Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 10 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.

When admins attack

Rather than say she made a mistake and I'm right User talk:Kelly has accused me of things and is triying to ban me.

check her vandalization of Medea Benjamin kelly know she doesn't belong in that catigory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.221 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I removed all the US state flags per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#flagcruft_on_sister_cities_lists. Notice that I didn't remove the links to the US states. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 9 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)

This thread has really run off in some quite interesting tangents. I think Yanksox's advice above is pretty reasonable. Orderinchaos 20:59, 8 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)

I am watching current contributions to make sure there is no repeat of such utterly unacceptable behavior. (I see the ed. has been notified of this discussion,and I take that as a sufficient warning that another comment like that will lead to a block.) DGG (talk) 16:49, 10 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)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations backlogged cleared...here's hoping someone tackles SSP now :) -- ] (] · ]) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Spot Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Yeah, it's a problem a friendly warning would solve. MER-C 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, nobody's objected, so I have unblocked User:Spot Image. Neıl 龱 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have objected had I been actually told about the discussion. Way to ignore my objections by not notifying me. Did any of you read what I wrote in his talk page? Seriously guys, we've never let anyone else post under a company name on wikipedia and this amounts to free advertising for this company. Now you've gone and set a rather crappy precedent - might as well just go tell everyone tehy can come here and spam their company name all over. It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Misplaced Pages. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Misplaced Pages and not be constantly advertised to. Not involving me was disingenuous and unblocking without addressing my concerns was premature. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can? pschemp | talk 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Guillom said on your talk page that he had left a message on Spot Image's talk page. On there he mentions he'd opened a thread on WP:AN. It wasn't particularly disingenuous. Guillom, above, gives a convincing explanation and reasoning for this being a special case. Everyone else who participated in the discussion seemed to concur. If more people chip in and the consensus sways back towards blocking a good faith contributor, then fine. Neıl 龱 11:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not clam down, no notice was given to me about this discussion, which is the polite thing to do when you bring up a disagreement here. He asked me to comment there, and I did. He did not then tell me he was taking it to AN. This user was unblocked without addressing my concerns or getting my input. That is wrong and you know it. It's a crappy thing to do to a fellow admin. pschemp | talk 11:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calm down, not clam down" AGF and give Guillom some leeway - he's a Wikimedia steward, and not a habitual editor of en.Misplaced Pages. It's not "really poor behaviour", it's at most an oversight - he did leave a message on an active discussion you were participating in, probably unaware this was a breach of en.Misplaced Pages etiquette. I also (wrongly) assumed that you would have seen the link he put on Shot Info's talk page, as you were one half of the discussion taking place there. I don't like not being informed either, so for that, I apologise. It was still a bad block, though, and rather than complain about the notification, I would love to see you explain in more detail your rationale for this block. Neıl 龱 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who unblocked, without giving me a chance to give input here. And if you read my note up there, I did explain. Let me repeat it for you. "It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Misplaced Pages. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Misplaced Pages and not be constantly advertised to. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can?" The result is spamming of ONE company's name - regardless of the intentions. We don't allow any other company to do this, and never have for a good reason. You can't allow one company to use their name all over WP just because you like the guy. This is why company names are blocked as a matter of routine and have been for years. - It has nothing to do with good intentions, but the unintentional result of what amounts to free advertising. To quote from the username policy "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." I see it as a problem. Note also it isn't recommended. It isn't difficult to get a different name and thus avoid the issue altogether. I noticed Guillom never once mentioned this part of the username policy.pschemp | talk 11:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the important matter - whether or not a good faith user should be indef blocked. I didn't agree with your rationale, and neither did Guillom, MER-C, or Kelly. Nobody else bothered to respond, so that was all there was to make a judgement on. What do others think? Anyone? Neıl 龱 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not whether a good faith user should be blocked, but whether his username is appropriate. It clearly is not, and runs afoul of our username policy. I asked him politely to make a new name. Why is it that everyone is ignoring the policy here? pschemp | talk 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if you read the username policy - WP:U - you will see that (quote, my emphasises) "use of Misplaced Pages for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited". Using the company's name as a usernam in itself is not automatically promotional. Neıl 龱 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale behind "the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Misplaced Pages". As far as I know, histories of articles don't show in google results. AFAICT, the only Misplaced Pages entry in google is the article . guillom 11:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I don't consider an indefinite block as a polite way to ask to make a new name. guillom 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change it. What is wrong with that? here is an example. As soon as google gets done indexing, WP will be the first or second hit for any username. The fact is that allowing someone to use a company name gives them free advertising, onwiki and off. (I'm much more concerned about onwiki - why should I have to see one company's name everywhere as I edit?) Username policy says - NOT RECOMMENDED. It used to say banned outright, and this change to allow it all is ridiculous. Again, why should we allow what is free onwiki advertising to any one company and not all of them? WP is add free, and should remain that way. THis username is not appropriate, goes against policy and is a terrible precedent. Since we also have an article called this also gives the appearance of conflict of interest. pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings. I left a message on pschemp's talk page to inform him that I had started a new discussion on User talk:Spot Image; he answered there, I answered back, and I thought we were having a centralized discussion. As he refused to reconsider the block, I asked for more input on WP:AN and I left a notice on the discussion page. There was absolutely no mischief there. guillom 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support the unblock on the basis that this user has actually contributed excellent content to Misplaced Pages in a manner that is not inconsistent with policies and guidelines, outside of a username that is the same as that of the company the user is contributing from. A username block should not be based solely on the username itself; the rationale must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is fair to say that if the account had been spamming numerous pages with links promoting their company, or was doing sneaky POV edits to slant the opinion of their organization, then a block would be in order. Or if there was the slightest bit of trouble. But this is not the case here. Some images were watermarked, but that is a relatively minor issue that can be easily solved with discussion. I hope the user continues to contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 11:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Seicer - the admin who ignores our protection policy and abuses his admin privileges to unprotect a page that he edit warred on, then turns up to complain about my interpretation of policy? Good to get your input. The usernameblock was based SOLEY ON THE USERNAME. It's the name of a company. The policy clearly says this is not recommended. Why is it that WP will suddenly allow ONE company to promote itself through a username and not others? pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:U - Use of Misplaced Pages for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited. Using a company name as your username is not automatically promotional, and is not grounds for a block. It only becomes grounds for a block and en enforced username change if it is being used in a promotional way. Pschemp, you seem to misunderstand the policy. Neıl 龱 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think pschemp may be recalling an earlier version of that page. It has undergone extensive modification in the last year or so. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the policy flat outs says it is NOT RECOMMENDED. That's not a blanket "allowed if we like the guy" it's a statement that says it isn't a good idea and for very good reasons. I don't seen any good reasons to make an exception here. And I think it's an issue here due to the fact that 1. we have an article of the same name about this company and 2. the number of contibutions. It just isn't a good idea to allow advertising for one company and not others. WHy everyone suddenly wants WP to be allowed to become a billboard for only those companys we *like* is beyond me.pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pschemp, there is no need to rail against every comment that is in any such way opposing that of yours -- and personal slanders against other editors or administrators is not needed. Note that I did not divulge down that path, and I would have expected that as a fellow administrator, you would have had the courtesy to do the same. Back on topic, per policy, the username is only blockable as a username block if the account was being used in a way to solely promote a certain service, product or company. That was not the case here at all. Time to move on and let the editor contribute -- if he returns at all. seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since guillom is handling this, it's probably an OTRS thingo, which (hopefully) means someone reliable is in touch with him and will be able to intice him back when (hopefully soon) someone unblocks (again). —Giggy 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am handling this because I've met the people involved in this project as a representative of Wikimedia France ; we work in the same city. It is not OTRS-related, but we are in touch by email. guillom 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, because 1) I think blocking over username is stupid regardless, and 2) blocking a constructive contributor over username is madness (not in that way). It's recommended precisely for this sort of case - if other companies want google juice, they can contribute constructively. —Giggy 11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You just recommended that WP be allowed to be a vehicle for advertising. That's absolutely against everything WP is about. pschemp | talk 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nooo, I recommended we unblock this guy (without wheel warring). And to respond to your claim that he can use this username for google advertising, I suggested that rather than block his valuable contributions out, we consider the bit of the username policy that recommends (not requires) blocking, ignore a few rules, and get a better encyclopedia as an end result. You blocked a good faith newbie because of a misreading of the username policy. That's against a heck of a lot of what WP is about. —Giggy 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change his name. That is not a sin, nor is he a "newbie". I blocked because he was doing immediate damage. Did no one notice he didn't ever reply on his talk page? Didn't even contest the block or ask why? Had he done so I happily would have opened a dialog. But hey, if you want WP to be a vehicle for advertising, as everyone here seems to think then have fun with that. pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What "immediate damage"? Neıl 龱 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see this user as being problematic, and the policy is clearly and currently open to interpretation, I'd suggest he change his username to avoid further issues. — _Maggot 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing company names is effectively turning WP into a vehicle for advertising for only those companies we "like". The net effect is free publicity and free advertising for a select group, and this is absolutely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I should be able to edit without being confronted with the spamming of company names in usernames. It doesn't encourage openness, only the use of Misplaced Pages for advertising. I'm shocked that the policy was changed to allow this at all. Allowing Misplaced Pages to be whored out to companies in the name of friendliness is wrong.pschemp | talk 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you honestly recognise "Spot Image" as a company name when you first saw it? Especially considering he wasn't actually spamming links to his company? I can't say I did. —Giggy 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. pschemp | talk 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, if you dislike the policy, get the policy changed. At present, the policy, and consensus here, does not support your block. Neıl 龱 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the policy supports me specifically where is says company names are NOT RECOMMENDED. You must enjoy ignoring that part. pschemp | talk 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not recommended does not mean not allowed. Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does however mean you shouldn't do it without exceptional reasons. I see no exceptional reasons here. Just to be friendly is not a good reason to do something that isn't recommended. pschemp | talk 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell thats a bad block. While it may be the name of a company - it isn't really recognisably so, and doncha think we can bend the rules a little for someone who is doing so much good? Viridae 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, like I said, allowing WP to be whored out for advertising to just the companies we "like" is wrong and against the principle that WP should remain advertising free. It's a slippery slope that will end up with everyone clamoring to use us for free advertising. And where does it stop? Companies will take advantage of this, and the end result is that we're giving away the reputation of WP to some companies for their corporate gain and not others. It's a despicable thing that this project has decided to allow this. pschemp | talk 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hes not advertising anymore than the article is. The mere existence of the username is not explicitly advertising. — _Maggot 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, because when WP is indexed, usernames on WP pages become the first or second hit in searches. Example here - the net effect is free advertising, regardless of the way the account is used. pschemp | talk 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary. His username isn't appearing in the first three pages after a cursory examination. My advice: Let this go. — _Maggot 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment no. But it will be. And the fact is his image uploads are watermarked, link to his campany and every time he signs his name it promotes his company. Every time. That's onwiki advertising, pure and simple.pschemp | talk 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrible block, terrible reblock. The user isn't violating policy, the name is not obviously a company name, he's not having COI issues, he's made great constructive edits that have benefited the project. Did I say terrible? Horrible block. pschemp, if you don't like the policy, then work to change it, but biting constructive editors and then wheel warring over it, poor form. LaraLove|Talk 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A year ago this block would have been perfectly within policy so lay off the horrible block crap. It is obviously a company name, and it isn't biting to block and ask politely to change the username. It appeared on FPC with links to company and watermarked images - making if painfully obvious that this was a company and it was promoting itself. If you'd been involved, you would have known that. pschemp | talk 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible block. It isn't biting to politely ask them to change their username. It's biting to indefinitely block them and inform them politely that they can change their name or move along. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing advertising is immediate damage to WP - that calls for a block and a polite note. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lara, nearly every time this user edits Misplaced Pages it's to add an image with a "Spot Image" watermark and a "(Location X) seen from Spot Satellite" caption into articles. I think that combined with the name is a pretty blatant COI. Sarah 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I don't see that a warning was given (although I may be wrong, it could be elsewhere, just not on his talk page). How can an editor take corrective action if he is blocked on sight? — _Maggot 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he should have been blocked on sight; I just think he should be asked to change his username. As I said below, I don't want him to be blocked and I think Pschemp acted a bit hastily when she blocked on sight. I think she should have asked him to change his username and tried to open discussion before hitting the block button. But I'm also not surprised that this has happened because the username plus the nature of the edits - adding the company's name to image captions - and the image watermarking, it looks like blatant spamming. I'm really not sure that everyone who has commented here to chastise Pschemp has actually looked at the images and the edits this guy was making and if they have, I'm quite surprised people aren't a little more understanding. I appreciate the contributions are being done in good faith and I don't want to block him or stop him from contributing but I can also see how this happened and why Pschemp felt this was an inappropriate username. Sarah 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war

Spot Image has been reblocked by Pschemp (), despite every other participant in this discussion, and WP:U, all saying the block should not have been made. Could someone else unblock, please? Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every other participant, Syn maggot thinks the name should be changed too. Plus, you reversed my block before the disscussion was over (it is still going on) and before I had any input. It was wrong to reverse the block prematurely on your part Neil. pschemp | talk 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Neıl 龱 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Unblocked. pschemp, please do not block while the original block is in mid-discussion. Consensus is quite clearly leaning towards unblocking. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently leaning but not done. THe reversal was wrong. pschemp | talk

pschemp: Thats not even a half of the sentence: Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. So you have to prove that under the circumstances this user's contributions are problematic with respect to his username. Whats best for the situation is indeed a rename to avoid further issues, the issues I mentioned were further blocks like the one you just made, which are counter productive. — _Maggot 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, you do not have a consensus either, and wheel warring will not help your case. — _Maggot 12:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, company names are normally blocked on sight. Making an exception for a company that helps us by providing free media seems at first like a reasonable thing to do, but if we do that, we are opening the floodgates - provide us an image and you can advertise here. Still, though, pschemp reblocking the user was obviously incorrect. --B (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course my action was wrong, however, the reversal of the my block without my input was wrong, period. I've never wheel warred before, but then I never dealt with something that has the potential to do so much damage to wikipedia before. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe so many people support allowing WP to be whored out to advertising, but since that is community consensus so be it. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a username violation. The user is free to use pretty much any other username on the face of this planet, but the current username:

1. Matches the name of a company ("Spot Image"), and
2. It is being used to promote it (see Image:Namib Desert SPOT 1347.jpg, which clearly links to a "give us money" shopping cart page. Moreover, it's watermarked).

Therefore, I feel that this username is promotional in nature and is therefore a violation of the username policy and I endorse pschemp's original block. --slakr 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not watermarked any more - made a derivative image without the watermark, put the watermark in the EXIF data, and uploaded it under the same name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and I wonder what pschemp will insult me about :) --NE2 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but the fact that by supporting the unblock, you are supporting allowing WP to be used for advertising. Cheers. pschemp | talk 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's allowing now, not whoring out? Drop the dramatics. Consensus is against you. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And your snide comments are wonderful too. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

! - "cast ye not the first stone ..." Neıl 龱 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by guillom to not feed the wikidrama, when you are doing exactly that. What do you guys want? You may have to decide - no double standards, please! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss here - we have the part of policy for a reason, to stop spam. As Slakr has pointed out already, it's a clear violation because it matches a company name and has been self promoting. We shouldn't make exceptions for one user - if we don't like one part of policy, then remove it, or we're using double standards with the block button, and that's not good. Oppose unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: But why would it be from OTRS then? The image is what i'm referring to.— _Maggot 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS getting involved has nothing to do with whether this is a violation of WP:U or not. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't last year. pschemp correctly noted that a year ago, this was completely acceptable, but it's not cool anymore to block editors without discussing it with them first. How difficult is it to remove the block from this situation? Just as likely, if not more, to get a name change, and a significantly lower risk of running the user off permanently. LaraLove|Talk 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:U hasn't changed that much. If a username matches that of a company, and is being used to promote itself, then it is blocked on sight. No need to discuss anything with them before the block. If they then realise their mistakes, agree to change their username and not selfpromote, then they can be unblocked to get a name change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I gladly would have done had messaged me, or asked on his userpage or given any indication that he wanted to communicate. He didn't though, not to me. I just got a message from Guillom requesting an unblock. (And not an ublock for a name change, an unblock to allow him to edit with the same one.)pschemp | talk 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - it hasn't been shown how this username allows "WP to be whored out to advertising".

  On a very related note, I believe that if any commercial entity wished to support WP with a large grant of money, equipment, bandwidth, etc., there would be no reason it couldn't be accepted and acknowledged. Anyone who thinks this project can't happen without tangible resources in addition to the required volunteer effort is not rooted in reality. I have no special knowledge of the internal workings of WP, but I am certain beyond any doubt that the infrastructure demands are enormous, and I'm nearly certain they are growing at ever-increasing rates. Corporations and people make donations to many worthy non-profit organizations around the globe, and they are routinely acknowledged by the recipients. So - even if this username amounts to some sort of promotion which some would view as advertising - a claim which is dubious at best - how does that compromise the encyclopedia? All contributions are still subject to the same restrictions.  Frank  |  talk  13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if this wasn't already apparent. — _Maggot 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ask user to change username and if they refuse, then reblock. Ask the user not to place any promotional items (links, logos, watermarks) on the media. The user can put a brief statement of who they are with a link to their site on their userpage. That is typically allowed. Jehochman 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I'm with Jehochman. This could have been worked out without a block. LaraLove|Talk 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I support unblocking the user but I think they should be asked to voluntarily change their username and if they don't then they should be reblocked. All the images I looked at have "Spot Images" watermarks which arguably puts promotion and advertising on the table and turning a blind eye would be a really bad precedent, in my opinion. I appreciate this person's work and I don't want them to be blocked but I don't think it's appropriate to use a company name as their username. Sarah 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  Guillom is aware that the watermarks are a no go, and a name change is recommended. He's been communicating with the user, and I'm sure he'll be able to pass this along. Neıl 龱 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to see more evidence of that. pschemp | talk 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • See Commons:User talk:Spot Image. As an additional note, and an aside, note that while many of the user's images presently have watermarks, they are being uploaded under a CC-by-SA license, which permits derivations (so the watermarks could be legitimately removed or clipped). Neıl 龱 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • There is NOTHING about asking this user to change his name there, nor has Guillom indicated that he would do that. All i see is the user refusing to remove the watermarks and talking as "we" as if he is the company. Pure and simple, this user is promoting his company, and that merits a name change on WP. (Commons can do what they like of course.) You can see from above I am not the only person who thinks the name is inappropriate. pschemp | talk 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Guillom has left a note on my talk page saying he is in communication with the user about the two chief issues (the user name change, and the presence of watermarks on the images). Neıl 龱 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that all Guillom asked me to do was unblock the user and let him continue editing with his current username, not unblock to allow him to change it. (Which I did politely ask him to do). My argument is that the name itself inappropriate - how it gets changed and in what order of block or reblock, I do not care, just that it gets changed. pschemp | talk 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Firstly, to stop the drama whose continuity is offputting, bitey and impolite to the user in question; secondly, it's not even apparent from the username as such that it is a company name, it's just two random common words juxtaposed, so the concern that the mere presence of it on Misplaced Pages would constitute improper advertisement seems far-fetched. And on procedural grounds, yes, I believe Neil acted correctly in assuming that a sufficient degree of consensus had previously been established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock to allow for a username change, reblock if that does not happen. Usernames that match company names may be blocked as promotional, in my understanding of WP:U. It's not always necessary to do so immediately if the account is not actually advertising its company. Blocking it in this instance was a bad idea, and re-blocking it against clear consensus here exhibited poor judgment on the part of pschemp.  Sandstein  14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Admonish User:pschemp for her re-block to begin with, which just escalated the drama. Wizardman 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • cough cough "her" :) Neıl 龱 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There, fixed. Now, after re-reading everything I do believe User:Spot Image should change their username, though that doesn't mean you can wheel war. Wizardman 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Yes, I'm working on it. The account should be renamed in the next few days. guillom 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • How about admonishing the admin who failed to communicate about his intention to unblock, or starting this discussion? My understanding is that such communication is generally required, and certainly recommended as a courtesy. Not notifying people creates an incentive for stalking, which I believe is discouraged. On the other hand, I'm not sure what exactly gives you the power to adminish where others seem to express their views as "support unblock" or "endorse block" and the like. Is this because you are a member of the Orwellian Mediation Committee? It seems this discussion started on the premise that it's a bad idea to drive away users, but your behaviour does exactly that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    I left a note on the talk page where we were discussing the case, and I thought pschemp had noticed it. I have already said I was sorry about that. Neil also thought pschemp had seen the notice. guillom 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Images can be modified to remove watermarks. Image description pages can be edited to remove linkspam. (Though I don't see any harm in allowing a little link-love on image description page - not in image captions, though.) I don't see any point in forcing the user to change their name, it's not like user contributions show up in Google. Kelly 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Usernames show up in google though, linked to WP. Google my username for instance. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering to keep doing this every time this user uploads something? Otherwise, please see this discussion, in which it emerged that nobody actually wants to take on this role. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    Relax, PLW - someone will get to it eventually - there is no deadline. Is it better to have a watermarked image that needs to be fixed, or no image at all? Kelly 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Considering how small and not that great the images are, I see no loss of not having them. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that's a terrible attitude. Kelly 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You should take a look at the discussion on that user's commons talk page. People are rather upset about the watermarked images, and nobody wants to keep fixing them for him. Someone suggested making a bot for it, an idea which was quickly buried when it transpired that nobody actually wanted to write a bot (but a bot capable of using Photoshop tools to remove watermarks would be cool</sarcasm>). Any way you look at this, basically encouraging a user to keep uploading watermarked images is a bad move. Remember that there is no deadline - we can just wait for somebody else to come along and upload unmarked images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban the SpotImage guy indefinitely, we dont' need him, his watermarked garbage images, or any form of "advertising." I'll donate 7 bucks right now, that's a whole pack of smokes btw, if we do the right thing and indef ban FOREVER that name and promotion based users all the time forever and ever. :) Beam 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the problem is almost solved. Slow down, relax and read the last few posts. — _Maggot 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the smile meant Beam was joking. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But how is it appropriate? If SPOT Image remains a user (after a rename) it is because he has support based on his contributions. Retaining users who provide us with images is a little more important than just coming by for jokes. Joking about this now is not very constructive, and I've told this to Beam on his talk page. — _Maggot 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, didn't say it was appropriate. I'm not terribly offended at attempts to lighten the situation with humor though. meh. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For those of you still calling for my head, as Ryan P. pointed out, the standard action when an account is spamming or promoting under a company name is to block and ask that they change. That's all I did. This user writes as "we" - indicative of a role account, uploads watermarked and commercially linked images, and is clearly promoting one company. As I said before, I've never wheel warred before, not once - but the decision to unblock and allow him to continue with the name that clearly runs afoul of username policy, combined with his actions is so mistaken, premature and so detrimental to the long term goal of this project, that I felt that reversing it was the only thing I could do to protect this project.

I know it was wrong, and I knew it was wrong when I did it, but I felt I had to. Later consensus has developed that the name in not appropriate and that was my point all along. As for all the "endorse unblock" talk, continuing to argue it seems pointless. The important thing is that this user changes his name. Guillom has said he is working on this so I am satisfied. Sacrifice me on the altar of policy wonkism if you wish, the important thing is that in the end, we don't start a chain of events that leads to a "select few" advertisers being allowed to plaster their company name all of the project. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So can we conclude that this is resolved, with the user unblocked and any future action taking place off AN? seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The user in unblocked with the requirement of a name change - and we've left the rest to Guillom as he is dealing with him also at commons. No need for more drama that I see. pschemp | talk 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Background on satellite image companies

Written while someone was busy closing the discussion above, which means no-one will now read what I wrote... :-( Could someone at least contact pschemp, guillom and others who might be interested. I have to go now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, SPOT Image is just one of many commercial companies that use data from satellites to create high-quality satellite images. Most use NASA satellites, but in this case, the company is using data from SPOT satellites instead. There are many examples of these sort of companies. See here and here for Planetary Visions (which doesn't seem to have an article). Digital Globe is another. See also satellite imagery, which says:

"Several other countries have satellite imaging programs, and a collaborative European effort launched the ERS and Envisat satellites carrying various sensors. There are also private companies that provide commercial satellite imagery. In the early 21st century satellite imagery became widely available when affordable, easy to use software with access to satellite imagery databases became offered by several companies and organizations."

The broader field is known as geographic information systems (GIS - an article well worth reading), and we have Category:GIS companies. Other satellite company examples in there are: GeoEye and GlobeXplorer. Then, of course, there is Google Earth and Google Maps, which also use such data, though that is more for maps. From what I know of SPOT Image, they produce a variety of products. Personally, I think that some sort of tie-up with a GIS company would be good for Wikimedia to pursue, but that should really be done at a higher level. I'm also surprised to see SPOT Image releasing some of their images under a free license - it will be interesting to see where GIS companies as a whole go with respect to the images they've produced using free (NASA satellites) and non-free (other satellites) data. Anyway, that should be enough background for now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate at a different venue, but it is a relevant and good topic to discuss. I can see a future need for a future tie-in to a specific vendor or service, as I find the current free services to be a bit... outdated and clunky, to say the least. Perhaps pose this at the Village Pump or wherever appropriate. seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in discussing this topic. Please keep me posted if/when this thread is moved to somewhere else. guillom 20:39, 9 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)

Talk page shows a week of discussion, not no prior... see this for a centralized location. Editor is Forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:05, 9 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)

Well a fair number of those users operate admin bots and were notified that the general concept of their behavior was being discussed, also I suspect a fair number of people transclude the RFCpolicylist, hence the /toolbox style links. No reason it can't go on the VP and CENT though. MBisanz 13:54, 9 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)

I've been bold and restored the portion of GHcool's userpage that was uncontroversial and not soapboxy. Neıl 龱 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but you may want to consider protecting the current version until we can communicate with GHcool. Dollars to doughnuts, as soon as he comes back he'll restore the old version... Which is fine if people are on top of it, but I am just concerned about this debate disappearing yet again. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, and a note left to contact an admin when he comes back. Neıl 龱 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wholly neutral on this since on one hand, we've now edited his page but on the other, it's no longer redlinked. I support the protection though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 9 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)

I am sorry I made a mistake in taking the diffs, I took the diffs from the Article history by selecting two edits. I now realize I made a mistake but please understand this was my first time reporting a 3RR violation. I sincerely did not know I am making a mistake. Please forgive me. Sindhian (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not resolved

I have been watching all of this unfold, and I was pleased to see that Dbachmann was unblocked and I was even thinking "you see Misplaced Pages CAN be fair." But now that I see that Sindhian has been blocked for 48 hours for putting in a 3RR request against an admin I'm sort of shocked. What is the message you're trying to send to us regular user with this block? Sindhian made a reasonable mistake in submitting this 3RR request-- it was found and all is well. So what's with the vengeance? Could we, in the name of FAIRNESS, lift this block as well?

I know NOTHING of the editing dispute, I just feel strongly that users should not be punished simply because they find fault with admins. futurebird (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take another look. There is another thread below related to this matter. — _Maggot 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just too a look and now I'm even more confused. I don't see a good cause for this block. futurebird (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look?

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

It's a bit scary when arguments over beer of any kind get nasty. Orderinchaos 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my neighbourhood (and I'm talking 100 metres here), it's Super Bock, which has quite the kick, but the stuff tastes like liquified aluminium to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology issues

JDPhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)

I have also come across additions by this user to articles such as Reactive mind and Dianetics that are drawn mainly from primary sources, or in some cases where other sources were used inappropriately. I have tried adding notes to the articles' talk pages as well as a note to the user's talk page, but JDPhD (talk · contribs) has not engaged in any discussion. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who insist on breaking the major rules (WP:5P) are subject to requests for comment, blocking or banning. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn

Anyone want to close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn? It's been open for eight months now; I very much doubt anything's going to come of it, especially since the subject never replied to a single post about the subject, let alone commented on the RFC. As one of the certifiers, I don't really want to close it myself (although I don't think the issue in question has gone away). – iridescent 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought these were closed by a bot after a month. What am I missing? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User conduct RfCs are closed manually after an appropriate time. Often a month isn't long enough to get outside opinions so it needs human judgement. You can either use an archive template, or simply delist it from the userconduct RfC page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC following this request. It had long ago fallen out of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock tags and "possible" checkuser results

User:Laurenraz was tagged some time ago as a suspected sock puppet. The checkuser came back as "possible". The user requested that the suspected sock tag be removed from her userpage, and I did so. User:Matilda argues that, as she still suspects Laurenraz of sockpuppetry and since the checkuser indicated that it was possible, the tag should remain. I argue that Laurenraz is a user in good standing, and it's not reasonable to require users in good standing to be tagged against their will as suspected sock puppets in perpetuity. Others' thoughts would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add my view.
  • Laurenraz is a single purpose account as were those found definitely so by checkuser - Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeumic.
  • The issue has come up in a similar form previously on this noticeboard by one of the sockpuppets : Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Serious and Continuous Misplaced Pages Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism - that user Wikifactsright (talk · contribs) was found by checkuser to be a definite sockpuppet.
  • Zeumic is an Australian firm http://www.zeumic.com.au/ and is linked to the article Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it hosts his website http://www.geoffedelsten.com.au/ (see bottom right hand corner).
    • Of some significance - A document published by Edelsten at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/The-Life-and-Times-of-Prof-Dr-Geoffrey-Edelsten.pdf attacks Misplaced Pages and several wikipedians - myself included (see pages 19 and 20)
  • LaurenRaz claims to be Just a gal from oz who like law and politics.. Let's "discussion" something nice. but seems to focus only on talking about the Edelsten article - Special:Contributions/Laurenraz. She was immediately experienced in annotating her edits and signing her posts and adding sub heads to discussion threads in talk pages. Within minutes of creating her user page and talk page she immediately sought to have the Edelsten article either deleted or corrected . The language she used was reminiscent of the rhetoric used by Wikifactsright
    • Laurenraz in her first post to the Edelsten talk page called for Remove, Rewrite, Make the Wrong Right?
    • Wikifactsright on his user page called for Get the Facts Right. - Get the Policy Right. - No Bias
  • Wikifactsright's first four edits were to set up his talk page (2 edits), set up his user page, and next to join the discussion at Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten‎
  • I believe Laurenraz is a possible sockpuppet per WP:DUCK --Matilda 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Matilda. The style of editing is strikingly similar to previous single purpose sock puppets. All trying to discredit the current article and recommend removing any negative info on Edelsten and refer to Edelstens's personal website as the only reliable source. (which it is far from). Michellecrisp (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Laurenraz is probably a sock or meatpuppet. But I don't think WP:DUCK is met, and her edits aren't really disruptive at this point (they're confined to the article talk page), so I'd favour leaving her unblocked, and if we're leaving her unblocked we should let her remove the tag. The article in question is a pretty negative portrayal of a living person (though it appears to me to adhere to WP:NPOV), and I think having somebody editing the article talk page on behalf of the subject - if that is indeed what Laurenraz is doing - is unlikely to prove problematic, and could even be helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing to block her at present. I think the tag is merited as "possible" sockpuppet as both Sarcasticidealist and Michellecrisp agree she is possibly a sockpuppet. Her comments on the talk page are no longer helpful as they do not move the discussion on. The way to to deal with that though is to no longer to respond unless she raises a new point. WP:Duck merely states looks like, ... and therefore is - doesn't give rise to blocking necessarily. --Matilda 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we feel comfortable stating the "...and therefore is" part, then I think we should block. But if we don't think the threshold of certainty has been met - and I don't think it has - then I don't think it's reasonable to leave her tagged. We're essentially saying "Here, we think you're a sockpuppet, but we don't see any way of proving it, so we're just going to tar you as such without giving you the means to clear yourself". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't gone as far as possible => blocking - not because I am squeamish just hadn't thought it through. I am satisfied that she is on the basis of the logic above. Although the checkuser was merely "possible", her editing behaviour supports that she is indeed a sockpuppet - single purpose account with the same editing behaviour as confirmed socks. I will block --Matilda 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matilda here and she looks like a quite obvious sock to me. I also must say that I don't agree with telling her "as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned you're not a sockpuppet, since the checkuser on the question came back as "possible" but not definite (although it came back as definite on a whole bunch of other accounts)." First of all Misplaced Pages itself never takes such a position and saying that gives the impression that the Foundation makes official determinations of people's "sockiness" and even if the checkuser had come back as unrelated, it still doesn't mean the account is "not a sockpuppet". We have blocked many, many users with negative checkuser results based on behaviour and editing patterns. Telling her that Misplaced Pages considers her not a sock is just wrong, frankly, and it reinforces the idea that people just need to segregate their edits or user open proxies to get away with it. Given the CU came back as possible, I'm assuming the accounts are coming from the same geographical location but a different IP, which could simply be someone editing with one account from home and another from work. Sarah 09:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And the similarities in editing with Wikifactsright and the clear promotion of the website as against factual, reliable sources convinces me that it may not be the same person but they're definitely working in concert. We don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" standard to block IMO. Orderinchaos 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-asses the rude behaviour of 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.

But I would still ask you to review Dbachmann behaviour because it is difficult to work with him because he is aggressive and disrespectful of other editors and does not pursue dispue resolution properly. He has been at odds other editors on Hinduism article and is not engaging in a meaning full discussion but resorting to personal attacks. Following is the proof.

1 "wow. can you say "paranoia". ... Instead, you opt for making political noise about "defamation", citing some page you googled on experiencefestival.com. That's so much easier than actually researching stuff, isn't it? And it gives you a warm feeling of being a Defender of the Faith against the infidel "defamers" of Hinduism, isn't that great."

2

Doug, this is a no-brainer for anyone familiar with this project's goals and purpose. It isn't necessary to even react to such stuff. Sindhian is just troll, in the classical, non-inflationary sense of the term

19:07, 8 July 2008 Sheesh, we have enough good references here, this is getting as bad as Talk:India in terms of quibbling for the sake of quibbling. Don't you guys have any article you actually want to improve?

"I see. In the light of this, I suppose the proper course of action would be banning Sindhian's account under WP:DISRUPT. Investing time and good faith in talking sense to this user is clearly a waste of time. It is difficult enough to deal with bona fide religionists who actually do make an effort to respect policy (such as Wikidas). No need to make this more difficult by pampering trolls."

4 I was just asking you to try and not turn a trifle into a vitriolic wikidrama. You will observe that my sample edit of what you should have done instead of embarking on a hostile rant does give your proposed listing order, so I don't quite see what you want.

5

thanks for this perfect illustration of what I am talking about when I mention "paranoid zealots" pestering our Hinduism topics, and for ending this discussion by appeal to Godwin

6 Wikidas, with edits such as this, you are doing no-one a favour, least of all Hinduism, or the image of Hindu editors on Misplaced Pages. We state that Hinduism originated in India because after years of zealots pestering the article, we want to be really up front that Hinduism is absolutely native, indigenous to India. Get it? Not imported by Aryan invaders, but perfectly native to sacred Indian soil. But trust that right after we make such concessions, another Hindu zealot comes ......

Again he makes insulting comments in the edit summary like "stop acting childish, please" 7

Doesn't wikipdia have a policy of resolving content disputes in a polite manner. Should a admin be bullying new users like me in such a way. He refuses to engage in a discussion and attacks other people as well. I had also put warning on his talk page but he deleted them . I have observed admins warning editors at small instances of rudeness but when the admin himself acts in such a way how can you justify this hypocricy. Sindhian (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes its called dispute resolution, which is where you should be taking it instead of yet another thread to AN. — _Maggot 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

yes indeed. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time you have brought this up and it has been reviewed. On DAB's talk page and two threads here. The edit summaries may be slightly abrasive but I see nothing extremely improper. What do you want done? Do you want him de-sysopped because his edit summaries disagree with you? Grow a spine and stop bitching about it. Chrislk02 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble to review Dbachmann's conduct on Talk:Hinduism. He's clearly making great efforts to communicate, whilst steering the article in a NPOV & improving direction, against the slings & arrows of a parade of poor quality edits that articles on religion tend to attract. You, Sindhian, appear to be engaged in little more than a wiki drama of your own imagining. Let me throw back at you your "Another example of delibrate defamatory propaganda against hinduism", and agree wholeheartedly with dab's response to you there: that it would have been 100 times more constructive to have made a change, than choose instead to bitch about a supposed defamation. You are now engaged in wikilawyering, looking for something that'll unseat your advisory. Your quest is a waste of our time. I suggest in the very strongest terms that you give your campaign a rest and try, like dab, to spend your time improving wikipedia, or if you are unable to do that, find some other hobby off wikipedia. Let me spell this out for the avoidance of doubt: you are going to get nowhere with your anti-Dbachmann campaign for the reasons that your allegations hover between trivial and baseless, because you are abusing the disciplinary process, and because your recent editing record on wikipedia is so very poor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Dab is an administrator does not mean that he has to be an idiot. Just because he points out your ignorance, or the fact that you're wrong does NOT mean that he is being a bad person, or that he is being uncivil. I'm sorry but this is why some of the best administrators take the most shit. And look, I get it, when I first started editing on Misplaced Pages I thought Dab was the biggest asshole ever. Go look at my talk page or his. After about 2 days of hatred I realized he's just being a good editor. I got some sources together and bam we got along fine. Content Dispute!=Ban the Admin Beam 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of whose arguement is right or wrong. Dab has indulged in 'name calling' and threatening and the proof is there. I am complaining about verbal abuse here. Is this an acceptable behaviour? Will you accept a similar behaviour from every other editor?

And your judgement about my ignorance and contribution was not shared by other editors and especially the moderator wikidas who wrote "While i do not dispute dabs admin function, I would prefer if it was not mixed up with editing function to make it clear. "Sindhian" has some point, maybe not well expressed and/or perceived - we need to look for sources for that section that are NPOV or contrast a few views on the issue, as there are many. Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) " 1

This is my last edit and I leave it to your judgement now.

Dab has removed some edits from the talk page, so you may not get correct picture just by reading it

etc.

Sindhian (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We get the picture fine - dispute resolution is where you need to be. --Allemandtando (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody has blocked this chap yet for his blatant trolling, forum-shopping, rants and disruption of Misplaced Pages talkpages. Also, whatever happened to WP:DFTT? --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked now, 48h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly requested on four different occasions that Sindhian avail themselves of dispute resolution. Since they have refused to do so, I believe this short block was warranted. Whether or not they should be dismissed as a troll, I'm not yet sure, but this disruptive forum shopping is not appropriate. — Satori Son 14:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. He has had ample time to consider his actions. — _Maggot 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse this block. Chrislk02 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so Sindhian was blocked for not wanting to do dispute resolution? Huh? I don't understand the purpose of the block. This all seems very strange to me. futurebird (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He was warned multiple times. Here as well as in the diffs provided by Satori Son. He chose not to pursue dispute resolution. — _Maggot 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What was he warned about? Warned that he might be blocked if he didn't accept dispute resolution? I don't know, looking that this is seem like he's being punished for complaining about an admin. It sound like his complaints had little substance, but, still people should be free to complain without fear of being blocked. futurebird (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for trolling. The issues were addressed multiple times, on dab's talk page and here on AN (with two separate threads). He has a vendetta against DAB, and ignored all reason and analysis by other editors of the situation and was just having too much fun beating the horse corpse to stop. I am sure he was tired of all that beating so we gave him a complimentary break (via block). Chrislk02 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His complaint is what's considered "trolling" or are you talking about something else? futurebird (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His excessive complaining, posting multiple AN threads and generally not dropping the topic and moving on, especialyl after several editors reviewd the situation and saw nothing horribly wrong. I stated sure the edit summaries were mildly abrasive but he needs to get over it and move on. Several other editors independantly analyzed the situation and supported DAB's actions. Even through this sindihan refused to stop. This is where it becomes trollish behavior. Chrislk02 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As some one who is not an admin, all I can say is this just doesn't look fair at all. I'll leave it at that, since this isn't such a big deal, I'm just quietly submitting that this is the sort of thing that gives people the impression that the process is unfair and that their is favoritism. It's not an easy thing to keep that kind of trust high and admins have a lot of work and deal with a lot of crap, so perhaps they should be cut a little slack, but every time that happens it gives of the impression that the rules do not apply in the same way to everyone. Just something to think about, for the futurebird (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally appreciate your concern and have posted on your talk page regarding this. This is a particularly difficult area to work in (dealing with trolls, sock puppets and disruptive editors) and likewise, understanding a whole situation can be difficult as well. Chrislk02 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin either, I can say this block was entirely appropriate. No one wants to come off as bitey, but stick around, you'll learn a lot. :) — _Maggot 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to add one more thing, we as a community are quite aware of the chilling effect it could have if we went around on a regular basis blocking people for making spurious noticeboard reports. In order to get blocked for forum shopping and/or spurious reports, you really have to cause a lot of disruption and annoyance, as Sindhian did. Believe me, nobody is going to get blocked because they made one faulty report against an admin. The big problem with Sindhian is that he made a bogus report on AN (which was already forum shopping at that point, BTW, and clearly disruptive behavior), was strongly cautioned not to do it again, and then he did anyway.

Admins get spurious reports made against them all the time and no action is taken against the person doing the reporting. But if the disruption continues, eventually we do put a stop to it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) also not an admin

OK, that helps clear it up a bit more. Thanks for the response! futurebird (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies

It's backlogged all the way back to May 22, with over 140 un-filled reports. It's had both {{backlog}} and {{adminbacklog}} on the page for seemingly forever. Can someone go through and process them (requires knowledge of open proxies and how to detect them). Thanks... Calvin 1998  00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I have not got the slightest clue on how to deal with, detect, or resolve the matter. Suggest you create some admin instructions like they have on WP:RFPP or WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore article sabotage

A couple of days ago, I blocked User:JeanLatore as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Today, he dropped this message on my talk page (and several others') indicating that the apparently constructive article edits he made may not have been so constructive after all. Accordingly, I believe that all of his mainspace contributions need to be either fact-checked or excised. I've deleted all of the affected articles that were G5-eligible, but there remain quite a few of them. I've started a list of them here, and assistance in going through them would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked several of the listed articles and so far the edits appear to be correct. However, a couple of the pages include technical legal points so it might be a good idea for someone with legal knowledge to review them. I identified those questions in my comments on the fact-checking subpage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Account-creator right

I've hit the limit on account creations at ACC, so I'm going to need the account-creator right. Calvin 1998  03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - many thanks for helping out. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Calvin 1998  03:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AndreaMimi

Could someone take another look at this editor's contributions please? As I said before, I think they've just descended into silliness but I'm too close to the articles to figure out whether they are a clever and subtle vandal or genuinely confused. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They changed "Most Hon.", to "Most Honorable", a stylistic choice at most, and you have kept rolling it back using the rollback tool, which is intended for vandalism only. What's silly, confused, or clever and subtle vandalism about that? It seems to be the two of you edit-warring over something minor over a number of days, with a dash of you misusing rollback, and neither of you discussing it on the talk page of the article, or on each others' talk pages. Neıl 龱 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with neil's assessment, here. An alternative would be to step away from the article or articles for a while, then discuss matters. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the extensive prior attempts at talking. See User talk:DrKiernan#Dear "Dr.", User talk:DrKiernan#User talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Spaces and User_talk:AndreaMimi#Can I suggest.... DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You also missed my prior attempts at compromise: such as . DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see the other prior attempts at talking, but they were about disputes other than the last one (your message wasn't particularly clear about what you wanted looking at). Does it really matter if it says "Most Hono(u)rable" rather than "Most Hon."? Neıl 龱 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Nor does the odd particular comma matter. I'm not interested in the content issue per se, but in the editor behaviour. All the edits are marked as minor, even when they are quite major, such as the deletion or insertion of sections. I and other editors have tried to explain how to use a comma or tried to engage in discussion and we just get a "Yes, thank you and good day." without any change in behaviour. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DrKiernan shouldn't have used the rollback tool, because it is not clearly a vandalism. But on the other side, we have a user admitting his knowledge of English not being so good, but still making weird edits on stylistic and prose issues. And when asked to explain his position, he/she wishes a "good day"! Something is going wrong here. And, hon. instead of honorable is indeed a minor issue, but having also worked an article to the slightest detail, I can understand DrKiernan's reaction, when he sees changes without rationale and explanation. On the other side, I do not know if there is ground for any adm action against AndreaMimi.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a communication issue, which I think may be the root cause of the problem - what is Andrea's first language? It may be worth asking an editor fluent in it to engage with him/her and try to explain things gently. Neıl 龱 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. She's Austrian, so presumably German. I can read German but if I try to write it, I'll probably make things worse! DrKiernan (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We have lots of native German admins on en.Wiki (eg User:DerHexer or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise), as well as non-native with excellent German. Try hunting for one in Category:User_de-N or Category:User de-5, or a note at Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Neıl 龱 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on her talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worked. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington Nationals

It looks like we had some fun-filled vandalism at this article earlier. A vandal (now indef-blocked) replaced the content with, among other things, {{db-attack}}, marking the page for speedy deletion. The edit was here. That was at 06:39 UTC, about 6 hours ago. The page looks clean to me, but it is still showing up in Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion, despite the passage of time and purging the list. Is there anything I'm missing here? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, within a minute of posting this inquiry, the article fell out of the category. Crisis averted, no action needed, and all that. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In patrolling the CSD category, I have discovered (okay, another editor told me) that often a page that is put there (for whatever reason) stays there until it is edited again. I think the null edit fixed it.  Frank  |  talk  13:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GA appears to be out of control

After using GA successfully in the distant past I pretty much gave up on it about a year ago due to growing concern about the cliquish nature of the project and the ever-reducing delta between GAC and FAC. Combined with a process that was growing increasingly bureaucratic and frustrating to use, I decided that my time was better spent going straight to FA, which required about the same workload but almost always resulted in a better article in the end. It's not like I use either process very much, but my recent FA seemed downright fun, and the same could not be said of my previous GA's.

Last night I was following links around articles I had worked on long ago, when I noticed that one former GA was delisted. That doesn't bother me, of itself, but what did bother me was that there was absolutely no trace of any sort of review. As I studied the edits, it became clear that there was no review, and the article had been delisted without any effort to either address the problems or try to get someone else to do so. Given the time it takes to be listed, it's simply not acceptable, IMHO, that a delist can take zero time and effort. There are mechanisms in place to prevent this sort of asymmetry, things like GAR. However, it appears that these mechanisms were being ignored.

Following one of the links I ended up on this page, which quickly revealed what was going on; a small group of editors have proclaimed themselves the "Project Quality Task Force", and went around delisting articles based on their own personal opinion, only notifying the article talk page after the fact. They called this "the sweeps". I cannot find any discussion on any of the mainstream notice boards, like this one, that this process was going to start, nor any hint of efforts on the part of the PQTF to bring in anyone that wasn't already part of the seemingly tight-knit group. When I complained, heatedly, about what I saw as an abuse of the system and an anathema of the entire "wiki way", I received non-answers, statements to the effect that "that's the way it is, so tough". This message is particularly amusing. Nor was I the only one complaining about this, and the complaints are pretty much all about the same thing.

I find it worrying that the same group of people are both making the rules, enforcing them, and dismissing any dissenting views. To my eyes it looks like a clique that has been allowed to log-rolling themselves into this position. I am curious to know if this bothers other administrators, or am I the only one?

Maury (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does sound concerning, but this is really the wrong place to raise it. A request for comment tag and/or Village Pump notice to attract people to a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Good articles would be a better idea. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Sweeps essentially function as slow-moving second opinion and quality control. Ideally, reviewers should note why they are delisting, but they are under no impetus to wait for improvements if they are serious problems (half the articles I waitlisted never recieved any attention.) I suggest you bring this up at the Sweeps page as a reminder to those participating to be more thorough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, and the group of people in question all told me I was being unreasonable to expect them to draw in editors to improve the articles rather than just delist them. I don't think it's unreasonable. And I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect some sort of basic level of effort. Maury (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (?) of Ayumi Hamasaki article

I'm not sure of this is the right place to put this, so sorry if I mis-categorized this. Anyways, there's a block of text on the Ayumi Hamasaki article that scrolls with the page. However, it is apparently not produced by an edit, so I can't undo it. Would an administrator or someone with the appropriate powers look into this? Thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That article looks OK to me. What does the text say? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too... I think this is something in your browser Thanatous, try quitting and re-starting it perhaps? Maury (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The text says "Avril Lavigne rokz my sockz! Brought to you by the Avril Troll - on return from Wikibreak". Here is a screenshot. I believe there was a similar problem here. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's related to this ANI report. If you're still seeing the vandalism in the article, clear your cache first and then purge the page if that doesn't help. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

History from User:Wikifox20 to Doppelmayr Cable Car

This article was created in User space (directly on User:Wikifox20 itself) over a period of a week. The article was then copied and pasted to Doppelmayr Cable Car. It would be good to preserve the history of this article if possible. So far I've only altered it to add {{advert|article}} but the material does have the basis of making a good article (the technology replaced the World's first commercial Mag-Lev at Birmingham International Airport (United Kingdom) after fell into disrepair). Possibly this history transfer they could be done with some combination of Move, but I'd prefer to have an admin do this as it's cross-namespace and there is one change originally at the very start of the userpage. —Sladen (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Please check to make sure I didn't screw something up. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesnomaybe. Is it possible to have the previous ~20 revisions of the page content displayed in the history (before/replacing the inital creation)—those would be much useful than my single edit of "edited {{advert}}". My hope with the move from to preserve the history; but now it's not visible in either location. If that's possible? Thank you for your efforts thus far. —Sladen (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this was a draft article, which the user then copied over to the articlespace - and which was later deleted. So the draft edits and the article edits are mixed together, a bit. Shouldn't be an issue, hopefully maybe? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if I'd done a Delete: Doppelmayr Cable Car, followed by a Move: User:Wikifox20→Doppelmayr Cable Car, then that would have produced (almost) the result I'm after. I agree that it "won't be a issue". As the article already has/had some history to it, I was keen to preserve that history record; particularly if it comes to investigating copyvio issues. With a directly-imported large article, it's easier to prove what has happened when you can see the built-up of the article verses just a straight import of the large article. If the User: page hadn't been deleted in the process of the above, I could do the Delete/Move myself; unfortunately it's too late for me to do anything with my own limited powers... which is why I was after an admin to strong-arm and do the above. I can sort out re-adding nicety like tags if the history can be refound/restore/reimported. —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the timestamps will help with that, but I've screwed it up enough, I fear. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was hinting that it might be useful for another admin(s) to jump in and provide some input/direction, particularly now that the issue has got a little deeper: since going to bed and waking up, the article appears to have been speedy-deleted (User_talk:Wikifox20#Speedy deletion of .22Doppelmayr Cable Car.22) and recreated (repasted) at DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car. Please; can the original version of the draft (as was at User:Wikifox20 yesterday) be fetched and moved to one of those locations with its history intact, (or a better suggestion made). —Sladen (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Anderson

There has been a suer who has been hijacking country singer, Lynn Anderson's article. He goes by two different user names, which I doubt is even allowed. Here are the user names; user:Anderspro and his current one user:Mikesmonkey. He has written a terrible article about her, having no references to back-up his statements. For example, he said, "the first to headline and sell out Madison Square Garden in 1974.", and also said she had "17 gold albums." I added my information, with references to back-up factual information I knew back in March, but he keeps reverting back to what he said. He also has a opinionated way of saying things. For example he said this, "During the 1970s, when Hollywood needed a country act for variety shows, benefits, talk shows and even television dramas, Anderson was usually the choice.", as well as "Lynn Anderson's success did not end with the song that made her a househould name and brought her international acclaim. " and when he described one of her hit singles he said, "proved to be a successful follow-up to her monster hit, "Rose Garden". "

He hates when people add references, he hates it, but about a week ago, I redid the page again with references, which is how it currently looks now. I explained to him to please not add anymore unreferenced data, but he said he wasn't going to and he was going to redo the page like it was before because he says, "he knows more about Lynn Anderson than I do." He says this because he actually is Lynn Anderson's official fan club president, and writes her article like he's writing for an official website. In fact, it turns out the article was meant as a rought draft for the way the biography as going to be on her official website, because they were making her a new website at the time he was writing her Misplaced Pages article. Look at the biography here, Lynn Anderson Show and compare it with the way the he had wrote it here, Link. Don't you find it odd they are nearly written exactly the same???? This guy is a complete idiot, and thinks just because he is Lynn Anderon's fan club president he knows everything he knows about her, but writes it like a fansite. It's disgraceful. I told him I would file a report here if he keeps it up, and he said if I do, he will be filing some of his own. What does that mean, it's getting bad. This guy overall is an idiot, who thinks he basically owns the Lynn Anderson page. Please do something about this before he writes a terrible article again. Maybe blocking him officially from Misplaced Pages might do some good, especially because he has two usernames, and that is definitley a case of sockpuppetry. Here is the link to his talk page on user:Mikesmonkey; Link and for Anderspro; Link If th links don't work go to the histroy part of Lynn Anderson's page, and you'll find their user names back there. Please do something!!! Let me know at my talk page what is going to happen. Thank you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the last edits from the above editors were a couple of weeks ago, and one of our best country music editors, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), has been working on the article as well. I'll watchlist as well, and if anything stirs up again, I'll try and deal with the editor before it gets too edit-warry. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the editor's been leaving notes here and there. I'll try to explain a few things before he gets too overboard with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also got an e-mail from the user, apparently they're part of a Lynn Anderson fan site, and are threatening to "see that Lynn Anderson is properly treated" on Misplaced Pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeBuyDirect.com inclusion - admin question

I recently added a page for EyeBuyDirect.com that was deleted. I was informed that if I placed a 'draft' in the sandbox an admin would be able to review and give thoughts. I have added the 'draft' and would like to have some feedback. I appreciate all help and thank you in advance.

User:Blainhowardjs2comm/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinked your sandbox (to wikilink a page, use double-square-brackets - ]). Not looking because websites and businesses aren't my bag and I wouldn't know what to look for, being unfamiliar with the situation. -Jéské 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I can say without question that your article is written too much like an advertisement. Think of what an encyclopedia would say about your website and try to write your article from a more neutral, disinterested perspective. To this end, try removing words like "affordable" and "consumers". Also, write more about the company and less about its products/services. J.delanoy_adds 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might also be hovering somewhere below the threshold set in Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 198.163.53.11 hate speech

I placed a request to move a page Talk:Gliese 581 c (edit talk links history). This was a simple request, pros and cons came into focus. But one comment by 198.163.53.11 (talk) was non supportive, but this user did not give a reason for his opposision, he gave a hate speech to the user giving the request (i.e. me). Though he did write some facts that I have currently fixed, he did state some pretty hateful things. I request that you please do something about this, because I have no idea what to do for WP:HARASS and WP:HATE. Please talk to this IP user (or block them if it has to come to that). — NuclearVacuum 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not removing the comment, I crossed it out (Talk:Gliese 581 c#Requested move). It was hateful and I do feel upset. — NuclearVacuum 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's rude, but it isn't harassment or hate speech. Looking at the talk page, it seems that you are upset not just because the IP was rude, but because he (and everyone else) disagreed with you. Neıl 龱 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of self-harm

Now being handled by the police, who are going out to the location. Thanks to all who assisted in bringing this to our attention. Orderinchaos 14:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, I want to notify the admins about these edits by an IP address that were automatically reverted by a bot. . --Icarus 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As awful as it may seem, there doesn't appear to be that much we can do about it. Not really. We've had situations like this before reported to the Noticeboards, and people have told us to ring the police or things like that, which, understandably, given the whole situation, many are relucant to do. If you understand me? The most we could do really, is talk to him on his talkpage, if he is geniunely being serious about it, which again is hard to sepher over the internet. Anything you propose? (It may well just be a vandal at the end of the day) Lradrama 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The local police/emergency services in Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia should be contacted and given the user's IP address. Even if it is a hoax/vandal, they will still want the call. I don't have access to a telephone where I am right now, and none of the police stations in the area seem to have an e-mail address. Their telephone numbers are listed here. Wollongong may not be exactly right, but they'll at least be able to pass it on to the relevant area's force, should that be required. Edit: a comment has been left here with details, though it isn't an emergency line. I know there's only a 0.1% chance of anything coming of it, but 0.1% is still too much of a risk to ignore, when five minutes of someone's time is all it will take. Steve 10:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, why do you think that is a NSW IP address? When I just whoised it, it came back as being from Westnet Internet Services in Western Australia, which is on the other side of the country and a heck of a long way from NSW. If it is WA, there are plenty of WA admins and editors here. Sarah 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean, better be safe than sorry I suppose. Lradrama 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah, I used two separate IP tracing tools, both of which said the IP is indeed Westnet Internet Services, but that the location is Wollongong. Westnet's website indicates the company provides internet services "Australia-wide". All the best, Steve 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Westnet is a WA ISP but they provide services in other states. Whois gives the registered address in WA, not that that means a great deal since my IP used to be registered to a town at the opposite end of the country. I think one of the WA admins should just call the police in Perth. That NSW website form says it can take up to 7 days for them to respond to so I don't think it's the most effective way of dealing with it. I am going to let the Perth people know and see if someone wants to follow it up directly. Sarah 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Threats of Violence I highly suggest this be reported to the local police or other emergency services, without delay. Bstone (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the ISP by phone/email and let them know, and a supervisor there is now looking into it. I did an nslookup and all it says is New South Wales, so it may be simply that their services in NSW are Wollongong-based, rather than that the user is in Wollongong. (Wollongong is about 80km south of Sydney and it may be cheaper to set up there, given they only went national a few years ago) Orderinchaos 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work people :) Lradrama 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, the police are now involved. Orderinchaos 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Wollongong was way out. Shows you cannot rely on these tools with ISPs which do not geolocate IPs below state level. Orderinchaos 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mascot Guy

I remember commenting about this a month ago and I believe I need to bring this up again because I can see the slackness at which admins try to deal with this problem, in other word, they are doing nothing, MascotGuy is doing exactly what we class as trolling, I'm saddened at the replies I got to my question last time by 2 of the admins who blatantly said that since he is an autistic, he is allowed to do whatever he likes and one of the admins who actually thinks that MascotGuy updating his own sock list is a good thing...Its just sad to know that Misplaced Pages which was once filled with smart intelligent admins has now been left with monkeys running around with scissors in their hand, who instead of trying to control the problem, allow it to continue, I didn't comment that time because I had a Bigger problem to deal with, but its this attitude of admins is the reason why wikipedia is the only wikimedia wiki where vandals are ranked above the admins since they are easily able to outsmart them....--Cometstyles 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are all blocked. Unless you know of others, in which case, please feel free to actually post their names and/or diffs. Also, do you think the best way of asking for assistance is to be a jerk about it? Neıl 龱 10:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they said he was autistic so he could do what he wanted or that him updating his sock list was a good thing; they were simply explaining that he has a developmental disorder and isn't the run of the mill vandal. I also don't agree that nothing has been done. We block his socks and I think Lucky was going to contact his mother again. If you have some ideas for dealing with him or you're aware of some unblocked accounts then please tell us but telling us we're all idiots because you disagree with the responses of three people isn't really the best way to go about it. Sarah 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

heh misquoted again, I never said any of you were idiots, its just last time I came with the idea of denying MG and instead of following through on that idea, they laughed it off, which is a shame since admins are appointed to deal with "trolls" and not allow them to continue giving non-reasonable reasons as to why, I'm happy to say that we are slowly getting rid of grawp, who is probably the biggest threat we had to wikimedia and I have been following and reverting and blocking Grawp on over 40 projects for over a year now and one thing I realised while doing that was that he only did it because most admins on all wikimedia projects didn't try hard enough to stop him from trolling and what I meant regarding admins being outsmarted was because I don't think MascotGuy is an autist because an autistic person will not be able to use proxies that wisely and create multiple accounts and get banned doing so, and if a person looks hard enough or an editor who has been around enwiki for a long time, this is the same pattern Grawp followed over an year ago and slowly by slowly he going in the same direction as Grawp, so if he isn't stopped now so all I'm saying is why not do what we did here and deny him and I know its not easy but atleast this way we can atleast stop him from socking and updating his socklist because thats why he wants, to show people that he has over 500+ accounts and the admins can't do anything to stop him, if he isn't outsmarting the admins than I really don't know what else to call it...--Cometstyles 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that might be an appropriate way to deal with him then why not MFD the pages? I disagree strongly with your suggestion that you don't think he is autistic because of his use of open proxies and multiple accounts etc. There are some highly intelligent and highly skilled people who are on the autism spectrum and in fact the nature of MascotGuy's editing - the compulsive and repetitive editing and creation of so many accounts could easily be a manifestation of autism. Sarah 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've bumped to MascotGuy often enough and yes, from what I've seen this user could easily be both autistic and intelligent. As I recall, I've seen him create wholly formed, cleanly written, referenced, infoboxed and categorized hoax pages in a single edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert war brewing concerning the order of The Beatles' lineup

User talk:Koavf is insisting on listing The Beatles' members in alphabetical order: George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr instead of the traditional order they are listed which is John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. How should we handle this issue? This is with Template:The Beatles and is also listed with George Harrison mentioned first in Portal:The Beatles/Intro. What is the proper order to list The Beatles? Since Ringo joined the group, they have always been John, Paul, George and Ringo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some at . --NE2 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

John, Paul, George, Ringo is the traditional order, yes. If it can be cited, then go for it. If not, I can't see any harm in putting them alphabetically. ^demon 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or list them chronologically as they joined up, which would be John, Paul, George and Ringo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<dumb joke>I believe that would be John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete, Ringo.</dumb joke> :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"By George," said Paul, sitting on the John. "Where'd my Ringo?" --MZMcBride (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is pretty lame. The order of their names isn't that important. James086 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now listed there. Been a while since I've seen one that qualified so well for there. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This I cannot believe

An image was deleted per Images for Deletion, after which a Deletion review was opened which resulted in a huge consensus to overturn, but was closed as Endorse anyway? In both cases, the closing admin keeps citing Foundation Policy as their guideline, forgetting however it is up to the community to interpret these policies. In both cases, the community deemed the image in complience with NFCC, yet the closer ingnored that consensus, and chose to apply his/her own interpretation, which is a very bad trend, and is not what an admin is supposed to do. I ask that another admin give a second opinion and recloses that review. Since there is no 'Deletion review-review', it's the only way I know of to have this decidion overturned. — Edokter • Talk • 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, deletion reviews (as well as initial deletion discussions) do NOT have to rely on consensus. It is the responsibility of the Admin to weigh the arguments of the various parties against the current rules and guidelines. With images, rules essentially handed down by the foundation always trump community consensus, that's the way it is. --Oni Ookami Alfador 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the community how to handle the foundation rules, and that must be done on a case-by-case basis. If the community feels an image meets those rules, admins have no choice but to abide by that consensus. Again, it is not up to the admins to interpret these rules in their own way; that task is left explicitly to the community. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking bad manners bringing this to AN without discussing with me or trying to resolve the issue on my talk page. Spartaz 13:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify you, did I not? Anyway, I'm not seeking admonishment here, just second opinions. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As the DRV nominator, I think it was closed incorrectly. There's an overwhelming consensus with carefully argued points on both sides that the closure was incorrect, so endorsing it is against WP:CON. Sceptre 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Foundation rules have sway over consensus (put simply, it's their website), more so when it comes to WP:NFCC where there's not much leeway. There are lots of articles here I very much "wish" could carry fair use images (and could if the WF had no cares about allowing its content to be freely copied). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the foundation only asked for a EDP, not the NFCC in its current form. Some projects have stricter rules (enquote, dewiki), some projects have more lenient rules than our NFCC. Sceptre 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My take on that would be, the community could (should) then more helpfully talk about the NFCC and let the foundation weigh in if they didn't like where it was headed. WF clearly, if tacitly, endorses the current policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking in on this from the outside, Spartaz's closing comments at the DRV seem to address Edokter's concerns. Since this is apparently a straight disagreement about whether Foundation policy trumps consensus, and since "the same argument" has applied to different images, it seems that it would be better to centralise discussion - the Village Pump, perhaps - with a view to soliciting input from others (including the Foundation?). SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Edokter, "If the community feels an image meets those rules, admins have no choice but to abide by that consensus." Well, I'm sorry to say, that is just plain wrong. When community consensus violates certain specific rules (generally applying to image rules and WP:BLP. It is a common and correct practice in deletions to treat multiple users expressing the same argument singularly. Deletions and reviews are not consensus driven and the number of people is not nearly as important as the strength of their arguments. I ran into this situation in the past back when I didn't fully understant the system, I thought consensus took precedent, I was pissed when the deletion stood, but in truth the article probably did not really belong and I learned that over time.--Oni Ookami Alfador 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; Consensus is one of the five pillars Misplaced Pages is built on. What I am concerned about is admins citing "Foundation rules" that aren't there. The Foundation put down the rule that the community make it's own rules, and the community has done so. If that same community opposes a deletion, admins are required to adhere to the same sonsensus that have created the NFCC rules. Citing "Foundation rules" is a misnomner; there are none, there are only community rules build on community conesnsus, and that is the same consensus the admins have to base their decisions on. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I hinted above, the thing to do here would be to try and shift the NFCC rules to your liking. I can't think of any/many experienced admins who would take the dodgy leap of restoring an image which strays from NFCC. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is true. But AFAICS, the argument being made in the IfD, and then to some extent in the DRV, is that properly interpreted, this image did not stray from the NFCC -- it did "significantly improve the reader's understanding" Jheald (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Takes on NFCC 8 have tended to be very tight in the last year or so. I too could easily argue process wasn't closely followed on a few steps here but when all's said, happily or unhappily, the deletion was in line with current practice, which hasn't grown by happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if IfDs are consistently being closed in a way which is much more hardline than consensus at WT:NFC, then something is evidently not right. All I can say is that in this case, the original close seems to have been based on a bizarre misunderstanding of the scope of WP:NOR. Jheald (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and moreover, there is a wide swath of grey here which very likely needs tending through a healthy re-wording of NFCC (one way or another) but meanwhile, the image was borderline fair use and its deletion was in line with current practice. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is one rule that we have been told to follow by the Foundation, the Licensing policy, which WP:NFC is built on. Yes, it doesn't state that a screenshot from a TV show must meet certain requirements, it's not that specific, and NFC is a consensus-built set of rules that adhere to the licensing policy; that itself can change, but it needs to be will within the bounds set by the policy. --MASEM 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And as a matter of interest, WP:EDP redirects to WP:NFC. Sceptre 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gwen Gale somewhere above) Strictly speaking, images that fail WP:NFCC#10 can be restored as long as they are fixed immediately. NFCC#10 is really only paperwork. Vital paperwork, but paperwork nonetheless. The interpretation of rationales should really fall under other criteria. Some of the other criteria are similarly simple to interpret. There was a useful debate about NFCC#8 a while ago, and there is always the mouldering page I wrote at WP:NFCC-C - see the talk page for someone's note that they are considering writing a machine-readable template to record what bits of NFCC have been reviewed for each and every non-free image. It should probably work like the {{articlehistory}} template. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I have yet to read that anyone has asserted something lacking on the image page had been tidied up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this image, but in general, responding to your comment: "I can't think of any/many experienced admins who would take the dodgy leap of restoring an image which strays from NFCC." - I would agree if you had said "NFCC#8", but as you said "NFCC" I felt compelled to point out that not all the NFCC are equal in terms of complexity of interpretation. I've restored NFCC#10-deleted images before, corrected the rationale, the link, the source, or whatever, and had nary a squeak of protest. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. I was only wondering if I'd missed something, it can happen! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"I beg to differ; Consensus is one of the five pillars Misplaced Pages is built on" — you are correct. However, remember for a moment, that without the Foundation, there will be no five pillars. That's why the fact that it's one of the pillars is secondary here. Daniel (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the time as an experienced DRV closer to read through this one in response to this thread, even though I normally avoid image related issues. I'll note first that there was poor discussion beginning in the IFD and continuing to the DRV. (For a non-contentious example unrelated to the final decision, nobody ever bothered to mention or link the article in which the image was supposedly critical; I had to go to the deleted image page, read the rationale, and then check the edit history of the article referred to there just to confirm that I had found the right article.) It is foundation level policy that we have an EDP. That EDP is the WP:NFCC, which is thus foundation policy that the community can change only within the foundation required spirit of the policy. The NFCC is thus one of the policies that can override contrary consensus - in fact the canonical example of a policy that would override a unanimous contrary consensus is the copyright policy; one sound opinion on this front overrides an unlimited number of opinions that material should be kept. So those arguing to keep an image challenged under the NFCC need to demonstrate a consensus that the image satisfies the NFCC, not just a consensus that the image would be good to keep if we weren't constrained. As for the DRV, a large fraction of the overturn opinions were expressing concern that the IFD closer introduced a new argument and/or was too biased to be a good reviewer, so I'd probably have myself closed it as relist then in the new IFD explicitly argued to delete the image - none of the arguments that it satisfies the NFCC are in any way persuasive to me. A lot of other admins and editors (including one of the IFD/DRV supporters of keeping the image) would see that as pointless bureaucracy and at least think of chastising me for doing it. So I have to consider the DRV close reasonable, if not the exact one I would have made. GRBerry 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The original close seems to have been based on the bizarre argument, that unless there is an external reference to the significance of the image, it cannot be considered to pass NFCC #8. But that's not the test, and never has been. WP:NOR applies to article text -- not talk pages, policy discussions, and editorial judgments.

There is a near-unanimous 9-2 consensus on this DRV to overturn, based on policy and process arguments, and NFCC #8. It's out of order to reject that out of hand. Relist. Jheald (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One point I have to make here is that the primary function of a DRV is not to measure the image against NFCC, but wether the closure is done within policy; in fact, NFCC was, and should have, deliberately been kept out of the discussion. A relist would probably have been the best available option here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Arcayne below, but better to put this in a level further and above since his concerns are more substantive) Actually, Edockter, are just plain wrong in describing the primary function of DRV. The primary function of DRV is to correct deletion errors. Errors means that either 1) we clearly reached the wrong outcome or 2) it is not clear whether we reached the right outcome. Doing the paperwork improperly can, but does not necessarily put an issue into case #2, but fixing the paperwork is not a primary concern of DRV. Similarly, new information presented in DRV can put something into cases 1 or 2 with no procedural errors at all. Error type 3) we had a procedural error but reached the right decision are not supposed to be changed by DRV; we merely educate the admin involved so they don't repeat them. So NFCC is relevant and had to be a major element of the discussion and the close. If something should have gone out in the garbage disposal instead of the dumpster, but it is clear that it should have gone out of the kitchen, DRV usually won't dive into the dumpster just to feed it down the garbage disposal. For more on this, read Xoloz's post of 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) in Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Archive 10#What is the role of deletion review, trialsanderrors's post of 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) in the same section and heck, that entire long discussion. (Xoloz and T&E were the two primary DRV closers for at least all of 2006 and January 2007, before I became the primary DRV closer.) As far as I know there is no better discussion of DRV's purpose in the year before that one or at any time since. 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)

Well, I was about to post to AN/I, as I hadn't heard back from Spartaz regarding my asking the appropriate next step to take, but someone let me know that it was already in square-dance mode here. Yay. This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral one on the part of two dovetailing admins. They aren't jerks or anything, just stubborn, and rather unwilling to acknowledge that they don't have a monopoly on accuracy when it comes to our image policy.

The DRV that prompted this AN/I was extraordinarily similar to that of a previous DRV, Image:FotD 007x.jpg. The nominator was a contributor blocked for nominating images disruptively (I would say willy-nilly, but that would imply a lack of intent), who freely admitted that episodic images are all violations of NFC#8. The closing admin looked at consensus in both IfD discussions, and decided that they did not measure up to his admittedly biased and minority interpretation of the same policy. When both DRV indicated a consensus to keep, Spartaz weighed in about how the image didn't meet NFCC. The same folk nominating, deleting and reinforcing that deletion, despite DGfA's advice to the contrary. Now I am not suggesting a conspiracy, but that sort of continual reinforcement does raise an eyebrow.

DRV is to look at whether IfD's were closed inappropriately. The proper venue for evaluating the value of these images is in IfD. In both of these instances, Nv8200p acted inappropriately by applying his personal view of NFC#8 to side with a minority opinion. That problem was compounded when Spartaz misinterpreted the purpose of DRV, evaluating the image yet again.

(warning: ironic sarcasm ahead) I guess one of the main questions I have is whether we need to bother with IfD discussions at all, since an admin seemingly has carte blanche to dismiss any substantial arguments that happen to oppose theirs. In point of fact, the arguments raised in both IfD and DRV did not contradict the notoriously vague NFC#8. If we are going to simply dismiss informed consensus in favor of a minority opinion, then let's just kick out a pillar, and concentrate all the decisions in the hands of the admins. Better yet, let's let them write all the articles themselves, since we simple editors cannot seem to interpret policy well enough on our own. I mean, that would be so much neater.

The fact of the matter is, NFC#8 is disastrously vague, and every attempt to modify it to be less opaque (in NFCC, FU and the Pump) has met with considerable resistance by the same admins and editors. Therefore, suggestions to take the issue to The Pump or elsewhere aren't really helpful It allows for admins to interpret the policy far off the true intent (at least "true" as far as the community at large is concerned) and then claim they are following policy.

Secondly, admins make mistakes, and the closing admin in IfD made whoppers. Spartaz closing the resulting DRV's based on his interpretation image value utterly missed the point of DRV. We have protocols. They weren't followed. Therefore, the best move is to either fix/undo the failure in protocol or re-educate the person causing that failure, so as to not repeat the mistake. In these instances, both actions seems called for.

Thirdly, we had best determine what value IfD and DRV disucssions are going to have. If a small group of admins can dictate how those discussions are going to end in spite of solid arguments, then consensus is rendered a disastrous sham. - Arcayne () 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not really intersted in engaging in a bad faith discussion where users unhappy with a deletion close prefer to bad mouth me and shout admin abuse instead of doing do what a good faith user would do which would be to engage me on my talk page to discuss the issues in a constructive and open minded way. Only waiting a short while for me to respond to the inevitable complaints is far from ideal and I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond to the complaints instantly. I do have a job you know and when the wheels fall off like they did this afternoon I'm not going to choose Misplaced Pages over dealing with the stuff that pays the mortgage and puts food on my family's dinner table. That you lot have chosen to continue to insult and assume bad faith on a public forum rather then engage in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion about what is a really difficult issue really reflects badly on you. No doubt you will all just sniff and make more immature and thoughtless comments without thinking about the fact that there is a human being at the other end of the screen and start screaming admin abuse again. Sod the lot of you. Spartaz 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see Spartaz treated in this way. I hope those who (like me) disagreed with the deletion and appealed the close, but (unlike me) did not accept the good faith close with good grace, will reconsider their conduct. Is an admittedly non-free picture, over which we have absolutely no intrinsic rights of use, worth arguing over? --Jenny 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the DRV was closed in error. The closing admin made a decision on the merits of the deletion, even though DRV is for the review of procedural errors only. He also made the wrong decision on the merits, invoking WP:NFC as a consensus-overriding core policy (à la WP:V) when it is not in fact recognised as such. I have no opinion about what outcome should result from the application of WP:NFC to the image at issue, but I concur that the level of the discussion was poor, and support a relisting at IfD.  Sandstein  17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are not aware of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy from which WP:NFCC is descended. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what Doczilla said a year ago: "The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Misplaced Pages's project goals and guidelines." Endorse the close. --Kbdank71 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz retired

Spartaz (talk · contribs) as a result of the above, has invoked the Right to Vanish. This appears to be the second admin today that has retired, along with Shem (talk · contribs) (see seperate discussion on ANI). I'm sorry to see discussions go long this, and I think some should consider what effects their comments may have before they click the "Save page" button as we have lost in the space of 24 hours, two very good-faith administrators. D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. We all need to reflect on this. Misplaced Pages will work best if the environment is one of respect, understanding and forgiveness rather than one of he-said-she-said and an eye for an eye. If we're all going to survive here, we must create and continue a friendly environment. That means using Wikiquette, Assuming good faith, assuming the presence of a belly-button, being civil, staying cool, avoiding personal attacks, and abiding by an ethic of reciprocity. The Dude abides and so should we. Make others feel welcome, give praise (especially to those you don't know) and forgive. Remember: people grow. Remember: you're not always right - and sometimes you're even wrong. Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. Wanted to add that I believe Spartaz has "retired" in the past as well, and considering what retirement usually means on Misplaced Pages, I imagine we will see him back shortly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz has just thrown a hissy fit and gone off in a huff. He'll be back, probably within 48hrs. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let them go. If their emotions got the best of them, we shouldn't stand in their way, and they shouldn't stand in the way of the project either. I, for one, care not for administrators who can't handle criticism, whether it be just or even uncivil. Beam 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I take as pulling down the blinds and not answering the door. We're all volunteers here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yet another advocate of limiting non-free content chased off the project. I know it's not a concerted group effort, but there's been so many that have been harassed off the project it's unbelievable. A year from now, maybe less maybe more, the local policies will be changed to liberally allow fair use. There won't be anyone opposing it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@RMHED and Beam: Yeah, uh, let's not be unkind to the guy while he's away, alright? If he wants to come back, he will, and that's great. We can't judge him, we can't know what else is going on in his life... he didn't do anything wrong by closing the IFD, his frustration is understandable, and while I think it's clear that he overreacted here, it doesn't cause any harm to anybody else, so leave it be, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not clear he over-reacted. In fact, quite the opposite. He could have blown his stack here, and instead he chose not to engage and walk away. That's a *restrained* reaction. The abuse heaped upon people around here is routinely treated as something we're just supposed to take and never have any reaction about. That sort of community culture ignores the fact we're humans. Kudos to Spartaz for recognizing the nature of the people against him and refusing to engage. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any specific comment towards him or this specific situation. So please don't insinuate I did, okay? Beam 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So the comment about hindering the project was just placed in this section by coincidence? --Kbdank71 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any Admin who can't keep their emotions in check, or as they say here have a cup of WP:TEA if need be, have the potential to hinder the project. Want me to put this down in the section below too? Beam 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What a damn shame. Spartz was a great administrator and contributor to the project, and all of the heat above was mostly hot air -- generated as a result of too much drama and a few editors who were wanting someone's head for an issue that could have been handled much better (like, informing Spartz of the issue at hand). Good job guys. seicer | talk | contribs 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope Spartaz comes back. At no time did I question his integrety; I questioned his action. I hope everyone can see that. — Edokter • Talk • 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, most admins I know are pushovers for a friendly nudge on the talk page and Spartaz spot on hinted likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am sad to see him/her go, but as Edokter pointed out, the point of the discussion was to point out an unfortunate, repeated mistake made by two different admins, and their notable reticence to consider the possibility that they were wrong. They both had plenty of opportunity to admit/address/correct those mistakes, but they pointedly chose to not do so. If the choice for this admin was to admit the possibility that they were wrong or retire. I am not sure we are not better off without that particularly inflexible temperament. I know that sounds harsh, but we (meaning the other folk contributing to IfD and DRV) are not potted plants; the points expressed in both reviews were well-founded and polite in pointing out administrative errors in closure. That the mistakes were compounded by precisely the same sort of mistake in shutting down the deletion review is doubly dismissive of both an informed, knowledgeable consensus and the very idea of consensus. None of the arguments - I repeat, none of the arguments in IfD - contradicted NFCC. As well, it was uniformly agreed by a majority of folk (admin and editor with a collective edit count of almost 100k) involved in the DRVs that the closures were performed inappropriately.

Am I disappointed tat Spartaz disappeared. Yes. Yes I am. Do I think that the drama created by that departure should serve to derail the point of the AN/I? I do not. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the wiki didn't stop for Shankbone, and it doesn't stop for Spartaz. - Arcayne () 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another case of someone attempting to follow the Wikimedia licensing resolution being thrown under the bus. Nice. Kelly 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to address this issue

There is a proposal to move questions of non-free content away from IfD to its own board to facilitate community discussion and consensus - the idea is to keep this war from being fought by individuals on a case-by-case basis, and to attempt to bring some consistency to this extremely hazy issue, and to hopefully prevent retirements of people who attempt to enforce this policy (there have been many). Comments there would be welcome. Kelly 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, maybe it's good that these people "retire." I don't want to seem callus, but if a person is that emotional they could be hindering the project to begin with. Beam 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's hindering the project if admins act human? —Kurykh 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• We are Misplaced Pages. Resistance is futile. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's displaying a certain assymetry in the different attitudes towards administrators and non-administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, it is inappropriate for them to pretend their opinion supersedes the rest of us. Humanity and fallibility is okay; ego and inflexibility is not. - Arcayne () 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

What the header says. Eight requests un-attended too. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While playing around...

...I came across this. Why it didn't come up with

The action you have requested is limited to the group Administrators.

Return to the Main Page.

(The external link is a screenshot of what I see on that page. I used a screenshot because any admins clicking on Special:BlockIP/J.delanoy would not (likely) see the same thing that I see). J.delanoy_adds 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template problem

Whether it's the same for everyone as well as me I'm not sure, but every Rugby player article that I've looked at (i.e. Matt Dawson, George Gregan) has a series of "Unexpected Operator" errors in the infobox where their metric measurements are being converted to imperial. I presume it's something to do with Template:Infobox Rugby biography or Template:convert but as far as I can see neither has been changed for ages (and convert is limited to admins). Anyone? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt Dawson had non-functioning conversion parameters - instead of "ftin" and "stlb", "ft" and "in" seem to work. However, I don't know if "ftin" and "stlb" used to work as parameters and whether a change to a sub-template of {{convert}} has caused a knock-on problem. Bencherlite 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its not {{convert}} as you might already know. I'm lending my eyes for a brief minute, taking a deeper look, as I'm not familiar with the code. Trying nonetheless. :) — _Maggot 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article and see if that is what you needed. If not, revert me. — _Maggot 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that works - just need to find all the others that used that syntax (presumably it used to work, which suggests that they've been like that for a while....) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its either {{Convert/kg stlb}} or {{Convert/stlb}} but I know next to nothing about how these work (also consider: Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert, I'm not browsing that!). For now, I'm marking this thread as resolved. If you have anymore trouble I'd recommend bringing all this up on one of the related templates talk pages, as you'll find more knowledge out of them. :) Regards and happy editing from — _Maggot 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards