry that Zscout got the shitty end of the stick, but, really, what did he expect? We should have no time for martyrs and no time for trolls. Badmouthing Jimmy and queuing to fuck him over isn't exactly building an encyclopedia. Or have people missed that particular minor aim of this place amongst the artificial drama? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this justifies the desysoping? I don't have anything against the block but what I'm stating hasn't received any kind of reasonable explanation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The people shrieking loudest about this (I don't mean you, Caribbean H.Q., I don't know you) are also the ones who shriek loudest about there being no process to desysop or that the process is too convoluted etc. These people want it both ways - immediate desysoping and death to those who would dare to desysop someone. This, I would say (and again I don't mean you), is part of the definition of trolling.

ZScout's desysopping was explained at the time: wheelwarring over the block of an obnoxious troll isn't on; and a quick desysopping (not unprecedented here) is something done to protect Misplaced Pages. Zscout got his bit back (others were not so lucky in the past) and remains in good standing with much respect from all valued editors. So that problem is over, unless people want Jimbo to be branded with the Mark of Cain or 6 years of consensus building to be swept away in order to replace it with 3 days of kneejerk reaction. These are possible, but I question how desirable they are.

Whatever, less whingy more writey is in order for us all (myself included - I'm typing this whilst uploading to Flickr photos I will later move to Misplaced Pages and write articles around. And updating my new iPod, but that's not important right now). ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wot Redvers said. Zscout is cool, if my email conversations with him are any indicator, Jimbo is comfortable that Zscout is a good guy, a serial drama creator / enabler is gone, and I find myself wondering why we are still kvetching about it. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the current policy on 'Secret Pages'?

I suspect this has come up before, and I don't normally care about such things, but looking at the autograph page above made me link to a couple of the signees, and I found many of them had text on their user page that say, 'Find my secret page!'. So I went to google, and got this result. While I realize a lot of these links are to user talk pages, congratulating them for finding it and things like people creating barnstars to congratulate each other, 10 and 20 pages down the search I'm still finding so-called secret pages. I *believe* that this has, in the past, been treated as silly but ignorable, but we're nearing 70,000 ghits on secret pages limited just to en-wiki. Is this something that can/should be dealt with, or is it just disk space use that we need (as in 'can't stop') to let slide? --Thespian 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE balanced against WP:COMMUNITY. If these are proactive editors who want to enjoy the community then why not. Bandwidth et. al. is not our concern. I personally think secret pages, signature pages etc. are a waste of effort, but if the editors who create them for themselves also create meaningful content / revert vandalism / identify CSD stuff / generally contribute then on balance I'd prefer to keep the secret pages if we can keep the editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

These editors often don't make useful edits, though. I'm fine with allowing useful contributors to have autograph pages or whatever, but if someone is using Misplaced Pages as a webhost or a game, then I'd say nuke 'em. Natalie 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify, I don't think the users should necessarily be blocked, but the time-wasting pages should be deleted and the user warned. Natalie 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

If they don't make useful edits, WP:MFD is what you are looking for. I would advise against a mass nomination of multiple users' pages - someone tried that with signature books I believe, it was a disaster. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not commenting on individual issues. Autograph pages (as an example) may be contrary to WP:ENC but if the editor has made (arbitary figure) 200 good edits then let them keep it. If they've turned up and done nothing but work in their user space then that's an MFD issue. Per Mr.Z-Man wholesale deletion with or without warning will just irritate potentialy valuable future editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually seen arguming for t olerance for editors expressing their individuality, but I think such pages and autograph books are expressions of jvenile lack of seriousness, and should be removed. expressing one's affiliation is fine; cultivating friendship related to WP is fine; obtrusive activities that have no conceivable relationship to the encyclopedia are quite another matter. Let's start as Z-man suggests, and go slowly, beginning with the worst of them. DGG (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the secret pages are the only thing an editor has worked on, I don't see a problem with it. I've certainly got a plethora of private pages in my userspace (though they're generally only private because I'm the only one that would find use for them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct figure is about 300 pages not 70,000. Addhoc 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, though it gives 350+, not 300. It's not as bad as I thought, but I still think that's excessive (and won't count variant names and the ones I saw labelled 'Page of Secrets!' and such). The user pages that I peeked at that had these links were....messy, and it might also be my RL (I do user interface design engineering for software and web sites) that's adding to my reaction, since my first reaction to several pages was 'Dude, I can't find *anything* on your pages, let alone a secret link!' ;-) --Thespian 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 71,000 from en.wikipedia.org for secret page. (0.13 seconds)⇒SWATJester 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There are entire clusters of users who spend time doing their own secret pages and finding other users' secret pages and autograph books. I agree that the disk space and resource usage isn't a big concern, but it definitely seems like users come together in clusters. And there's a difference between private pages used for article development versus private pages being advertised with, "Find my secret page and sign it!" I've never asked anyone to sign User:Elkman/Cook County NRHP, for example. --Elkman 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its also really easy to find such pages if you know a user has one. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kmweber

I've blocked this user because of their continued disruption to the Requests for Adminship process. I think ] sums up quite nicely the reasoning behind this block. If any administrator wishes to remove this block, please do feel free, but I strongly believe we need to remove this disruptive user from the project and I would prefer discussion rather than outright reversal. Nick 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards