Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 8 July 2008

• 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)

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road

This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk)

Unbanning of this account at it.wikipedia.org

Hello, I'm User:Beamathan (universal account), and my nickname is Beam. This being so I created this account user:Beam to preempt anyone messing with me and because I sign with Beam so that if a user tried to goto the user page or talk page of "Beam" they wouldn't be misdirected.

Anyway, I tried to universify User:Beam, and it seems that the prior User:Beam got banned at the Italian[REDACTED] in October, 2007. Unfortunately I do not speak Italian and can not get unbanned through it.wikipedia.com.

Please help me, so that I can universify user:Beam.

Thank you. Beam 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Beam 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we can't do much about the Italian Misplaced Pages, either. Do we have any admins here who also admin over there, I wonder? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my hope. Or at least someone who speaks Italian enough to ask them to help me. It's appreciated. Beam 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Go there and request help from an admin. That's what I did at the Portugese Misplaced Pages. I'll link you to the noticeboard. Enigma 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just needed a rename, so I went to an easy place at pt. I tried to find AN at Italian Misplaced Pages but I wasn't successful. If you do locate an admin, placing a request in English should still get results. Enigma 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm unable to even navigate the it.wiki because I do not know a shred of Italian. Beam 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I used a dictionary to say thank you at pt. Here, I tried to translate administrator into Italian, but that word didn't come up with a page for me (at least, WP:] didn't. Enigma 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys... (points at "languages" section on the left side of the screen) I don't see it in there.... -Jéské 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can probably try their embassy at (with English buttons). The bottom two sections contain links to the non-Italian speaker SUL process (although you seem to need something slightly different). Kusma (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you can try to post in English at it:Misplaced Pages:Richieste agli amministratori ("requests to admins"? I can order pizza in Italian but not really read it). Good luck, Kusma (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was posting at the same time Kusma did but here goes: Here's a list of current Admins in it.wikipedia. I could not find a direct equivalent to ANI but the closest I found to communicate with Admins is "Requests to Admins". -- Alexf 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm it.wikipedia sysop, User:Beam on it.wiki is blocked for sockpuppet and vandalic action. Place a Usurpation request (on meta.wiki, stewards request). --Fabexplosive (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing of Fabexplosive (I'm an it.wiki admin too), but he just did it faster than me. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to do a usurptation? But..but..bawwwww. Where do I go in meta.wiki, if you don't mind linking me? Beam 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are bureaucrats on it.wiki then you go to them. Otherwise go to m:Steward requests/SUL requests. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I went to the Steward Requests on Meta, and posted the first post I made in this section. I hope they help me. Thanks for the link, and thank everyone for the attempted assistance! Beam 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They've given a link, it:Misplaced Pages:Cambiare il nome utente/Riassegnazione#For it-0 speakers (SUL) where you can put a request. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I requesting? I don't want to turn Beamathan into Beam, I just want Beam. Hmm... maybe I'll say just that. Thanks so much for the assistance, again. Beam 01:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd be requesting usurpation of the it.wiki user Beam, so if they allow usurpation, they'd rename "Beam" on it.wiki to something else, allowing you to use "Beam" on it.wiki for your Global account. At least that's what I think. I would think you can post in English - I see one en-3 Bureaucrat there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Radical idea concerning MascotGuy

As active as I've been these last few years in trying to fight this guy off, I'd like to propose something really, really different: Why not allow his next sock to edit and only that sock; he wouldn't be allowed to create any new ones. Once he picks his next user name, that's the one he sticks with. That is, assuming he does some good edits like the last few he's done. NawlinWiki is for it and I'm sure Gogo Dodo will be as well; they've blocked his last few attempts. He would, of course, be notified via the talk page that he's being allowed to edit and that his edits will be carefully monitored. I would hope that he would be willing to discuss changes on his talk page, but given his condition, it wouldn't be absolutely necessary so long as his edits remain accurate. I was the one who'd made contact with his mom some time ago since one of the socks was named for his mom's e-mail address. Never did hear from her again, though. Since he's far more clueless than malicious, what do you all think? Could this be brought up for some sort of vote? I got burned trying to counsel a couple of allegedly autistic users, but I think this may be different and I'd be willing to monitor his progress. I'm looking forward to reading your opinions. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea, if you can get him to stick to one account. It seems like lately he's being blocked on principle rather than for any problem behavior. He's here because he wants to contribute, so if there are experienced contributors who are willing to keep an eye on things, why not let him? -- Vary | Talk 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide any background information, or maybe I just don't know where to look I will simply comment on principle. If there is any way to allow or encourage an editor to contribute in a beneficial manner to the project it should be done. And personally, by should I mean must. Oh and if you'd like to enlighten me with some background and details of the situation I'd be happy to give an educated opinion on this situation. Beam 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this, unless you're considering blindly reverting everything the sock does. The last time (to my knowledge) we nearly kept some of his contributions, they turned out to be too untrustworthy to keep. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive429#Seemingly legit article by a prolific vandal. And that's MascotGuy's M.O. - things that look plausible on the surface but turn out to be completely false. You'd be signing the community up for one hell of a babysitting job. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wknight94. We don't need to babysit this guy any more than we do now. Instead of welcoming him, we should find a way to make it so that he cannot access the site as he seems to have no problem with now. If we have to contact his mother again or simply block him on our end for as much as a permanent result as we can, we should do that instead of letting his edits go uncontrolled and allow him to create more garbage accounts that he'll never use in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that even proposing this in the first place runs counter to what all of us have been doing for far too long. There's a problem beyond just a bunch of untrustworthy edits from a guy whose parents have a dynamic IP with Road Runner Cable. I've written to Wikimedia and gotten no response. I'm still waiting from a response from Jimbo on another matter and I know how busy he can be. In short, the highers-up seem to be taking no interest in the problem and I don't think they realize the scope of the work it's creating for admins and those like me with rollback privileges. This is why I'm thinking that we offer one carrot to this guy and one only. He claims an account and edits from that one only, period. No more socks and the first sock or bad faith edit nulls the agreement which he should be made to do on his talk page or in an e-mail to an administrator. As I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the "Animal Guy" sock did several bizarre redirects to the term, "round robin." Other edits were legit. Maybe the guy's growing up; I don't know. If he screws up, he's done and hopefully, a formal complaint can be leveled at his IP at that time. If this is moving toward a "no" vote, then what's the next step? Who needs to be alerted in the foundation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a decent proposal IMO and useful for other cases, but not in this case as Wknight94 has identified. Orderinchaos 04:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure that it's going to work in practice. As noted in WP:LTA/MG: This editor does make useful edits, but his frequent bad edits, and noncommunication with other editors makes him a problem. I think the difficulty will be getting him to stick to a single account and be communicative. I've got mixed feelings about this idea. On one hand, I've got faith in reforming almost anybody and it would be nice to finally be able to close something that has been going on for way too long. On the other hand, I think the communication issue is going to be a problem. He seems to be well aware that he is doing something wrong (e.g., the tagging of his own sockpuppets) and I'm not sure the problem can be fixed. But if somebody can open a communication line with him, it's an interesting idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. I'd forgotten about that bizarre little trait of his and I'm thinking as a rational and normal person which he clearly isn't. This is just a game to him as evidenced by the fact that he literally tagged himself as a blocked vandal at User:Guyapalooza. Just when you think you've seen it all. I do believe I've answered my own question. Since edits relating to the "Eloise" book and TV franchise seem to be his particular forte at present, it might not be a bad idea to semi-protect them for a little while. He keeps tagging, we keep bagging. If someone has the ear of the foundation, now's a good time to yell in it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it may be time to close this discussion. Acalamari just blocked a few socks which MascotGuy himself first tagged as blocked sockpuppets before they were even blocked. Heaven knows I made a good-faith effort to try and bring this guy in line, but there's no talking to him and whoever is in charge of supervising him is apparently unaware of the havoc he's causing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone and Misplaced Pages:Ombudsmen Committee

I am bringing this here because, well, I have just received a 3RR warning from Bstone for making a single revert to Misplaced Pages:Ombudsmen Committee. It seems he believes this proposal has now received consensus, based on ten comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#View_by_Bstone, and a few more comments here. His proclamation was immediately reverted, and discussion began on the talk page of the proposal. He reverted back to his "proclaimed" position, was reverted again, and then put on a "disputed" tag rather than a "proposed" tag. I've reverted back to the "proposed" tag, and have received a 3RR warning in return. (Yes, I have to admit I am stunned to receive a 3RR notice for a single edit.)

This is not the first time that Bstone has tried to unilaterally proclaim consensus on a proposal he supports; he did this as well with Misplaced Pages:Threats of violence.

I have voiced an opinion on this proposal and thus am not completely neutral here; and it's pretty clear that I'm not getting through to him that policies do not get proclaimed in 5 days because about 30 people think they're worth talking about. Could someone else please see if they are more successful in getting through? Risker (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker, you're correct in that you're not neutral. Your much too involved and, thus, shouldn't be taking administrative actions. I applaud you for adhering to the appropriate process and bringing this issue here. Based on the RfC, the AN thread and the support of two arbitrators, many administrators and many editors (and just a few nay-sayers), it's clear that the support for this proposal is much greater than the lack of support. I believe that after 7 months of discussion, work and soliciting opinions for consensus, OmbCom has indeed become policy and is official. You believe it does not, despite this is quite very clearly a minority opinion. It's a bit shocking and disturbing, really. When I added the disputed policy tag, which is clearly the most appropriate one when the status of a policy is disputed, you reverted even that. Thus, I am quite mystified and miffed. So, to sum it up: the vast majority support the OmbCom and a minority do not, including yourself. So, why is it that you keep reverting it from being policy? Bstone (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculous to think that a mere 10 thoughts make it a "consensus". The last thing we need is MORE bureaucratic paralysis. This is a BAD idea, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected until further discussion takes place. Nakon 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where was the supposed consensus reached? Reading through Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal there is certainly no consensus supporting it, maybe even the opposite. Beam 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response from Risker why the disuputedpolicy tag was removed since it is disputed. Bstone (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained it on the talk page of the proposal, Bstone. Only actual, approved policies (like WP:V or WP:NPA) are flagged with the disputed policy tag. That is because they are policies. This is not a policy, it is a proposed policy. Your personal interpretation of consensus does not a policy make; in fact, we've already had exactly this kind of discussion on WP:TOV, another proposed policy that you tried to tag as approved. Risker (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Because one can only dispute existing policy. This is not existing policy. -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Riser, I never added a policy tag to TOV. In fact, I added the rejection message box and essay tags. Just what are you trying to allege? Bstone (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is indeed an error in my recollection. We had a long debate on whether it should be a proposed policy or a proposed guideline or an essay. Ultimately, you did accept that there was not consensus to make it either a policy or guideline. My error. Risker (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Pot recants statement aimed at kettle, calls self black

This is a pet project, not a policy, disputed or otherwise. Orderinchaos 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an affinity for projects which help with transparency and openness. And with the support of two arbs, it seems like a very good proposal indeed. What are you trying to imply, OIC? Bstone (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything, I just made a very simple statement. Appeals to authority (i.e. "two arbs support it, so it must be good!") are meaningless to me - the need to make use of them actually puts me off, especially as they aren't in here defending it. Orderinchaos 04:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IP: 71.192.98.224 blockage

This person uses an anonymous IP to change all the articles' "Sister Cities" sections in order to add the state for all the U.S. cities even though the other countries don't include the state, the reason why they all follow the "City, Country" format of so it is be fair for all countries, but if this person keeps editing the articles to break that format in favour of the U.S. then it'd be disrespectful to all the other countries because he's putting it as if the United States was more important that all the others, this IP should be stopped, that's the only thing this IP does and he's done it in nearly 50 cities already and it seems like he'll continue if kept unblocked. Supaman89 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic, but I find it even more troubling that this hasn't been discussed with the user in question before blocks are called for. I've commented on their talk page, and on a Manual of Style thread linked from there. Let's see where discussion gets us, before we jump to conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a discussion for another forum, but owing to the influence of the European settlers there are place names that are repeated throughout the US - giving the relevant State can help. The other thing I find is that many (US based I presume) editors give only the placename and State, assuming that the rest of the world will know the nation... Which is often correct, but it isn't encyclopedic to treat one country different to the others - as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All countries should be treated equally, and if they all follow the "City, Country" format the U.S. has to do it too, implying that it is more important than all the others is disrespectful. Yesterday I was going send a warning to this IP but it was too late and I went to sleep, however I think it obvious that this IP is only being used for editing the Sister Cities sections in favour of the United States, even after this IP is blocked I'm gonna have to revert all this edits which are around 50. Supaman89 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the state when naming a US city, because otherwise, you can't tell if Portland refers to Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, or one of the twelve other "Portland"s in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or Portland, Dorset if it isn't clear you are referring to the US. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that maybe some cities in the U.S. need disambiguation but not all of them, for example Corpus Christi, Little Rock, Albuquerque, Mentor-on-the-Lake, etc. there is just one of them in the U.S. therefore it could simply be stated as "Albuquerque, United States" in any case disambiguation wouldn't be unique to the United States, other places within other countries also have repetitive names for example Torreón, Coahuila with Torreón, Chihuahua and Torreón, Sonora all within Mexico but respecting the "City, Country" format I would simply put "Torreón, Mexico" when listed as a Sister City, after all when people click on the link it would send them to the specific one; anyhow if we are going to add the state for the U.S. cities why don't we also do it with all the other countries, that would make things equal for everyone, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That disambiguation only makes sense when you have two cities with the same name on the same list of sister cities and, even then, if they are from the same country, since otherwise they would be displaying different flags and different country names anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

We now have a backlog including items over a month old at WP:RM. Any assistance would be appreciated, as always. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Tennis is the oldest request currently present and needs some attention. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

disturbing vandalism

Hey, I just reverted some vandalism I REALLY don't like: diff. It mentions Obama's death. I'm sure this guy is just an idiot, but I'm not going to let this slide without bringing it to others' attention. I hope this isn't something we take lightly. --JaGa (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just did a WHOIS and reported him to Charter Communications. --JaGa (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RBI, to be honest, given the nature of the vandalism... _GB 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Look, I don't believe this guy is a true security threat, but his actions still should have consequences. You shouldn't be able to vandalize Misplaced Pages with comments forecasting someone's future death and not even get a stern message about it. Do we really have no policy beyond RBI for cases like this? --JaGa (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant but this is ridiculous - fire up Huggle or Vandalproof and you'll probably see a hundred pieces of vandalism like that within 10 minutes. RBI is entirely the right course here – there's no earthly way that's a credible threat. – ırıdescent 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it isn't a credible threat, but I still don't think it should be tolerated. I spend a lot of time on Huggle and it's the first time I've come across something like this. This just seems like something that should have zero tolerance. --JaGa (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can remember one morning where a guy uploaded a picture of a black man who had been lynched, with Obama's face crudely superimposed on it. The user then proceeded to add the image to a lot of articles (think upwards of 30-40). Seriously, this stuff happens all the time. J.delanoy_adds 20:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy CENSORED , these vandalisms are almost hate crimes! 30-40 pages with a picture of Obama being lynched?! It almost seems like something mre should be done......Graham (talk, contrib) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally users aren't reported to ISP's or whatever unless they're serial vandals or something like that. Random vandalism like posting a picture of Obama being lynched is, quite frankly, mild compared to what happens here every day. Of course, if you want to report them, go ahead... Calvin 1998  21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am mildly amused that somebody declaiming (justifiable) horror at the use of race hate in attacking Obama should excuse the "CENSORED" comment by referring to it as French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My hovercraft is full of eels!

Any time an edit insinuates extreme violence against another person - either another editor or a public figure - that vandal should be blocked, reported to their ISP, and a template should be placed on the IP's page informing them that they've been reported to their ISP. Just because it happens a lot is no reason to be OK with it. Just out of curiosity, what was done about Mister 30-40 pics of Obama hate? --JaGa (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins - Please contact the secret service with as much information as you have about this poster at your earliest opportunity. The DC field office may be reached at 202-406-8000. Please tell the operator that you are calling to report a threat to a presidential candidate. Thank you. --BenBurch (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to do this? Or has anyone already? Graham (talk, contrib) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope not, as I suspect the Secret Service probably have enough on their hands dealing with credible threats without having to add dealing with a random piece of Misplaced Pages drive-by vandalism to their to-do list.

Perhaps getting a sense of perspective might be a good idea in this instance?

1. Admins (even checkusers) will have no more information available to them about this than any other user, since the person concerned wasn't logged in when they made their edit.
2. Take the edit in about the only bit of context there is available by looking at the IPs previous edit. Hmmm. Let's pick one at random. December 4 1983 - JK Rowling wins the lottery. A bit tricky, as the National Lottery didn't start up 1994.
3. Everyone knows that Scooby Doo is Scrappy's bitch and not Shaggy's. I mean, come on...
4. Unless I'm much mistaken, if Obama were to win the election in November he won't move into the White House until January 2009. This would presumably explain why he's there at 4.43 in the morning shortly after Christmas 2008, as he'd clearly have snuck in under cover of darkness to measure up for new curtains.
5. If that's a credible "threat to a presidential candidate", I'm a banana.
6. Continue ad nauseam, and ad realisation that this is just a random piece of vandalism and should be treated as such?

RBI is there for a reason. Revert, block, ignore. Let's stop feeding the trolls as this sort of drama is exactly the sort of reaction they're hoping to achieve. _{The public face of GB} 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with the opinion, but what's up with number 3? Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but this is more of an immature vandal rather than anything else. There actually isn't a direct threat towards a candidate as much as a moronic statement. I totally agree with the RBI, if there is something that lists in full blown detail an actual scheme than that is a different story. Yanksox (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

The above named Arbitration case has closed. Giovanni33 is banned for a duration of one year by the Arbitration Committee. You may view the case at the above linked page.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FSC

Not a problem, exactly, but the Featured sound candindates page (WP:FSC) could really use some more reviewers, as well as anyone who knows of good sounds to nominate. To give you an idea of why we need more people: There are only 14 Featured sounds. This at the same time as we have the marvellous resources of one of the best freely-licenced classical music libraries over on commons (See commons:Category:Classical music), as well as a great deal of other things.

This project needs some more love. Please help =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Move request

Would someone mind moving User:Hersfold/Stoofy t to User talk:Stoofy t and then re-protect the user talk page? I received an email from a user blocked on suspicion of being User:Me toofy and can't reply via email due to the fact the email was a fake. I wouldn't bother, except I want to document it in case the user tries this again - Me toofy and his/her socks are indef blocked for continual disruption of the unblock category, hence the pre-emptive talk page protection. I'd do this all myself, but I'd rather not use my admin account on an insecure connection. Any questions, shoot me an email. Thanks for the help. Hersfold non-admin 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hersfold non-admin 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed that someone protected this page: Template:Quran-usc wich is a template for all Quranic verses. Homewer after careful investigation, i noticed that the protection tag TRANSCLUDES into all coranic verses extracts. Can someone fix it? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to noinclude this edit. —Giggy 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Thanks for the heads up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoopsees. Sorry. Grandmasterka 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Something you should see...

There has been a recent dispute on the Misplaced Pages Help desk, concerning the section "How do I report admin abuse?". This section was stated by Jeffrey Pierce Henderson and, according to some comments on his talk page, resulted in some disparaging comments. I, Graham northup, was indeed involved with this conflict, and may have heated the situation by posting an anonymous comment (that I admitted to later), and Jeffrey accusing me of being a sockpuppet or trolling admin (that he reports has been stalking him). Other users involved include Theresa knott, Mjpresson (aka Mike P), and IP address 76.14.110.81. The discussion was archived and closed by Shinmawa (aka small caps SHINMAWA). Although the section is not protected, th archive templates suggest that no one else modify this article.

I invite any concerned administrator to please evaluate this case and deal with it accordingly.

Sincerely, Graham Northup (Graham (talk, contrib) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Nothing to see here. To avoid sparking this sort of drama in the future, I would suggest that you try to make those sorts of comments when you are logged in for now on. There's really nothing else for anyone to do. If the uploader continues to have a problem with the actions of the deleting administrator, they can take it up with them on their talk page, or pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. Cheers, HiDrNick! 11:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will definitely remember this next time. Kind of embarassing... Graham (talk, contrib) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: the anonymous post was because I sometimes add PSs that SineBot confuses with unsigned posts. I took that to advantage, and, as described, didn't want to look like an idiot for having such a reversal of opinion.

Wood on xkcd

Wood was on xkcd today; it will probably be vandalized for a little while. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really get vandalism from xkcd readers?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Check the history. It's happened several times since I wrote that last post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi protected. I'm amazed there were no got wood jokes, though. —Giggy 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Got wood for sheep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As 'vandalism' goes, it's about as mild and harmless as it gets. FCYTravis (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, they didja one better In popular culture LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted (again) and salted for a week. Hesperian 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTCE

You may want to do the same to In Popular Culture (cAsE variant). Sigh. Some people don't seem to know there is such a thing as taking a joke too far... —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that I protected this, and no-one has unprotected it, and protection has not yet expired, yet, after having been recreated by another administrator (which I do not object to BTW), it is demonstrably not protected. Does the creation of a protected title cancel its protection? Hesperian 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator from what I've seen create protection, only prevents a page from being made by a nonadmin, and not the ability to edit or move said page if it is created by an admin. So you will have to reprotect the page as normal, if it still needs protection. NanohaA'sYuri 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The scary thing is, I bet that, one day, there will be someone writing an article (or getting a dissertation) on the composition of our "In popular culture" sections (what gets mentioned how often, and what this distribution says about the popularity of various popular culture items)... and then we'll have a reliable source for the "In popular culture" article... meaning that this comic can be mentioned in its "in popular culture" section... and then the blogosphere will implode. Or be eaten by raptors.

A fitting tribute for Raptor Jesus. ⇒SWATJester 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Randall Munroe is a genius. FCYTravis (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For punishment, he must license it CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 14:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He may be kidding with Wood, but Braces is already like that, with a list of pretty much every character, fictional and real, who has ever worn braces. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, LaraLove removed it about two weeks ago. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with User:Bwfguy

Apparently, repeated notices that this site isn't a webhosting service are lost on this individual. He claims to be a kid who wants to see his stuff posted here with boxes and the like. His user page has been deleted at least once and he recreated it again. He also may have a sockpuppet at User:Tystedman at this point. I've brought this to the attention of AIV a couple of times, but like I said, he isn't getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwfguy has just recreated his deleted user page again and with all this inappropriate stuff repeated 13 (!) times although having being informed that this is not MySpace or the like. Can't this be prevented permanently? Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Question about disruptive editor

I'm not sure how to handle this, an editor has repeatedly been disrupting AfDs by making misleading comments, referencing policies that do not relate, badgering editors that are attempting to reach consensus, and replying to comments about comments/conduct with confusing nonsense. This editor has already been blocked several times for the exact same thing, including a sock-puppet account. I do not know how exactly RfCs work, but my comment was replied to with nonsense and a call to WP:NPA. I do not know if other editors will file a similar complaint, as the comments are spread throughout many small discussions and appear many times to be good-faith confusion. Several editors have commented in the AfDs, and on the user's talk page, about the confusing/misleading conduct. I do not simply do not want someone to get away with deliberate attempts to derail consensus. Any advice is welcome. JohnnyMrNinja 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First, who are you talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I didn't want to put the name out in context with the above post on such a public board, but I guess it's appropriate under the circumstances. The specific response I referenced above is this - a comment I made before realizing the editor had a history of such problems. Another editor received a similar response here. There are many such examples, spread across WP. JohnnyMrNinja 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly you haven't addressed your concerns directly with LGRdC. Secondly this is what dispute resolution is designed for and thirdly, no admin action is required here. Spartaz 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)LGRdC notified. I find it hard to get wound up about his Socratic debate style (if you don’t care for it, you don’t have to engage him), but to each their own. It is true that some other editors share your opinions about his actions, so perhaps a user conduct RFC would be the best next step. I'd guess that LGRdC himself would be amenable to that. What administrator action or involvement are you seeking out here? HiDrNick! 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • LGRdC is somewhat disruptive but they clearly have only good intentions and there doesn't seem to have be any attempt to resolve this on their talk. I have weighed in there but I really don't think that this is the right forum to have this discussion or that their behaviour has reached anywhere need the point for admin action. I did archive this discussion but was reverted. Spartaz 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • JohnnyMrNinja, many deleters have at one time or another carried on making comments on several or more other comments of 'the other side' at AfD. However, you are right in that there are more deleters than keepers so this habit is shared. I don't consider that the views necessarily equal 'Consensus' as there are a number of regulars who do little but nominate and vote in these proceedings. Many others spend their time writing articles. The closing admin will weigh up numbers and points of view of all comments - if there are more than a few keepers then maybe there is a point to keeping anyway which deleters are missing, if not, one keeper does not bode well for an article's survival generally. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Moore

The 'Sonny Moore' page has been protected and disabled by administrators for nearly a year now. I understand that this was due to vandalism, but can you please create a new page now? This person is fairly popular and I'm sure many people would like to read about him and not be directed to his old band instead. There is much info I can contribute myself if this was to be changed. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrillpac (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please list the request to restore the page at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. I would suggest that before doing that, however, you write a draft article in a user subpage and refer to it there. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this cause for concern?

Hello.
I'm not sure whether this is worth any concern or not, so I'll just say what I've observed, and you can either have a discussion with another editor if it's important, or just ignore this if it isn't.
(I'd originally tried to take it up with the other editor in question, but as I think about it more and more, it actually has me somewhat concerned)
(background information, for those interested)
So, there was some time-filler on the news about Obama, and I got curious as to whether or not there was an article on 'Hussein'. I checked it out, and saw that there, indeed, was (well, it's closer to a disambiguation page, but that's beside the point). However, I noticed that it was laid out in a way that almost made Barack Obama look like an item or a place, and found that odd, so went to the talk page to see if anyone had commented on it.
Though it hadn't been mentioned there, there was a discussion about Obama (which I suppose isn't surprising).
And, like a typical talk page, some people behaved better than others, yadda yadda yadda.
(actual content starts here)
But, one editor really caught my attention. Some remarks were unfortunate, but not terribly unusual.
However, one line really stuck out: All anonymous IPs are nothing better than vandals, and need to be banned immediately. There's no point to hiding behind your pathetic IP address..
That struck me as being grossly inappropriate. I followed a little farther down, and noticed a further inappropriate edit summary from the same user: please sign your posts; failure to sign posts is an indication that you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments..
Now, here, I was in a bit of a difficult position. On the one hand, I found it abhorrent behaviour. On the other hand, it was halfway through March. To decide whether or not to say anything, I tried going through his talk page archives to see if anyone else had already mentioned it (heck, for all I knew, it was brought up already and he might've agreed that it was a little much). When I saw that it hadn't been addressed, I decided to say something.
It was only after doing this that I noticed that he'd left a comment on the anonymous IP's talk page. And that is actually the primary source of my concern. Here's what he said: I don't respond to anonymous vandals. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, then get an account and logging in like a normal user. If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live.(emphasis mine)
I don't know how to interpret "If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live." as anything but a threat. Still, I preferred to assume good faith, and had already left him a note, so it didn't seem appropriate to leave another message yet based on something else equally old.
But then, his reply gave me even greater cause for concern. It wasn't the 'get a life' crack, or the accusation that I was somehow looking for 'dirt' on him. It wasn't even his, once again, trying to push me into registering an account (so much for the '💕 that anyone can edit'). It was this line: Nothing pisses me off more than an editor that doesn't have the balls to stand up for what they write so they have to hide behind their IP address, Mr. Primus Telecommunications Canada User.
Once again, he presses on how much he hates anonymous editors, and then reveals that he's tried looking for personal 'real-life' information about me.

The previous occurrence ("If you think you can hide... I know where you live") might've just been an isolated incident. However, the moment he was confronted by another anonymous editor (me), his first instinct was to try to look up personal information about me to use against me. This is very disturbing.
Frankly, the personal attacks, the refusal to assume good faith, the compulsion to berate people just for editing anonymously... they're all bad, certainly. But the idea that his idea of 'dispute resolution' is to look up information on people to bully or intimidate them... well... Even though anyone editing anonymously can have personal details searched for online, that doesn't excuse an editor doing it to 'win' in a dispute.
In any event, it won't be long before I have another IP address, and my own ties to him will be gone. But his conduct really gave me pause. So, I mention it here in case anyone else finds it disconcerting. And, if not, just ignore this. 209.90.135.5 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know where you live" and "you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments"? What the hell is wrong with this guy? "Anonymous" are actually less anonymous than people with usernames. I'll drop a note at his talk page. John Reaves 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a point about the age of the diffs in question, let's see what he says here. John Reaves 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial diffs: Yes, somewhat old. And repeating the action by trying to look up my personal information? It may not be as bad as "I know where you live", but it certainly looks like 'same old, same old'. At least he's gone from calling people pussies, to now simply implying that they lack 'balls'. In any event, I've been known to make mountains out of molehills, hence my letting you people deal with it from here (or decide that I'm nuts and not doing a thing). 209.90.135.5 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather disturbing incident. This user appears to have been making personal attacks and looking up information on anonymous users to do so. This is not a "mountain out of a molehill", despite your modesty, this was a mountain already. I may not be an administrator, but you've done the right thing, and you can trust my support.

By the way, if you really want to be anonymous, you can not leave your signature :). I'm User:Gnorthup if you really need to know. I'd like to see how much this would peeve this person.

Allowing anonymity is one of the pillars that makes Misplaced Pages so great. I recently posted a comment to User:Jimbo Wales by snapshotting an image of the WP:User access levels permission table (the edit permission part) and stated that "If the green block was one square to the right, Misplaced Pages wold be no better than any other forum" . Unfortunately, the use of the snapshot violated fair use, so I removed the section before anyone put attention to it. That aside, my point stands, and I'll shortly find evidence.

Found it! The third of the five pillars offers the following quote: "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone may edit." And of course, "anyone" can mean any anonymous person. No one is allowed to treat any (helpful or not) anonymous user with such prejudice.

Like many editors, I regularly review anonymous edits, and see a huge percentage of constructive, valuable edits. Not just maintenance, tweaks, and copy-editing either; many specialized articles would still be stubs if it weren't for them. Some of the most helpful contributors at the reference desk don't have a registered account. Not only are they allowed to edit unregistered, they should feel welcome too. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets is hideously backlogged, with some 46 open reports. Admin attention here would be a welcome sight :) -- ] (] · ]) 06:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations is also backlogged (12 days). --Iamunknown 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll join in working through that one, since it doesn't require one to be an admin to do the tagging/checking :) -- ] (] · ]) 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done up through July 1st. Sleep beckons. Will check it in the morning and do more if still backlogged. -- ] (] · ]) 08:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Spot Image

Hi. I've been emailed by User:Spot Image regarding the indefinite block of his account. A little background: this account belongs to a unique employee of SPOT Image who is sharing images from their database as an official initiative from this company (see his userpage on Commons). I have met the project manager a few months ago, as a representative of the French chapter Wikimedia France. They have released tons of images under a free license and they're adding some of them to articles on Misplaced Pages where they are relevant.

This user has been indefinitely blocked by pschemp some weeks ago because "Usernames that promote a commercial company are not allowed on WIkipedia." When the blocked user contacted me, I was quite puzzled that pschemp didn't even start a discussion with him; is it standard policy to block a user indefinitely without even discussing the issue that may exist? I have asked pschemp to review his block, given that "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" (WP:U). I have explained that this user had chosen to create an account using the name of this company to ensure transparency; this user is obviously subject to the WP:COI policy, and this explicit username is the best way to have other Wikipedians aware of who this account belongs to and to help them check for WP:NPOV following his edits.

Pschemp has refused to reconsider the block, saying that " choice of name is free advertising for his company" and "the result is massive spamming of one company's name". I fail to see how the behaviour of this user has anything to do with advertising or spamming:

• this is not a role account, only one person uses this account (and I know his name, FWIW) ;
• this user has neither created nor edited the article about his company (SPOT Image) ;
• this user hasn't added any external link to his company's website ;
• this user hasn't added any POV content ;
• this user hasn't even created a userpage to try to benefit from Misplaced Pages's googlerank ;
• all this user has tried to do is add these images to some articles, hence improving their quality.

I don't see what the problem with this username is; is it that the name of the company will show in the history? So what?

I'd like to ask for another review of this block. Accounts like this one don't need to get blocked indefinitely without discussion ot accused of spamming by trigger-happy people. We're working very hard to convince companies and institutions to release some of their content under a free license, and few of them accept. This kind of welcome is surely not the best way to encourage companies to free their content and to edit openly without trying to hide their COI. Accounts like this one should get help to ensure NPOV, they should not be blocked on sight.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"ensure" not "insure". I don't see any behaviour that could be considered advertising. I would unblock the user, apologise to them, and hope they continue to donate free images to Misplaced Pages. Neıl 龱 08:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fixed spelling, thanks. guillom 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is trying to get obviously watermarked images onto the main page - a deleted POTD attempt and two (unsuccessful) FPCs, both of which were closed for not reading the instructions and WP:FP?. MER-C 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be minor issues that could easily be solved by explaining to this inexperienced user what is acceptable and what is not. I would be glad to help with that. guillom 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - bad block. I don't see any obviously spammy behavior, either. Kelly 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddness on one of my talkpage archives

Username2511 (talk · contribs) & 194.109.221.2 (talk · contribs) have been editing one of my talkpage archives (and so far nothing else), they appear to be the same person, I just thought that Admins might recognize the behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is most probably the same person, yes. Both accounts have only edited in a short space of time, and each one of those edits have been to your talkpage archive. Behaviour is very similar between the two. Looks like sockpuppetry. Might be worth reporting at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Lradrama 10:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I've got no idea who it could be. Could you report it for me please? 1) I don't know how, and 2) I can't stay online for long. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? I've blocked the account indef and I've blocked the IP for the next few days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK good work. Sorry, but I had to leave my computer at that point, in the hope that another admin or someone could look into it. If I didn't have to go, I would've done the work myself. Cheers, Lradrama 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider was moved to its own article against the wishes of the coalition seeking proof of safety and validation of such proof by scientists not directly selected by the organization that wishes to conduct the experiments. The coalition seeking additional proof of safety opposed removing the safety content from the main Large Hadron Collider article because we believed it was an attempt to hide the safety concerns WP:NPOV. The argument for moving the safety content to a new article was so that the safety issues could be covered in more detail. But the safety argument is now covered in less detail and is less balanced, as most opposing view points that have been part of the main article for months have now been removed and attempts to restore these references are being blocked. Some physicists support the restoration of these credible references that represent the opposition, but others including Phenylalanine have repeatedly removed these references without prior discussion and without identifying the actions in edit summaries in the last few days, as reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. This issue has been reported to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard for violation of almost every listed means of information suppression and Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard as editors include admitted employees of CERN who wish to conduct these experiments that some credible scientists believe have not been reasonably proven safe. --Jtankers (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Adminbots

Don't think this has been particularly well advertised - a Request for Comment has been opened on how the community should clarify its opinion on admin bots, and how these should be managed in future - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Neıl 龱 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was still only linked off the following odd collection of pages (why just those users?):

• Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators
• User talk:Msgj
• User talk:MZMcBride
• User talk:Misza13
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies
• User:Ned Scott
• User talk:ST47
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All
• User talk:WJBscribe
• User talk:Cyde
• User talk:Maxim
• Template:RFCpolicy list
• User talk:East718
• User talk:DerHexer
• User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox
• User:Pigman/Admin toolbox
• User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox/Noticeboards
• User talk:Nakon
• Misplaced Pages:WikipediaWeekly/Episode52
• User:Chetblong/Adminbots (redirect page)
• Misplaced Pages:ADMINBOTS

So I put it on village pump and the Cent template. rootology (T) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

USer GHcool page deleted unexpectedly

User page for GHcool has just been deleted without any warning or discussion. Please advise. The admin who made this deletion is a good-faith admin who has made many positive and notable contributions to Misplaced Pages. however, i disagree with this deletion. Especially since GHCool has made no edits since July 1.

Below is a prior thread posted at this page regarding GHcool. It was posted as of july 1, at this location (This is the most recent version of that discussion which i could find. i will try to post a link if subsequent comments had been posted there as well. )

It is quoted again below:

Heading: Need help with interpetation of WP:UP

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Misplaced Pages... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion here. Also, the original AN thread is archived here. At that original thread, three admins (plus myself) all expressed misgivings about the page, with nobody other than GHcool defending it. The thread was then archived.

Note that Gwen Gale has deleted the page for now without prejudice to possible reinstatement should consensus develop that the page is acceptable. All four of us feel it violates WP:SOAP and probably WP:UP, and have not yet heard a serious dissenting opinion, so action was taken. I, for one, would love to hear reasoned commentary from more people for what I realize will be a controversial action. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there's no way to view the page, is there? Since deletion appears to erase all prior versions of the page, and all mention of it in any logs. is it possible to view the most recent version of the page? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins can see it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. could anyone perhaps open it, just for the sake of this discussion? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from GHcool, it's his page. Meanwhile, could you tell me what your worries are about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my interest is simply that he is my colleague. however, are you asking my specific worry with this, or simply asking why i am interested in the first place? if you are asking my specific ojections, it is simply that I feel a user should be given a timely warning before an action is specifically taken. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At least four admins Three admins and (I think) at least three other editors think GHcool's user page is worrisome (although GHcool likely didn't mean it that way). To stem any harm to the project while GHcool is away, I deleted the page pending further discussion when he gets back. I think GHcool did have forewarning there were worries about his page but he wanted to let things stand as they were while he was gone (and that diff from a week ago is his latest contrib). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I think his request that no actions occur here until he returns is pretty reasonable. (I appreciate your openness in posting a link to it here.) while there may have been consensus that his user page was problematic, I didn't see any consensus here that it should be deleted while he was away, when he did let others know in advance that he would be away for a certain set specific amount of time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, along with your take on this. Meanwhile (and I don't mean to be snippy), three admins think otherwise. It's true I'm not happy with the notion GHcool's gonna come back and find his userpage is redlinked. I'm hoping he'll be back soon so we can talk about it and get his user page back up, fast. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. thanks for your reply. you have replied to my initial query, although of course I still disagree basically. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour of Admin- Dbachmann

Admins are supposed to be impartial and set a example for others to follow. But i am sorry to report that user Dbachmann who is probably an admin has been behaving in a very wrong way. He resorted to name calling me on a discussion board and threatened me without reason. His behaviour to other editors who do not agree to his POV is also aggressive.

He also indulged in edit war on article Hinduism. He has protected his talk page so nobody could leave any warning. (another instance of abuse of Admin previlages) following are the diffs.

• 1st revert: 10:45, 8 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:56, 8 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:06, 8 July 2008
• 4th revert: 11:11, 8 July 2008
• 5th revert: 11:12, 8 July 2008
• 6th revert: 11:50, 8 July 2008
• 7th revert: 12:11, 8 July 2008
• 8th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008
• 9th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008 Sindhian (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all the diffs, and trawled through the history of the article. My conclusion: Dbachmann has been robust in discussion, but I would not say aggressive. As to the so-called reverts, the majority of them are not reverts, and making claims that they are greatly weakens your argument. I note that you have been in dispute with him over the article; I'm sorry that you thought it was a good move to bring that dispute here wrapped up as a criticism of his actions; it was not a good move. I do not believe any admin action is required here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd urge any admin to review dab's Talk page before acting on this report. There are allegations of bad faith and trolling by Sindhian. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sindihan, this has been reviewed by several admins and addressed on dab's talk page. Bringing it here is just admin shopping. I am sure you followed the discussion on dabs talk page where we discredited the 3RR report as there are several sequetnial edits that do not count towards 3RR. Reporting it here is just disruptive. Chrislk02 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance we can delete this? He created it right before posting here. — _Maggot 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Satori Son beat me to it. Chrislk02 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, under WP:CSD#G6. I hope no one objects to doing so as non-controversial housekeeping. — Satori Son 18:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It saves the time of an MfD, so I wouldn't see why. Mark as resolved? — _Maggot 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look?

Would somebody take a good look at this "proposal"? In summary, an editor (the well-known owner of a tag-bot) seems to have taken offense at a relatively minor dispute over (in part) mass tagging, and posted a very pointy "discussion" and canvassed a number of editors to draw them into it. I believe that the overview of the dispute very much mischaracterizes my and the beer project's issues with the well-intentioned actions of its parent project, and is destructive to my reputation. The history of the discussion and its genesis are reasonably well-linked, and I don't want to introduce bias by commenting much. I am, however, getting quite frustrated and think it best to remove myself from the situation and go offline for a bit. – ClockworkSoul 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The "proposal" is going nowhere, by dint of 1 supporting vote versus 13 dissenting votes, to date. There's no particular reasons why admins should look at the proposal, beyond general interest in all things wiki: certainly there's no admin treatable infraction occurring ... I understand that you are frustrated and can see why you would make an appeal for more eyeballs, but I'd suggest this is (at best) village pump fodder, or (assuming we have one) a meta-project talk page thread, but not WP:AN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology issues

{{userlinks|JDPhD]] has over some time been adding material to this article, much of it unsupported by the sources he's cited. In particular this addition seems to rely on a primary source and has no indication how it satisfies verifiability. TBH, I don't have time to go through all of this for health reasons but it is starting to get worrying. Anyone with more experience of this article and its issues care to take a look? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards