Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 24 August 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)

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Misplaced Pages reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize that the number 7 is spelled "seven". --NE2 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz for full discussion. Jehochman 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

I've templated him, some of the image bots have templated him, other's have left him a personalized message, I've left him a personalized message, and even threw in a last {{uw-copyright4}} warning. His reply to all these have been to blank his talk page. But as can been seen from the log he's went ahead and uploaded two more copyvio's that have already been speedied. I'm guessing asking him kindly to stop isn't going to work. Q 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem here. Sure, he's blanking his talk page which is pretty unreasonable behavior in and of itself, but his "evils" aren't that great either - just two copyvio uploads. I edit in the same circle of articles as them and am willing to clean up their messes. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two blatant copyvios and about 20+ odd images he failed to provide even basic copyright and source information to. Q 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sec 1971

I'm a little concerned about ths user's comments. Apparently they're upset over having to source everything: "Could I put the phrase "George W. Bush is half lizard, and eats babies for lunch while fingering his own ass" on my website and call this a reliable source? Probably not, but that's basically the way most of the editors here are siting their sources. Make up your minds, are require deletions to be DISCUSSED FIRST before finalized. We're not Nazis here, common knowledge is common knowledge. Would I need a reference to say that Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment due his liaisons with Monica? I think not, because everyone knows this....." Comments like this are concerning, but unfortunately I don't know what to do. Is this just a rant or something more serious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion in context on that user's talk page, he seems to have engaged constructively with you on the issue of sourcing and editing. I don't think this is something requiring administrator intervention or monitoring. --MCB (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with possible copyright violation

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: , , PUI, , , with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" (, , , ). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes. He's even used the word "trawl". Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page . Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. , ], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. . "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Misplaced Pages seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Misplaced Pages and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Misplaced Pages is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. _D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." _D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Misplaced Pages as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see . Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts . Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts . What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts .

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an WP:IFD and a proper debate on the fair use rationale.

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an WP:IFD was proposed is because PfainukRyan4314 asked for an WP:RFC. Incidentally FuturePerfect didn't notify others involved in disputing the deletion call after the WP:IFD was opened, that was left to Pfainuk.

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the WP:IFD Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Some notable comments:

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy . However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War was inspired by comments in the deletion review. However, on User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Your sandbox page intimates that before the article is even written it is destined for WP:AFD.

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in WP:AGF. The nomination here calling for Dreadstar to be desyopped appears yet more retaliation and worse intimidation.

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at this talk page, there may have been no connection between Ryan's decision to take it to RFC and Future Perfect's decision to go to IFD less than two hours later. The IFD was closed as "keep" by User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

So this case was very badly handled by Future Perfect. I was hoping that it would blow over, as process was eventually done - that's why I didn't bring this up here at the time - but the closure of that IFD is inevitably caught up in the issue discussed here, and this particular issue should be placed in the context of the ongoing issues that I and other editors have brought up.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Misplaced Pages do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Misplaced Pages as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Misplaced Pages is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Misplaced Pages. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Here's another choice one from FPAS: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13#IFD discussion concern. His reply to Olive at here in this thread furnishes further proof against himself of his general attitude of incivility and failure to observe AGF. As Dreadstar has banned himself from controversial IFDs for a year and apologized, I consider that closed. But for FPAS, he shows no limits in his ill behavior at IFD and it's been long term and involved multiple cases and users; plus he refuses to acknowledge the issues with himself, so I think he should be banned from IFDs until an RFC and/or arbcom is completed.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk)

• Adding a new (fake) timestamp so this announcement does not get archived until the application period is over. Thatcher

• Or you can just remove the timestamps outright... Maxim (☎)

Bot alert

The bot User:JAnDbot has been incorrectly changing or deleting interwiki links in articles on my watchlist. The latest was the article Micropropagation. I have had to revert at least two other edits from this bot on other articles. I appreciate the author's good intentions in making a bot, but as can be seen by his talk page, other people have been finding similar problems with the bot's edits. The bot author states on his talk page User talk:JAn Dudík, "If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries."

I request that an administrator look into this, since replacing correct interwiki links for a language to ones that lead to incorrect pages in that language is an insidious form of damage.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WriterHound (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the error is on the other end:

• Micropropagation → fr:Culture in vitro → Tissue culture
• Micropropagation → nl:Weefselkweek_(plant) → Plant tissue culture

I don't really have a proposed solution, but it's possible something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems be *correctly* removing a link to a non-English article in a case where that article links back to a different one than the original. In fact, its treatment of Micropropagation seems correct to me. Micropropagation is specific to plants, and the link to was matching it up with a more general article on the French side that was not appropriate. It is normal to block bots immediately if we see them making mistakes (since their feelings can't be hurt) but I'm so far not seeing any error by the bot. I haven't studied the previous comments at User talk:JAn Dudík, but I did leave a note for this editor on his Czech talk page asking him to come here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the French side, it says translated, "In vitro culture (also called micropropagation). . ."

The whole thing seems a bit confusing.

WriterHound (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot is working correctly when doing autonomously. The things discussed on my userpage are whein I try to solve mixed interwiki using assisted bot. I have list of articles which are linking to article en:A, list for en:B etc. from these list I am trying to solve it. When article en:A links to fr:C but fr:C links to en:B what can I do? When I solve it bad, somebody could repair it. I have solved many articles ando only few of them were bad. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan, first of all thank you very, very much for all of your work on Misplaced Pages. Obviously, we are all volunteers here and other people do not always appreciate the hard work that many of us put into editing.

WriterHound (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Global blocking now active

Please see Misplaced Pages:Global blocking for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested admin edits

Credit to Giggy, borrowed text and idea from his post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I suggest that MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked (the message recieved when you're globally blocked and try to edit here) be created/modified, modeled after commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John Reaves (talk · contribs) for doing this. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that {{unblock}} be modifed similar to , to add an option for removing a global block. See also See m:Steward handbook#IP address blocks for some more information. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Can an admin please delete List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. It needs to be deleted so that List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees can be moved to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. (Per a new consensus). Thanks, -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here for more information. D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please post requests like these at WP:RM. Thanks, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. Question - have the categories changed somewhat ? If I went to WP:CATS, I could click on the box on the right and get an alphabetic list of categories starting at a particular letter. Thats all seems to have changed ...is there a problem or ahs the structure been changed ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further, clicking a letter gives a 'from' / 'to' option - if I enter something like 'Books', then instead of a list of categories starting at 'Books', I get a list of 'xxx' to 'yyy', and I then have to repeatedly select to drill down further and further, rather than just being able to scroll through. Also, on the first page after clicking on the letter, there seem to be a lot of articles listed as redirects....CultureDrone (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and found it somewhat more difficult to use, or at least requires a lot more clicks to get where I need to be with no apparent added benefit. Anyone know the reason for the change? Stardust8212 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Not good. Agree with Stardust. Why? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)

Tvoz is failing to respect the good faith policy on the Bill Clinton page. His erase of reliable facts I have presented are unacceptable and complete out of line in terms of good faith. The user has already confessed to being a loyal supporter of the Republican Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat when I say WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also don't care if Tvoz has received a good amount of Barnstars, because he still needs to accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is neutral and requires good faith among other users. Not to brag, but I also received a barnstar myself and I still know that Misplaced Pages policies must be respected.

I have no special privileges, and neither should anybody else on Misplaced Pages as well. Plushpuffin has also been doing the same. The user has not been willing, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, to respect the neutral point of view policy on the Bill Clinton page either. To me, opinions need to be kept to themselves UNLESS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS RELIABLE FACTS. I am willing to respect Misplaced Pages policies, and so should. Also, I only have capitalized some of the words in my statement not as a form of rage, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING WORDS I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I don't intend to be uncivil in anyway, if anybody reading this gets that idea.Kevin j (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please present diffs of offending edits by the users that you have called into question? Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request user Ioeth. The difference in our two revisions is that the user Tvoz, at least from my opinion, erased my contributions to the Clinton page to keep a large amount of people online from finding out the flaws of the Sally Perdue case. Misplaced Pages has now become not only the Internet's top enclycopedia page, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE TOP WEBSITES SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET TOO. Some Republican strategists, which Tvoz has presented him/herself on through his/her talkpage, can easily make edits to the pages as a political strategy. This is in clear violation of the good faith policy, and Tvoz needs to know that you can't violate the policy or get any special privileges in anyway. - - Plushpuffin has also been stubborn to me, and the user seems to think that only his/her opinions matter the most. I keep telling the user I am respecting the neutral point of view policy and that have reliable resources to back my claims. However, THE USER HAS ERASED MY CONTENT ON THE BILL CLINTON PAGE REPEATEDLY AND HAS TRIED TO LABEL ME AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. THAT IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY RIGHT THERE. I don't mean to uncivil in anyway either.Kevin j (talk)

Kevin j, I'm afraid you're a little too worked up to edit constructively right now; your posts on the talk pages of Tvoz, Ricky81682, and Plushpuffin are too far over the top, and your edit summaries during your edit warring at Bill Clinton (apparently now stopped, thank you) all seem to indicate that you aren't acting calmly. Please trust me when I say no one is going to sanction Tvoz for anything he did at that article so far. also notice how I used italics, instead of all caps, to emphasize something. Finally, I note you've made zero edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. Talk pages are where we work out questions about reliable sources, not edit summaries and reports to WP:AN. You've been here a long time; I'm surprised you forgot that. I very strongly suggest that you don't re-add that paragraph to the article tomorrow (as your last edit summary there suggested you were going to) without consensus on the talk page first; at this point, I would consider that edit warring, whether you violate WP:3RR or not, and it could get you blocked again. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sanctions. I ASKED FOR A WARNING TO BE ISSUED TO THESE USERS TO RESPECT THE POLICIES. If they continue to violate this, THEN I WILL REQUEST A BLOCK. WARNINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Also, I AM NOT TRYING TO LOOSE MY TEMPER IN ANYWAY, IN CASE YOU THAT IDEA, AND I AM TRYING TO BE CIVILKevin j (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c, inserted after 2 comments below) Tvoz and Plushpuffin have not violated any policies. They've removed something they think violates WP:BLP; negative info from a source they do not consider reliable. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. If a consensus developes in your favor about the reliability of the source, then re-add the info. if it doesn't, then don't. A reliable source is a reliable source because consensus and policy say so, not because you say so. Make your case (not here; on the article talk page). At this time, there is no reason to warn either one, and there is no way they are going to be blocked if they continue to revert your addition of BLP material if there isn't a talk page consensus that your source is reliable. --barneca (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably follow the good advice Barneca offered above, as if you keep following this path, I have no doubt that someone will get blocked, but I suspect it will not be Tvoz. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not capitalize my important words OUT OF UNCIVIL RAGE. Slander me again, like the way you did on the notice board, AND I WILL HAVE YOU REQUESTED FOR A BLOCK. Respect the good faith policy.

Stop typing in capital letters, please. As for the debate over your edits on Bill Clinton, I looked at Capitol Hill Blue, and see the tag line "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" under the headline. That suggests rather frankly that there is a problem with the site - that it carries a specific point of view. The article you were trying to link to has a disclaimer that "mainstream media" wouldn't publish it. Please take a look at the reliable sources guidelines - I think you'll see that the article in question doesn't meet them. Finally, in future, please take these issues to the talk page first - discussion is a better approach than immediately making complaints about other editors who disagree with you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators.Kevin j (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a disclaimer indicating that it was published there because the MSM wouldn't publish it. The site is not reliable, as it is blatantly slanted - its tag line indicates that quite strongly. I suggest again that you read the reliable sources guidelines and seek out other sources with strong and neutral editorial oversight to source your edits to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm afraid that's only your opinion. Advertising is a common thing to do The website promotes itself as neutral with that claim. Do you also really would they insult themselves and damage their business by saying that the mainstream media would reject them because they are unreliable? Keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*facepalm* I tried. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin J's edit on the Bill Clinton article (here) back to the original form of the sentence, in which two (somewhat conflicting) statements were originally written as "She alleged the affair took place in 1983 during her second divorce, but she did not begin divorce proceedings until later." Kevin J had rewritten the sentence to say "She alleged the affair took place in 1983, but she was discredited...," which I thought was original research and injected POV into the article.

I also reverted Kevin J's edit to Bill Clinton (here) because he added some random irrelevant fact about CNN supposedly supporting Bush in the 2000 elections as a way of calling into question the credibility of a poll on Clinton's popularity at the end of his term. I considered it irrelevant and misleading, and I noted as such on the Talk:Bill Clinton page.

Tvoz reverted Kevin J's reversion of my reversion, as well as removing what she considered unreliable information about Sally Perdue in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

It is important to note that Kevin J had pretty much the same edits reverted by the administrator User:Ricky81682 only three weeks ago: (here on Bill Clinton) and (here on Sally Perdue): at the time, Kevin J had written it as "Sally Perdue's arguments were also flawed, as she stated that she began her 1983 affair with while going through her second divorce..." Two days ago he took it upon himself to revert the administrator's edits and re-add the information and language which Ricky81682 deemed inappropriate.

I reported him three weeks ago for his behavior and properly notified him of such on his talk page (note that he did not do the same for me today). I did not think he would benefit from arbitration, considering the enormous number of complaints against him on his talk page. I still believe I was right to get an administrator involved from the start. Throughout this affair, Kevin J has consistently acted irrationally and uncivilly (see User talk:Plushpuffin and User talk:Tvoz), has refused to engage in debate regarding the merits of his edits, and has begun an edit war on the affected articles. Tvoz and I did not scheme together to revert his edits; rather, we both felt (independently) that the content and language changes that Kevin J was making to the articles were of extremely poor quality, especially considering that Bill Clinton is/was a "good quality" article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I responded and nobody blocked me Again, I am warning you to keep your unsourced opinions to yourself and respect Misplaced Pages's policies. The statement you have provided is POV based, and that is not acceptable to request somebody is violating a policy just because they disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough.

I also never said that either of you two schemed together, and I am now using Italics to highlight my important words. You both were out of line. Stop this nonsenseKevin j (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use a colon to indent your replies. I've fixed the above two for you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kevin J should be blocked imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me.Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly the polite, word-to-the-wise appeal to reason is not working here. Kevin j, neither Tvoz nor Plushpuffin has done anything to warrant a warning, much less a block. Even if they had, who would know? You haven't provided any diffs or evidence of any kind. You appear to be running from talk page to noticeboard to talk page leaving a trail of angry threats, poorly informed accusations, and vitriol. I'm asking you to drop this. It should be apparent by now that no admin is going to warn or sanction Tvoz or Plushpuffin. If you continue badgering them and everyone else who comments here, and edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material into biographies of living people, then you will be blocked. MastCell  17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are not thinking the facts right. I'm afraid I have just told a lot of differences and you need to act more mature. I do not appreciate these childish, personal attacksKevin j (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Tvoz/talk 01:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets disrupting AFD

A few sockpuppets appear to be disrupting this AFD with firm arguments to "Keep" the article. Removing their arguments would result in the article being "Delete". It might be worth closing the AFD as "Delete" now to avoid any further socks/IP's disrupting the !vote. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the AfD needs an early close, since admins who work on closing are generally pretty perceptive about sockpuppets/meatpuppet/SPA participation. On the other hand, I think someone could make a decent WP:SNOW case that there's no way the article will be kept. But what does need to happen is an immediate edit of the article to remove serious WP:BLP violations, and I'm going to do that right now. --MCB (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a decent knowledge of boxing, and the article appears to be a clear-cut hoax. I have cast my !vote at the AfD as such (along with my reasoning/evidence). If some other intrepid admin wants to close out the AfD for the snowball it is, I would appreciate it. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Erwin85

I can't do very much, as I'm on my phone, but could someone please take a look at User:Erwin85 and User talk:Erwin85. Someone seems to have it out for him. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All accounts and IPs involved have been blocked. GlassCobra 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing

The Arbitration Committee has become aware that Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) (not an administrator) has accessed and used the accounts of two administrators, Chet B Long (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We also believe that Chet B Long and PeterSymonds may have accessed Steve Crossin's account too. In the case of Chet B Long, we believe that Steve Crossin encouraged the exchange, and Chet B Long in an act of exceedingly poor judgement sought not to let him down. In the case of PeterSymonds, we believe that he accidentally revealed his password, which prompted Steve Crossin to try accessing his account. Steve then told Peter that he knew his password, and Peter allowed his password to stand unchanged. Steve used Peter's account to perform non-controversial administrative actions, but without the approval and trust of the community, and in PeterSymonds' name. Such behaviour is outside the standards that administrators are expected to follow in keeping their accounts secure, and the Arbitration Committee considers this grossly inappropriate conduct.

While we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve Crossin while accessing these accounts, there is still an issue of trust here. In addition, we have been informed by multiple people that Steve Crossin has been sharing chat logs of a private communication between himself and other users, including Arbitrator Deskana.

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee. Whilst all three are valued editors, their actions were grossly poor in judgement. We are considering Steve Crossin's position, but do not feel any other sanctions are necessary in respect of the two administrators at this time. The community may wish to discuss their own sanctions, if appropriate.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I missed all this drama... Pity about all this... Steve: Hope you got some good understanding and learnings from all this. Take care, kiddo and thanks for your help during mediation. A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

The Committee and Steve Crossin have been in considerable dialog this last week. It is mutually agreed that a long term break by Steve from editing would give him a chance to reflect on matters, and the Community a chance to do likewise.

Accordingly Steve has agreed to a formal long-term break, with strict conditions, following which at his request the Committee will consider whether he might resume editing. He and his wife have agreed that neither will resume editing or other significant involvement, whether with existing or new accounts, without the agreement of the committee, and that the Committee's decision may be to ask the community. He is aware that any breach of the agreed conditions will result in enforcement by blocking.

FT2  13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

On a side note to this, the agreement has been amicable. The situation had put considerable strain on Steve's real-life circumstances. We have taken his wishes into account in making our decision and concluding the case this way. Steve is going to think on a number of things, and take a break to focus on his other work, and probably that's for the best. FT2  13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is probably for the best. Synergy 13:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi, sorry to bother, folks - if one of you has time, would it be possible to email me the Wikitext of editing marks, a deleted article? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations/SRA in the Netherlands

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to getting a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. S/he has created several pages for this purpose (Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and some redirects for spelling). I became aware of the page and wikified it; ultimately there wasn't much there, so I redirected to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands. C1963's contribution history is a series of page blanks, reverts, and basically a concerted effort to have an unnecesary separate article. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has been less than productive. I have dealt with this a while, but now I'm thinking perhaps the community might want to comment. WLU (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since October 2007 I contribute to Misplaced Pages. From the first moment on I have been harassed, threatened and insulted. Biaothanatoi e.g. implied that I would be a pedophile, because I knew some personal information about the author Benjamin Rossen (that was in the Dutch newspapers), but for Biaothanatoi who did not know that it was enough to compare me with a pedophile. Rossen wrote critically about the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela and people who strongly believe that children were ritually abused by satanists in Oude Pekela circulated rumours that Rossen was a pedophile. Until then I contributed on the satanic ritual abuse page. After the insult of Biaothanatoi and the fact that he obviously was not open for reasonable arguments, I decided to make a separate page about Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Biaothanatoi harassed me there a few times, but since January 2008 I have never heard from him again.

However, August 2008 WLU eliminated my whole contribution on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, replaced it by his own point of view and redirected the page to the Satanic ritual abuse page. Because I noticed that the version of WLU was not an accurate and neutral report of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, I undid his contribution and tried to explain why people who read his contribution would be misinformed. He replied with new redirections of the page after he again replaced my contribution with his own point of view, with three strike warnings and with threats of blocking me from Misplaced Pages.

I do not mind where the information on the Netherlands is placed (on a separate page or integrated in the main page on satanic ritual abuse, but I do mind what the content is, because I want that the people who read the information will be informed about this matter correctly. Since I am doing research into satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands for more than a decade now, I am very familiair with the situation in this country. Based on my research, I can proof that the information WLU is providing is wrong. Criminologist1963 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crim1963's complaint about Biaothanatoi's "pedophile" accusations on the authors of some RS, as you can see in this ongoing discussion. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The content I worked with to produce the section of list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands is what Criminologist1963 placed on the various original pages s/he has created or reverted to. My actions were to wikify, link, use citation templates, re-word, condense references using the ref name tags, and generally manipulate the same text to say the same thing in a manner that was neutral, did not venture a position or opinion, and was of the appropriate tone. C1963 pointed out where the text was in error, I edited accordingly and suggested s/he could edit in the same fashion (i.e. rather than reverting wholesale). I have pointed out the flaws in the original text to C1963 several times, as well as the disclaimer that everyone agrees to have their text mercilessly re-edited, as well as the policy and guideline origins of my contributions and the reasons behind my edits. Several admins have weighed in, including User:Orangemike and User:Dbachmann (dab). It seems like a pretty clear case of ownership and a complete unwillingness to even read, let alone edit, according to wikipedia's policies. I've been accused of hiding behind anonymity, not knowing the sources (despite working with the sources and text provided by C1963), vandalism, and assertions that C1963 is the only person smart and knowledgeable enough to edit the page. And now we're here, because all of my assertions and wikilinks to policies have not had a dent. I don't care what Biaothanatoi did a year ago, Biaothanatoi has not been involved in the recent discussion and is completely irrelevant to the current one. Anyone interested in the guts of the debate can read Talk:List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#The_Netherlands and this version of his/her talk page. WLU (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently SRA in The Netherlands is blank, SRA in the Netherlands is a content fork with the section list of SRA allegations#The Netherlands (), and I'm getting a headache. WLU (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already asked Crim1963 to revert the blanking. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I blanked Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands and Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands is that one page dedicated to the situation in the Netherlands is enough. Remember that the reason to make those similar pages earlier, was due avoid to the vandalizing on the original page. Biaothanatoi did not find the alternative page, but WLU did. When he started to destroy both that page and the original page, I had to make a third page, which was destroyed almost immediately by WLU.

By the way, I just saw that Misplaced Pages says that it does not have an article with the exact name Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and that is fine with me. I hope that the one who did that, could do the same with the page Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, because that page again has been redirected to the main article about satanic ritual abuse and replaced with the biased text of WLU. As said before, one page on the situation in the Netherlands is enough: Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to verify the information I have provided in the article on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, you can contact the people mentioned in this article. If necessary, I can give you their email addresses and telephone numbers. They all speak and understand English. I also can scan some of the articles, but most of them are in Dutch. Criminologist1963 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You can not verify the information on a page by talking to a person. Verifiability is ensured by the use of reliable sources. The sources are not the problem with the page. The problem is the continued reverting to content forks on multiple pages. The problem is this and this request for deletion which is inappropriate (the redirect to the list is appropriate). The problem is not verification with reliable sources, it is the tone, original research, promotion of a conclusion and content forking. Multiple contributors have redirected to a variety of different pages, and you have never discussed why. Lid, Aecis, Eleland, Daniel Santos, Moreschi, me, Cesar Tort, Sceptre, TexasAndroid, Malcolmxl5, Woody and Orangemike have reverted or redirected your original text to either the satanic ritual abuse page, or the list of allegations. You have yet to justify any of your edits based on the policies and guidelines I am citing. The problem is not verification, it never has been verification, and I have never pointed to WP:V as a policy to worry about. The problems are WP:TONE, WP:SS, WP:CFORK, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and now WP:3RR. WLU (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now a 3RR report. WLU (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

somebody help

somebody help about Texas_census_statistical_areas . I think the image in that page isn't right. Bbadree (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why ask for help here? Either fix the problem yourself, or bring it up on the Discussion page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?

Did we agree to anything here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug. 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.

So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

His comments were apparently a somewhat slow response to my removing his rollbacker privilege. I had given them to him early this year based on his experience but cautioned him about my concerns that I'd seen complaints of possible edit warring. I don't know that he ever used the privilege but I was away for a while and when I came back I noted the 0RR restriction - noted in the recently archived thread I referenced above. I told him that I was revoking his rollbacker simply because it was inconsistent with a 0RR restriction and not because of any misconduct. Everything is on his talk page, and there's plenty there if anyone is interested.--Doug. 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• So, my understanding is that Calton's formal restrictions are as follows:

1. 0RR restriction previously imposed (anyone got a link for that?)

2. Indefinite prohibition on edits to any user pages except his own other than reasonable CSD and MFD nominations. Per the above referenced AN thread, archived yesterday.

3. A two week block for incivility per Tan above.

4. We were discussing whether there should be some sort of civility restriction particularly with respect to user talk pages and/or unreasonable tagging of user or usertalk pages with G11.

We need to give him notice of his editing restrictions so we ought to decide what we're going to do here and I'd like some confirmation of the above restrictions.--Doug. 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You could always try treating him as an adult, that might help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging a user page as WP:CSD#G11 if it is an advertisement, WP:NOT includes "Misplaced Pages is not a free web host". Obviously a link or two to people's own projects is not advertising, but several user pages are blatant advertisements either created in userspace or moved there from mainspace. And now I suggest you go and talk to user:Geogre about the utter irredeemable stupidity of issuing two-week retaliatory blocks for "incivility" which is, in fact, merely a spirited defence against what looks suspiciously like pushing a grudge. And I mean that, talk to Geogre and if after a considered exchange of views (i.e. where you listen to him) you still feel that blocking Calton would achieve anything other than drama and making us all look like idiots, feel free to sugfgest it again. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The problem lies in that he will "spiritly defend" any of his actions, through edit warring or incivility. I don't doubt that he does identify pages that do need to go - but when someone disagrees with his assessment it would be best if he just walked on. I don't see how Doug could be pushing a grudge, because he's the uninvolved admin who granted him rollback a while back. –xeno (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, if you really believe that it would be possible to have a "considered exchange of views" with Calton over issues such as this, you have a very poor sense of pattern recognition. Giving Calton an umpteenth chance and leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I said Geogre not Calton. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not that this is going to make much of a difference, but I feel compelled to add my two cents... I haven't had a run in with Calton in over a year, but that run-in, or more correctly his behaviour during that time, is scorched into my memory. Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that. I obviously have no comment on his recent actions, but perhaps it should be kept in mind that this sort of behaviour has been going on for at least a year (and in terms of full disclosure, I was probably no angel myself, but Calton's uncivil behaviour was honestly quite unlike the vast majority of Wikipedian's I have dealt with). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! Grandmasterka 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Calton, please

Calton has made exactly three edits today: , , . For this he was blocked for two weeks for incivility. Sorry, but I don't think that s even remotely proportionate to the offence, if offence it was (which I'd dispute). There's clearly some bad blood here, the best thing would have been for Doug not to even start this conversation, since Calton had not even edited since 17 August, we have a whole host of dispute resolution processes, but here we have blocked someone who's been with the project for over three years, has thousands of edits, and whose only offence appears, at least to some interpretations, to be a refusal to be sufficiently deferential to an admin. Surely we have some real problems to fix here rather than spanking Calton? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, sorry to say this, but I don't think you're a very good judge of civility, given your previous use of profanity and blatantly sexist slurs. Kelly 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexist? When? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just remember evidence of you using the terms "twat" or "cunt" towards other editors. Which was it (or was it both)? Do you really want me to go find the diffs? Kelly 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it took about 30 seconds of searching. "Cunt" and "Twat". Also "Fuck off". Need more? Kelly 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not sexist, it is British English invective. And given that the user in question had just taunted me about the then very recent death of my sister, I think that it was if not appropriate then certainly wholly understandable. Do you have any idea just how vile that particular user's behaviour was? To taunt someone who had recently watched a sibling die in agony is not exactly pleasant, as the subsequent arbitration noted. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The British English thing won't cut it (I've lived there and know perfectly well that you don't call people "cunt" in normal discourse), neither will the "victim card". You've explained one instance that I can sympathize with. How about the others? Is it normal in Britain to tell people to fuck off? (Clue - it's not.) Would you like me to bring some more diffs here? There are dozens, if not hundreds, in your RfC and Arbitration cases. You are no judge of civility, Guy, It's best that you go write some article, if you know how, and leave the judging of civility to civil people. With respect - Kelly 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, that particular user was one of the most vile trolls I have ever come across, and I think most of those who remember him would concur with that judgement. See Bainer's evidence in arbitration. I said nothing to him that I would not have said to his face, always assuming I didn't deck him instead. That does not mean I am proud of it, but neither does it make it "sexist". I will put my hands up to being extremely rude on occasion, though not I think recently, but I do not believe I am prone to gender bias. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole "not sexist" thing. In African-American culture, it's acceptable to use the term "nigger" to one's peers. A white editor here is not free to call a black editor a "nigger" just because it may be acceptable somewhere. Similarly, just because you may call your friends "cunt" or "twat" does not mean you should feel free to offend women here by throwing those terms around - they are among the most offensive terms you can use in the presence of a woman, and sensible people are perfectly aware of this - even in Britain. That you feel undeterred by this tells me that you are not a very good judge of civility (and possibly reactionary in regards to women's rights, though that is really irrelevant). Kelly 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my full permission to consider me sexist, just be aware that I dispute that label and would challenge you to find any credible evidence for it outside of my occasionally ill-judged choice of cuss-words. I'll not link the words in question, but would point out that we discuss them in some detail and don't make any assertion in those articles that their use is considered evidence of sexism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have, to my knowledge, never been involved with Calton or Doug. I have no grudge, and no prior history with this editor. There was no "bad blood" and the block wasn't simply for his three edits today. A "spanking" would have been the usual 24 hour wristslap (aka "cooldown block"). This one was for two weeks because I will not tolerate his behavior here, and if it occurs again after the block expires, the next block will be for a lot longer. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do punishment blocks, we do blocks for prevention. What problem are you preventing by blocking Calton for two weeks? I'm not looking for a fight here, but I think this was not a good idea. And I'd like an answer from Alison to the question above as well, please. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, which question would that be, please? Looks like I'm joining the party late here .... - Alison 09:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am preventing him from being incivil to editors on Misplaced Pages. I'm also done arguing with you; your attitude/record predicts your responses. Tan ǀ 39 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, if the editor with whom he is in apparent dispute had not started this thread then I don't believe he'd have said a thing. Doesn't that inform the issue in any way? Did anyone try discussing this with Calton and trying to broker peace or calm him down or get him to disengage or drop it? And since my attitude/record predicts my response, perhaps you could tell me what my next response will be. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton. All of this could have been completely avoided by Calton agreeing not to edit war (and trying not to be so "spiritful" in defense of his actions). –xeno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A two week block on the basis of those three edits would have been excissive. A 2 week block on the basis of the recent attitude displayed is reasonable. Viridae 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is reasonable in light of the pattern of behaviour displayed over a sustained period of time. The responses he made in the section above were just the straw that broke the 's back. naerii 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

/me wanders off to document the all-new WP:BADATTITUDE policy which allows for two-week blocks for surliness. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Er, have to agree with JzG. The comments seem mildly heated, arguably uncivil but not blockworthy. And a two-week block? C'mon. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, don't waste your time; we already have that policy. It's called WP:CIVIL. Calton has been an uncivil editor for a very long time. He's received plenty of warning and has been the subject of many AN/ANI discussions. The block duration may be a bit long (no real opinion on that) but the block itself was warranted. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the recent edits and the block history, I am fine with a block that escalates from the past level but 2 weeks is too long - one week at most seems like a fair length. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just like to be clear here, I am not saying that he is a saint or that he did nothing wrong, only that the remedy is disproportionate and - more importantly - very unlikely to produce the desired result (unless, I guess, the desired result is to hound him out). I think the problem here for me is that we don't seem to have learned anything from Giano. I really do not think that civility blocks have any positive effect on long-standing contributors with attitude issues. I'm not saying the issues don't need to be fixed somehow, just that this does not seem to be, from past experience, an effective way of going about it. What Calton needs may be a "critical friend" he can trust, or some firm advice from an arbiotrator in private or something, but right now the comments and the block seem calculated to wound his pride, and since it's his pride which seems to be the cause of the problem I don't see how further wounding it is going to help. Sorry, I'm not saying this especially well as it;s much more nuanced than that, and I'm really not having a go at anyone, I just think that we need to find a better (read: effective) way of dealing wiht this kind of thing. Geogre says it far better than I do, which is why I urge people to read his talk page, comments and archives. The Geogre is wise in the ways of human nature. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Too much emphasis is placed on 'civility', a highly subjective and over used excuse for blocking. --Duk 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Block shortened

As said above, there was no call for a two-week block; I shortened it to 72 hours. If consensus develops here to unblock earlier than that, that's fine with me too, but I felt action was necessary on the block length. Chick Bowen 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you look over the previous incidents involving Calton before you made this decision? Did you consult the blocking admin? Is it really worth wheel-warring to defend Calton? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear--I am not defending Calton; I think his comments today were designed to inflame the situation, and that's unacceptable. My shortening the block does not in the least undo it--it merely puts it into the realm supported by the block reason given by the original blocker. To call this wheel-warring is to misunderstand what wheel-warring is. Chick Bowen 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I have a strong urge to be uncivil myself here. That block change was way, way out of line, Chick. Tan ǀ 39 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good change, blocks are not punishment. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A two-week block is more appropriate given Calton's long-term pattern of behavior, but maybe three days will have an effect on him. When the block expires, let's have a clear consensus that future incivility will result in progressively longer blocks. And please, let's not reduce the length of the current block any further. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I support this, but it is not going to fix anything without some work in the background. We need to find someone who Calton trusts and is prepared to work with, who can help Calton to curb his aggression. I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they could fulfil that role. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks was quite disproportionate. 72 hours seems like a reasonable warning shot. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A little background

It was commented above that I never should have started this thread. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that all I intended was to ask whether we had actually come to any conclusion in the previous thread that archived yesterday. I had made the last comment there in which were discussing significant sanctions and then no one responded so the discussion passed into the black hole that is the AN archive. I am not totally uninvolved in that my name does show up several times on Calton's talk page and in the discussion earlier this year about his use of {{temporary userpage}}, which was solved by other means (deleting the template among other things). --Doug. 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a philosophical dispute over whether spam is userspace is speedily deletable as spam under WP:CSD#G11 then I would suggest taking it to WT:CSD, but it has always been my understanding that blatant advertising meant just that: blatant advertising, wherever it appears. Maybe the consensus view these days is that the community wants to spend five days discussing the deletion of pages where Misplaced Pages is being used for free webhosting to promote commercial entities, that is quite possible, but I'd say that trying to fix it by stopping one person from so tagging userpages is not the best way of dealing with it. Some examples would be good as part of that debate, most of the G11 tagged userpages I've seen have been ones where I completely agree that it's an advert and needs gone, but of course I am a heartless deletionist and my dislike of spammers is well known. There are certainly other issues, but I don't see how they can easily be rolled into one with this specific point, which is a matter for legitimate disagreement between good-faith users. So: separate it out and see what people think? If you like we could use User:SpeakerBoxLLC (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a case study. Calton is not involved there at all. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about CSD G11, I am not aware of any issues with Calton misusing CSD G11, if you have read the earlier thread, the consensus seemed to be drifting towards allowing Calton to use CSD rather than simply a community limited ban against any userpage editing (aside from his own). He had been most recently blanking pages. Please read the earlier thread. It's on the most recent archive and it's linked above. If it hadn't archived, my position would be a little clearer maybe. Thanks.--Doug. 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The link again was Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 and the mention was of any CSD, the example used there was U2, not G11. The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants. After {{temporary userpage}} was eliminated he used the cat, then he was told not to use the cat, I think that was after another AN, and he eventually went away for a while and then came back using PROD, at some point that I wasn't even watching, he got a 0RR restriction, and he most recently has been blanking userpages that he personally believes are either advertising or worse "non-existent" (his shorthand for gone and not coming back) only sometimes they do come back. Read the prior thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ryan actually started this thread and I've only revived it since we never settled on the final sanctions (but seemed to settle that there would be sanctions) So I felt we needed to resolve it.--Doug. 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's clearer to me now thanks, I can perhaps try to have a discussion offline about this as I think that particular problem is fixable. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete these edits

The user Legal and free, jk (talk · contribs) has already been blocked, but his edit history contains slnder against user Zain Ebrahim111. I think these edits should be deleted, instead of simply reverted. I don't have time to do this myself right now, so if another admin can look into this I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll do it the next time I visit WP. Mindmatrix 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The range of articles may mean that a developer will be required to remove the edit summaries. However, since this appears to be a well known vandal it is possible that such a situation might occur. However, if there is a sysop with a lot of time available (not me, I regret!) and a liking for the delete/undelete buttons then let them at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to oversight. It doesn't strictly meet the criteria, but its close, so they may do it. Mr.Z-man 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on oversighting the said revisions. To quote Special:HideRevision:

Potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

It's minor, petty vandalism. If the person in question is personally offended, then I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, I do not wish to do this. Note, I've also been targeted by this vandal, but felt no need to oversight the revisions regarding myself. Deskana (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

Please check this section, What makes Misplaced Pages involved with these hassles?--Puttyschool (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

People are usually reluctant to delete material from talk pages, because it makes the discussions hard to follow for later readers. (By the way, I changed the section heading here to something informative.) Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the section from talk page--Puttyschool (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism needs more attention

I trolled the Boobs on Bikes article 24 hours ago, a recent event covered in world media and until now nobody reverted it. Imagine how small but relevant articles is still trolled right now for months or maybe years. --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Reverted. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My nickname itself is trolling in portuguese, wasn't to be blocked minutes after created? --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok? Blocked as requested. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block on Soccermeko

Soccermeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't let up one bit on his disruptive editing since he was banned in March. Since then he's been the subject of three Checkuser requests and 13 SSP cases (latest one here). He edits primarily from two dialup ranges in Atlanta, so it would seem that Kww's proposal for a rangeblock would be a no-brainer.

The only thing that gives me pause is that his IP is Level 3. Although from what Kww told me only five edits out of the last 200,000 from those two ranges are constructive, the fact this is a major backbone provider is the only thing that kept me from softblocking those ranges immediately.

I believe, however, that considering the negligible number of constructive edits, it's worth the risk of collateral damage. I thus propose that the ranges be softblocked for at least two months. Thoughts? Blueboy96 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what I meant: I scanned the last 200000 anonymous edits (about 3 days), and 5 of them were valid edits from that range. I don't have the ability to scan the last 200000 edits from a particular range. I think a couple month's softblock on two /16s is quite reasonable, still.
Kww (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

sound of crickets chirping
At the very least, it looks like there won't be a vast upwelling of opposition if you put the blocks in place, Blueboy96.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring from User:Wikiarrangementeditor

This user has long history of edit warring and is more or less a single purpose account. As far as I can see every edit has either been promoting the Nissan GT-R or trying to make a competitor look worse. I have some history with this user and as such do not want to issue a block. However I do feel that one is in order. While this user has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block they have continued to edit war and have made no attempts at discussion. I am not currently involved in the dispute, as difficulties working with Wikiarrangementeditor on the Nurburgring lap times page caused me to pull the page from my watchlist. I think more eyes on this matter would be beneficial. --Leivick (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Any reaons you posted this both here and on ANI? I replied there. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship on Bigfoot article, even Bigfoot Talk page was reverted

I'm here to report that there is someone on here who is censoring certain things about Bigfoot, claiming that I'm someone else and that people who shoot at Bigfoot is pure silliness, spam, worse. The links provided prove that there are people out there who will shoot anything that moves, which could get someone killed. Links are http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootshootings.aspx and http://www.highdesertbigfoot.com/Shooting-Cases.htm Because I'm here, it is a good chance that I may end up harassed, blocked for reporting this censorship. Someone I know gave me the links and told me what has been going on here. One of the reverted "silliness", "spam" links was a hunting/gun magazine that had asked its subscribers if they would really shoot at a bigfoot, while other reverted "silliness" reported that police officers have shot at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Censorship! Suppression! Oh, wait, it's just another lame edit war. As you were, then. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no "edit war" at all, thus is why I came here. Seems the proper thing to do. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me those links are not to reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I present this one: http://www.wtvynews4.com/news/headlines/12443276.html - TV News: Teen dresses up as Bigfoot, nearly gets SHOT! Really appreciate the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :)

The recent hoax in Georgia (US Georgia) has got people asking about other people shooting at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The OP is engaged in a novel synthesis from (unreliable) sources. No problem, though, I'm sure discussion will help him to understand our views on this, we'll see how we get on from there. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The two of us is discussing this matter. Again, thanks for the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

horns.aiff Jtrainor (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The big picture - WikiMedia Foundation's Executive Director's latest report to the Board of Trustees

Newer admins that care about what's going on in the big picture but don't know where to look may be interested in Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director's latest report to the Board of Trustees. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ángel Matos Accidental Move

In moving Angel Matos to Ángel Matos, I accidently put a comma in the title. Now it's at Ángel Matos, and needs an admin to move it. Please do so because this guy is all over the news -- he just kicked an olympic ref in the face on purpose. Sorry about the error. --Visitweak (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed automatically by USer:Redirect fixer --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was me, actually, but no matter. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake vodka

I created this article. I hope it's a suitable topic for Misplaced Pages because I saw a documentary on it last year, and have seen news stories about it since then (I provided a reference). But I would like help to improve it; I'm not sure I've done everything right.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your enthusiasm. For some simple steps to improve your article, check out the links that ChiragPatnaik left on your talk page. If you are still having problems or if you have specific questions, check out Editor Assistance. Those are the best places to get some advice on starting out here. (In contrast, this noticeboard is reserved for problems that specifically require administrators, things like blocks and protecting articles.) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a widely used term for fake vodka: "samogon", or moonshine, in English. I think your content would make a welcome addition to Moonshine#Russia or Moonshine#United Kingdom, but there's no need to create a separate article based on one reference. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Llywrch

I've got concerns about Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He recently protected his user talk page with the summary "no needs to edit this page". Now, that wouldn't be an issue if he was planning to leave, or not edit for a while, but he's chosen to start to make attacks in edit summaries ("wasting time, as if anyone cares; go bicker over a loser like BetaCommand!). I left him a warning, and unprotected his talk, yet he's decided to remove my warning (not a problem), but yet again protect his user talk. That isn't what I'd call good admin behaviour, and I'd appreciate more opinions about what to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he's gone a bit off the reservation, but perhaps temporarily. Obviously the talk page protection and the incivility are not long-term sustainable conditions but for a few hours just letting him blow off steam on his talk page, so long as it is limited to there, might be the best idea. Can anyone see what appears to be the precipitating event? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was some sort of way of stopping Llywrch for protecting his user talk short of desysoping him. I want to talk to him. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I can tell, it started with a rather innocuous exchange at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Linking to years, again four days ago. Nothing there seems nasty enough to cause the erratic behavior, so I'm thinking something happened in RL. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can get a hold of him, perhaps we can find out. That is the main problem. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 03:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Try using the e-mail link on his user page. Recently he said this is the best way to contact him. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions onwiki. I have e-mail enabled but I have only used it once: when User:Nishkid64 set me attachments for 1964 Gabon coup d'etat (currently at FAC). I really don't like private discussions. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he is well aware that some people would like to speak with him; presumably when he is interested in listening he will make himself available. Perhaps when he awakens tomorrow morning he will have calmed down. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Invalid fair use of stamps: Admin/bot action required

The category: Category:Fair use stamp images has bee flooded with stamp images that do not qualify as fair use. In particular, many of these stamps are being used to illustrate the subject rather than the stamp. The fair use criteria prohibits such use. I raised the issue last year (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#Fair_use stamps: revisitied ...), and the category was cleaned up of invalidly licensed stamps. However, over the last year, many more stamps have been added to illustrate the subject of the stamp, rather than the stamp itself.

Note that, a one liner about "In so and so year, govt of so and so released a stamp to commemorate so and so" cannot be used as a sneaky way to bypass the FU criteria.

Examples of invalid fair use claims are:

• Image:Singapore stamps festival.jpg - stamp used to illustrate Culture of Singapore, rather than the stamp.
• Image:Kipling nobel fdc1967.gif used in the biography of Rudyard Kipling
• Image:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg used in the article Ranchera
• Image:Liu Hui stamp.jpg used in biography of Liu Hui

Amazingly, I picked 4 stamps in the category at random, and all 4 turned out to be fake fair use claims. None of thees articles are on the stamps.

So, a massive cleanup is required for this entire copyvio category. Perhaps like the last time, a bot can be used to remove all these images from the articles, and later process them. It seems that only a few of the stamps in this 200+ images are real fair uses (i.e. used in articles on those stamps), almost all of them are actually fake claims of fair use. --Ragib (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot: User:Redirect fixer

This bot reacts so fast to pages being moved that it frequently copies move vandalism. I've left the bot owner a message, but this seems like quite a large problem in that vandalism to one page is spread to a very large number of other pages before the original vandalism can be fixed. --Muna (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect fixer is not a bot, it's a process built into the MediaWiki software. It is supposed to change the links back when the move is reverted, however it appears the admin that reverted the change deleted the page and restored it, instead of moving back. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought up what I think is the same issue here ·Add§hore· /_Cont 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden protection

I extended Will Beback's semiprotection of the article yesterday at the time of the announcement to 24hrs. That protection is about to expire. Should we go ahead and extend semiprotection, or wait and see what happens? Keegan 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It'll almost certainly need sprotection again, but let's leave it for now as long as it's not too bad. WODUP 09:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I figured AN was a good, noticeable spot with lots of knowledgeable users.

I was just about to send an e-mail to another user when I saw this message for the first time:

A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form

Was this always the case? Is this a new change? I've gotta say, I'm a bit upset about this. Why on earth does a checkuser need access to this information, and where was it documented that they would get access to this? -- Ned Scott 07:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this yesterday - I guess/suspect it only records the fact that X sent an email to Y, at D time rather than anything more specific. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but I don't see how that would help a checkuser. And to correct/clarify my original message, I would say I'm less upset and more.. confused and concerned. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The message says that the recipient, title, and contents aren't visible to CUs, but I suppose date/time, user, IP, and browser information would be. WODUP 08:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is user-so-and-so sent an email at such time to a user -- we see a hash of the username so that we can identify multiple emails to the same account, which could be indicative of abuse. We don't see identities, content or subject of the email or any other information that we wouldn't see when looking at a user's edit to a page. Sam Korn 08:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See bug 15103. MER-C 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I would hope everyone already knew better than to use Special:Emailuser for "private" communication. — CharlotteWebb 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Title blacklist request

I was trying to edit Talk:Magic Ban Removal!! Hyde and Closer (main article is Magic Ban Removal!! Hyde and Closer) to place WP:MANGA's {{manga}} template on it, and I got a message about it being a bad title for Misplaced Pages? Can someone please fix this? -Malkinann (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the page. You should be able to edit it now. WODUP 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've tested it, and I can edit it now. :) -Malkinann (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/...and One Classical

Hi,

could someone help me out here? I just nominated ...and One Classical for deletion using Twinkle. It did not create the AfD page, however. I also cannot create the page manually, because it is on the local title blacklist. Does this have anything to do with the three dots at the beginning of the title? How do I get the article to be AfD'd?

Regards,

Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You sure? Try again. I was able to edit it and save it. Metros (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It did not work when I tried. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because admins such as Metros are immune to the title blacklist, but it can be edited by anyone once it is created. And yes it is probably due to using the same punctuation three times in a row. A recent discussion here involved the use of "!!!". Note that a true ellipsis "…" is okay because it is one character (U+2026). I don't doubt there will be a wave of pagemoves in the near future to satisfy the same people who are infatuated with n-dashes. — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages plagiarism issue (McCain allegation)

Wikinews has this article

http://en.wikinews.org/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_speech_from_Wikipedia

which addresses the issue but seems to have little comment from Misplaced Pages people. Abbarocks (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards