Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manopingo (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 15 March 2007 (→Account Removal Please: Thanks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?

Several users are arguing about this issue. My opinion is that if a vandal removes warning from his page, then he is interfering with the process of keeping track of his vandalism so that appropriate warnings or blocks can be made. Thus his removal is vandalism; and we should revert it and give him another warning. MrDarcy (talk · contribs) (who is apparently an administrator), claims that such reversion and additional warning would itself be vandalism by the "enforcer". And he is threatening to give warnings and blocks to those who do that. What is the policy on this matter? Thanks for your help. JRSpriggs 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until recently there were specific warning templates advising vandals that removing legitimate warning templates was also vandalism. I agree that it is necessary for legitimate warnings to stay on vandals' pages, so others on vandal patrol can see the prior offenses without having to dig through the history. It is almost always the worst vandals who promptly remove the warnings, often doubling the workload for those of us trying to stop them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those templates were intentionally deleted because many people agree with MrDarcy (though perhaps with weaker language) that reverting vandalism warnings is generally inappropriate. While I understand your concern about tracking the worst vandals, allowing such reversions also encourages harassment of generally good users that simply make mistakes. The amount of problems they were creating was disproportionate to the amount of good a little extra tracking was doing since any admin worth his title ought to already be reviewing histories. Dragons flight 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An archive of the deletion review regarding warning removal templates can be seen here. Dragons flight 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to me to show strong consensus that valid warnings need to stay on a vandal's page, and that removing them is wrong. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine is far more recent. That poll (which I helped create) does not reflect current policy. As WP:VAND, "removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" replaced the statements that removing warnings was vandalism. While removing warnings might be a cause for further dispute resolution, it is not presently considered a form of vandalism and should not be indiscriminately reverted. Dragons flight 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's so easy to solve, just make sure your edit summary reflects the fact you gave them a warning. Then it will not matter if they remove it and the next person will just need to look at the history page and not go though several revisions. Misplaced Pages:Use common sense applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in as another admin strongly against edit-warring in an attempt to force the talk page display of material a user does not want. Talk pages exist to facilitate >communication< with the user. Not to serve as a perpetual 'wall of shame' for every condemnation that any random user chooses to place there. If you want to review past problems check the page history and/or the block log... that is their purpose, not the talk page's. --CBD 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CBD, and would just like to point out that if vandalism comes from an IP, that IP could be used the next day by a completely different person who is adding useful content. If it comes from a registered user, I imagine that in most cases, the account should be blocked indefinitely. I'm basing that on my feeling that there would be very few registered users who add the word "poop" to the article about George W. Bush today and add useful content to the article on contact lenses tomorrow. But surely a user should not be forced to display warnings that annoy or embarrass him. If that were the case, we'd need to change the titles from "user warnings" to "user black marks". When I send a warning, I'm careful to put something like "uw-vandalism2" in the edit summary, so that an admin can look briefly at the history, without checking the diffs, and see that someone has been warned. I'd hope, in any case, that an admin would check for vandalism carried out by the vandal before blocking, rather than warnings issued to the vandal, as I'm sure there are some who might misuse the warning templates if they disagree with an edit or want to harass someone. Just my two cents. ElinorD (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember the point in the warnings is to get them to stop vandalising, if they just blank the warning and do nothing then it worked. If they continue just add the next warning if appropriate, most who are intent on vandalising will just continue and It'll get to a blockable level reasonably quickly. If it comes to an AIV report you can note that warnings were removed. The other side to consider is that of attention seeking, some of those involved in this are incapable of gaining attention for positive contributions and would rather gain attention from the negative, edit warring over warnings is just feeding that attention seeking. If they are replacing the warning with taunts, abuse etc. then keep cool and if need be ask for an admin to see about protecting the page/blocking. --pgk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is definitely some gray area here. Maybe there should be some sort of time period that warnings are expected to remain. If an editor is removing current (24 hours for logged in users, less for IPs) warnings and continuing the actions that led to the warning in the first place, I would consider the removal as an additional act of vandalism. /shrug. --Onorem 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If they remove the template, then they have clearly seen it. The purpose of these templates is not to blackmark users, it is to ask (then urge, then tell, then warn) users not to vandalise (be incivil, edit war, etc). If they have seen the message, then the purpose of the template has been achieved. Reapplying such templates if the user has removed them is edit warring; it should not be done. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I can revert a page without viewing the content. If someone has been doing something or engaging in inappropriate behaviour and sees my name as having just edited his talk page, he can easily revert it without actually reading what I wrote.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion could be narrowed to focus strictly on anonymous IP users as a starting point. The majority of vandalism comes from anonymous users. Since anonymous users do not generally have the same rights as account holders and user talk pages are a community asset, not personal, it's reasonable that a pattern of vandalism should be required to stand on the talk page for a period of time. The removal of vandalism warnings slows down the enforcement process. I don't look at page history or edit summaries when placing vandalism warnings. It is a waste of time - and often time is valuable when trying to stop a rampant vandal (at least when you have to get the warnings documented before you can report to WP:AIV). What about those vandal patrollers who are using tools like VandalProof? They are likely to put a test1 on someone who has been blocked 3 times in the last month just because of a blanked page. If the user can be penalized for blanking the page, it will either act as a deterrent or demonstrate malice on the part of the user. -- Mufka 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea how VP works, but honestly, if the page has been blanked it's fairly obvious that one has to check the history to look for previous warnings. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about penalizing people, it's about preventing disruption, starting wars over user talk content is in itself disruptive. When dealing with a vandal you should always be checking their recent contributions anyway to revert any as yet undetected vandalism, this will tell you if they've blanked their page and if they have indeed been up to any other misdeeds recently. --pgk 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its also about civility. And while on a low-traffic talk page of an IP its easy to check for previous warnings, on a busy talk page of a long-time user (yes they can still make mistakes), it can be near impossible to dig through and find those. Warnings are no different than any other kind of talk. We consider it a civility issue if someone is constantly blanking talk on his talk page without responding to it. So why should valid warnings be any different? They're still communication. There is no reason valid warnings on a talk page should be treated differently than valid communication and they can both be archived as appropriate. We've established that users don't own their talk page, even though they're given some latitude with it, its a place where a record of communication with other users is kept.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If one has to scan the history of a page to find warnings (and talk pages can often have lengthy histories), figuring out who to block becomes a real chore. If the warnings are left on the talk page, it becomes much easier to find out what level the vandal is at, in turn making it easier to escalate the template level when appropriate. Users don't own their talk pages, and vandals, in my opinion, should have more restrictions because of their proven malicious intents (at least persistent vandals should). If a warning is unwarranted, because the user did not perform the edit in question (the warner made a mistake), they are welcome to remove it themselves, but some users (IPs and registered users) have simply blanked their talk pages, regardless of whether or not the warnings previously displayed had been valid or read. As far as I'm concerned, archiving to a page linked from the main page is OK; blanking/deletion is not OK. — Tuvok 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also become an issue if, for instance, a long-time user had an issue with a certain subject which he only edited occasionally. If there were warnings in relation to it, and that person consistently blanked them, any future people leaving notices in regards to some inappropriate behaviour in regards to a certain subject might never be able to notice the pattern and realize it probably needed addressed more than a simple warning.--Crossmr 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two additional comments on this; If a user does not have an account and is therefore showing up as an anonymous IP, it should just go with the territory that the user might have vandalism warnings sitting on the talk page from a previous user. The user doesn't own the talk page. We could just have a template that explains the situation very politely to the next user of the ip. On that same idea, the majority of anon ip's don't change from day to day or even month to month. It is reasonable that a user who is vandalizing on that ip will be back on the same ip to do it again (if they do it again). The second, and perhaps more important, is that I don't want to see vandal patrollers getting scolded by an admin who believes that blanking the talk page is not a bad thing. It makes us all look stupid if we can't agree on what the policy is and how it can be enforced. -- Mufka 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A template would be good. I think several exist, it would be a matter of ensuring that they get on all IP talk pages. I still can't find a "good" reason for blanking warnings when other communication is allowed to stay unless its an attempt to hide it. Thats assuming bad faith, but honestly I just cannot think of a good faith reason to blank valid warnings unless you're consistently blanking your entire talk page (which you shouldn't really be doing anyway).--Crossmr 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is an established editor with that much throughput on their talk page that a brief viewing of the page history won't make the issue obvious, I'd say that's all the more reason to not worry about them keeping warnings visible if they don't want them. We should be looking to the bigger picture in such cases not merely counting warnings. The warning templates aren't something to bash people with, if the issue has been resolved and moved on from (i.e. they've read it and "conformed") then we don't need chanting of "unclean". --pgk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. Because its much easier for an established editor to cover up an issue that way. If someone doesn't seen any obvious warnings to this person they might just leave another civil1, and move on and think nothing of it. What they don't notice on this editors busy talk page is maybe he's had a half dozen of those over the last year, but its never involved the same editors, so no one picks up on it. That would be an indication that perhaps it should be taken to another level for input and possible handling of the situation. As I pointed out, there is no good reason to remove warnings if they were valid. Absolutely 100% none. And "feeling like it" isn't a good reason. If I ask you a question and you blank it, its considered uncivil. It should be no different with warnings. Its just communication. There is no reason it can't be archived in 7 days along with everything else, or whatever the regular archiving period is on that particular users talk page.--Crossmr 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that fails WP:AGF, assuming it is done for "an established editor to cover an issue", doesn't cut it. Regardless of if you see it as uncivil is irrelevant, yes we want people to be civil, do we block people for being mildly uncivil, no. Which is more disruptive removing some warnings they've read and understood or Assumptions of bad faith concerning that warning and edit warring over the removal. --pgk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't blindly assume good faith. And if you can't provide a "good" reason for the removal of the warnings before normal archiving, I'm not violating that. If a single good scenario can't be provided for their removal, yet bad scenarios can easily be though of, AGF doesn't apply. There also wouldn't be any edit warning if we established a policy on their removal. Hence why this discussion is here. We don't block people for being mildly uncivil no. But if someone is consistently uncivil in all dealings he has with a particular subject (Lets say historical figures from a certain state, it doesn't really matter what) If a keen eyed editor notices this while leaving the individual a warning, he may try and intervene and recommend that the editor not edit those kinds of articles or if the editor ignores that and continues to be uncivil in regards to those articles, it may go to a point where the editor is officially banned from editing those kinds of articles. There are also other kinds of sneaky vandalism that long time editors could get away with by being allowed to bury warnings. There is also no assumption of bad faith in my saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wipe the warning right away. I'm simply saying that it is communication and it shouldn't be treated any differently.--Crossmr 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do blindly assume good faith, when we have some evidence of bad faith in an action then that assumption evaporates. If someone removes a warning and doesn't continue the behaviour they were warned about that is not evidence of bad faith in removal of the warning. --pgk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying if I leave a NPA warning on someone's talk page, they blank and then repeat the behaviour, it is evidence and obviously the blanking of the warning is in bad faith? At that point then, since obviously the person was acting in bad faith by blanking the warning, that warning, and probably all others can be restored? What about future blankings? If those warnings were restored, and they're immediately blanked again, do we restore them since the user has demonstrated they're willing to ignore warnings? Are you willing to keep the tally sheet on which user is allowed to blank warnings because they haven't messed up again? Quite a tangled web. Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such.--Crossmr 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should restore warnings under any circumstances. I'm saying assuming that just removing of a warning is indicative of some "bad intent" goes against WP:AGF, if someone does remove a warning and then continues it seems go evidence of disruptive behaviour. Post a further warning for the fresh behaviour, if the disruption continues that's when we block. i.e. If I post a test2 template (or uw- whatever) on someones talk page and they remove it, and repeat the same action then any assumption that their original edit may have been a genuine mistake/test has gone out the window they certainly read the warning, there is no doubt they intend to be disruptive. "Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such" - yep and I'm free to remove any other message I see fit from my talk page, as is any other editor, it's not vandalism, it's not something to edit war over. --pgk 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the impression I've gotten from people. A talk page is a record of communication and you don't own your talk page. You're given some latitude with it, but in the end you don't own it. I've seen it mentioned more than once that removing messages on your talk page without responding can be seen as uncivil, and that your talk page should be archived in a useful manner (if blanked, diffs to various versions should be included) or via something like werdnabot. Editing others comments is frowned upon, regardless of the place (unless its formatting the position of the message), and blanking someone's comment, whether its a comment or a warning, would fall under that too. So while it may be your talk page, and I should assume good faith in your wanting to blank the warning right away, you should realize you don't own your talk page, and you shouldn't edit my comments. This isn't a one way street. And in the absence of any good reason for removing warnings right away, I don't see any kind of reason this should lean so heavily towards that side. The middle ground would be to allow an individual to blank warnings until they show bad faith, but I think I just covered what a gong show that would be. You assume that this would be something that would be edit warred over, but an official policy should hopefully nip a lot of that in the bud. As someone pointed out before the only policy was kind of vague.--Crossmr 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Users are heavily discouraged from removing messages from their talk pages, unless the message to them is a personal attack. Blanking warnings is vandalism, whether the warning has been there for one day or one year. Acalamari 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong answer! Agathoclea 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People can assert this as often as they want, fact is it is not consensus, and therefore not policy. And if you try to enforce it and edit-war about it, you will be in trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a bot on the drawing board that makes archives retro-actively. Once I got a better caching routine done I will make it available. _InBC 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer? What do you mean? This is a discussion about vandalism, not a quiz. Acalamari 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fut.Perf., are you saying that I would be in trouble and considered a vandal if I suggested a new policy that said that blanking talk page warnings is vandalism? Why would I be in trouble for? I would just be suggesting a policy. Acalamari 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a policy proposal. _InBC 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a proposal. Recently I encountered a user who receives lots of warnings. He immediately blanks all warnings and block notices, even while the blocks are active. Raymond Arritt 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Acamalari: No, obviously not, not for suggesting a policy. (But I'd advise you that, given the strong opposition such proposals have had in the past, you have very little chance of seeing such a proposal through. It's almost like one of those "perennial proposals". The community is pretty much split over it.) What I was saying was, you seemed to be just unilaterally declaring it a policy, and you would be in trouble if you attempted to treat it as one in practice, for instance by edit-warring on another user's page to enforce it. I thought I'd expressed myself clearly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was policy because several other users, including administrators, have said to me that talk page messages should not be removed without a very good reason (i.e. trolling) Acalamari 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors/admins who think this is a policy. I actually had to ask about it here about a week or so ago because I saw an editor get blocked for 3RR because they removed an old vandal warning and then removed the subsequent warnings they received for that action... because the admin thought he was enforcing policy. It's probably a good idea to have a more formal discussion on this. I'm not sure I want to see a hard policy on this, but a guideline may be helpful.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. -- Mufka 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had such a policy in the past. It doesn't work. It encourages edit warring over the presence of the warning messages and leads to escalating disruption that is far more troubling than the mere blanking of warnings. Sorry, but no thanks. Dragons flight 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So then apply it appropriately? Very simply the scenario should look like this: Regular Joe User notices user X has blanked warnings, they restore them and reminds them that that is against policy and they can archive the warnings with their regular archives. If user X continues, they've been warned about the behaviour. Make a report to AIV, an administrator can restore them, provide a final warning (because honestly if this takes more than 2 warnings to get across, there is a malfunction in the junction) and then lock the talk page. This makes sure all talk is readily available. The warnings should provide links on how to archive a talk page and links to say the village pump if the individual feels a warning is unfair, or they need help understanding it. It can also include information saying "If this warning is patently false you can remove it, but explain why in the edit summary, i.e. I never edited the article in question".--Crossmr 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The standing official policy says that this activity is "frowned upon". What exactly does that mean? How does one enforce "frowned upon"? The ambiguity is what is so infuriating. This debate will go on forever until that is resolved. We need to establish policy in one direction or the other. Separately, if an edit war breaks out as a result of a policy, it would be a pretty short edit war - warning1, warning2, warning3, warning4, block. -- Mufka 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that people are discouraged from doing it, but it won't (in the absense of other factors) lead to any sanction. Disruptive user that also remove warnings are more likely to be seen as trolls though. Dragons flight 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, just because did not find consensus in the past does not mean it will not now. I encourage the drafting of a proposal, it is clear there is much support for it. I don't see how it can encourage edit warring if the side removing the warnings is violating policy. _InBC 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a link to a proposal of mine. I provided the link further down this page, but I'll provide it here too: User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. Acalamari 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that your proposal is specifically for IP addresses, but lots of others have said this should apply to registered talk pages as well. Here's the problem: Say I'm having a dispute with User X. I am being civil and refraining from personal attacks. User X leaves an npa-2 warning on my talk page, even though it is entirely unfounded. Is removing it vandalism? If yes, can others remove it? If so, will we need to set up a noticeboard for requests for independent editors to investigate whether the warning was warranted and if not, to remove it? Obviously this would be a bigger problem with registered user talk pages, but we also have some VERY good IP editors (one in particular, of course, comes to mind). Would this policy apply to him? Why or why not? It's really not that difficult to check the history page, especially if something about the user seems fishy to you. If they are vandalizing and they blank their talk page, block 'em. That's completely in line with present policy, in which blanking warnings can only be considered disruption in the presence of other disruption (such as vandalism). My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is not just for IP addresses at all. Also, discussion of the proposal should take place on the proposal's talk page, not here. My apologies if this message sound slightly uncivil. Acalamari 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misread. But I'm not talking specifically about your proposal, I'm talking about the idea in general, as have the above 30+ comments. Hence why I listed it here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, and I misunderstood. I saw the "your proposal" part, and assumed you meant my proposal. I'm surprised it hasn't generated any interest yet; from the messages above, everyone was saying it would be a highly-discussed topic. Acalamari 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a warning message is placed on a users talk page and its completely unfounded then it can be removed. Removing it wouldn't be vandalism. The burden of proof would be on the individual who placed the warning to provide diffs where they felt the behaviour occurred. If they can't, the warning can be removed. If its patently false, i.e. a copyvio template left about the George bush article and you've never edited that article. Remove it, and indicate that in your edit summary. If the warning template has been left by someone you're in a disagreement with, post to the village pump (this link could be included in the warning templates) or post to the users talk page and ask them to provide diffs.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is clearly going to be no change in policy on this issue, I guess we are left to simply "frown" heavily on the activity (maybe I'll create a template that says "I frown on what you did" -- sounds completely legit to me based on the policy WP:VAND). We that are addicted vandal fighters, just need to continue what we were doing (reverting the removals) while staying on the right side of WP:3RR. It is a shame that we can't come to a YES or NO answer on this but we'll just have to walk a thin line to keep ourselves from being labeled vandals. -- Mufka 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, there isn't going to be a change in policy because the alternative is the massive instruction creep that Crossmr mentions: if someone on vandal patrol posts a warning, he/she needs to monitor the page because if the user removes the warning as unfounded, the vandal patroller has to go back and provide diffs, right? (Otherwise, you're conceding that the warning was false, presumably). And admins and other editors can get harassed: where they remove what they think is a bogus warning, and then get presented a irrelevant diff (say, a revert they did), then what - take it to the village pump? RFC?

The reality is that Misplaced Pages has no processes to resolve arguments over whether a specific warning is a valid or not, and it doesn't need such processes - admins evaluate such warnings when, and only when, it appear that a block may be warranted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you're given a false warning, respond to it with your side rather than remove it and look like you're trying to hide something. I reverted a user removing 2 {{npa}} warnings given to him on his talk page in the past 24 hrs and added a note that removing warnings was frowned upon. That user is now blocked, and rightfully so, but he would have continued attacking, edit warring, and being disruptive if I had not reverted his warnings and reported him on WP:AN/I. I don't know if we need a policy on this or if common sense suffices, but I'd prefer to not be blocked for making sure a disruptive editor gets reported and taken care of. --JaimeLesMaths 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone erases a warning on their talk page, then before you accuse them of vandalizing Misplaced Pages you have a responsibility to make sure that the person erased the warning in bad faith. You'd have to double-check their contributions to see whether the warning they erased is valid or not. This easily eats up more time than we save by trying to discourage people from erasing messages. It does happen that people - often new users - are warned inappropriately and then erase the warning. I came across a case recently in which an article was vandalized, someone fixed most of the vandalism, and the vandalism-fixer got blamed for the original vandalism. The person rightly blanked the nonsensical nonsensical warning from his/her talk page, and got for that another vandalism warning. If we are going to warn people who erase warnings, the least we can do is say so politely and not use the word "vandalism." Kla'quot 05:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two week 3RR block on Pigsonthewing wholly invalid - but not reversed - why?

This block Pigsonthewing_reported_by_SlimVirgin is invalid. The 2nd and 4th so-called reverts are not reverts at all. Pigsonthwing has been blocked for 2 weeks for a crime he did not commit. And yet the two people who were instrumental in imposing the block using false data, User:SlimVirgin and User:Heimstern, have not acted to unblock him. I call foul. Jooler 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note there is conversation to be found at User talk:Heimstern. —— Eagle101 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the user concerned was also adding information contrary to WP:ATT and WP:BLP, as a non-admin and uninterested party, the worst I can say is that the charge sheet is wrong. Seems as though they have form, and lived up to it. I smell a wikilawyer ... Chris cheese whine 10:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of breaching WP:ATT and WP:BLP do not hold water. Jooler 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like someone with experience giving advice about the Gillian McKeith article, especially the Legal Threat to Google.co.uk, and whether chillingeffects.org is a usable source. DanBeale 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/ "Chilling Effects is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and clinics at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet & Society, Boalt Hall's Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, and other law schools across the country". From http://www.elpub.org/base02t0056.htm - "Called Chilling Effects in reference to the way legal threats can freeze out free expression, the project invites Internet users to add their cease-and-desist letters to an online clearinghouse at ChillingEffects.org. Students at the participating law school clinics will review the letters and annotate them with links to explain applicable legal rules." - what makes you think there's any reason why it couldn't be used!? Jooler 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing is relevant here, I think. Repeat offender blocked for repeating their repeated offence repeatedly. Nothing to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Is it right to hang a man for a crime he did not commit because he has form? Jooler 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no, it's completely relevant. Pigsonthewing has a long history of disruption, especially disruptive reversion. Pick another user to champion, this one has exhausted our tolerance for nonsense. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Er. Do you not understand that Pigsonthewing didn't actually breach the 3RR? Are you saying that in principle you would hang a man for a crime he did not commit because of past form. Well done. Or do you mean only in this case? Am I been over-dramatic? Hell no. Jooler 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Andy Mabbett, who is a prodigious editor and a good contributor who has an unfortunate ability to rile people, came off a year-long block in January. He's tried to improve his behaviour but issuing lengthy blocks for a questionable breach of a disputed rule is not going to help him - especially if his past form from more than a year ago is held against him. The block was not only excessive, it's likely to be counterproductive. How about cutting him some slack? How about giving him an even break for once? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• You say it's a questionable rule, but what you actually mean there is it's a rule you were blocked for breaking. Many (most?) of us find WP:3RR to be an unalloyed good, as it acts as an electric fence of which even seasoned edit warriors fight shy. And Pigs is an edit-warrior, the problem is edit-warring, and edit warring is what he was doing. Jooler seems not to have noticed the bit about "three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement" and "you may be blocked after fewer than three reverts". Efforts to improve? For sure. We can celebrate an alcoholic who turns up every week at AA, but it's still going to be a problem if he falls off the wagon. Carrot, stick. Pigs got the stick. No idea of people are feeding him carrots as well, perhaps you should do so. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Playing the man, not the ball again, in violation of WP:NPA. Really Guy you should know better. The carrot you speak of seems to be that we don't use the stick. Poor chap is not being given a chance. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• From a very superficial scanning of Pigsonthewing's edits since his return, it appears that he has made some effort to improve. However it is also true that he has a lot of past form. A one-week block might not be incorrect, depending on the circumstances. Administrators should also be aware that under his probation, which is permanent, he may be banned for good cause by an uninvolved administrator from any article he disrupts. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people are saying this is a questionable block; I'll take a look at the 3RR report again. However, in general, Pigsonthewing has been edit warring very aggressively at Gillian McKeith, fighting to add or retain anything negative about her he can find, regardless of BLP, as has Jooler. So this business of him being a good editor punished unfairly because of past wrongs is a wrong-headed way of looking at it. Between the two of them, Pigsonthewing and Jooler have been blocked 29 times. SlimVirgin 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have repeated this many times - but the evidence clearly shows that what you called the 2nd and 4th revert were no such thing. Past behaviour is irrelevant, a smokescreen, to the fact that your block was based on faulty evidence. It is beside the point bu as you brought it up I will say here that including this occasion I have been blocked 7 times and on 5 occasions the block has been reversed because the administrator who blocked did so blocked me without valid justification. you can see this clearly from the block log. Jooler 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement; WP:3RR: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period." WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Are you done Wikilawyering yet? Guy (Help!) 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The material concerned was not a breach of BLP it was properly sourced. There was no breach of 3RR. So a 2 weeks is excessive in the extreme. Pigsonthewing has now been unblocked and rightly so, but it is unlikely that he would been unblocked it I hadn't brought this up here. So my work is done yes. Jooler 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• What part of Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the context of that quote. Which it appears is more than you do. It does not stand in isolation so that it can be applied in any situation. Jooler 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. In context, it's nothing more than a get-out clause for admins to block users under 3RR when they haven't even breached 3RR if it will put a temporary stop to an edit war. Edit wars are disruptive, and disruption has been valid grounds for blocking for almost three years now. Chris cheese whine 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, with not very much effort, I managed to identify five reverts in short order, spanning a short time. rv SlimVirgin rv ElinorD rv Jooler rv SlimVirgin rv Crum375. Chris cheese whine 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly he couldn't be reverting my edits as we both had the same agenda and were adding the same material. There were two camps - one for inclusion and one for exclusion and we were both inclusionists. Secondly the second rv SlimVirgin above and rv Crum375 are both "reverts" of me not of SlimVirgin or Crum i.e. not reverts at all in any way shape or form. So of the five edits only two are reverts. I can see that you did indeed spend little effort. Jooler 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that reverts of you aren't supposed to count as reverts. Am I reading you correctly? --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PigsOnTheWing's edits were followups to my edits This alleged revert was preceed by this edit from me - I was the reverter not Pigsonthewing. Jooler 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of wikilawyering. Pigsonthewing reverted more than three times in just over an hour against multiple editors. By revert, I mean that he either removed or restored another editor's work. Saying it can't have been a revert if he removed something Jooler had added (or restored something Jooler had removed) is bizarre. Here are the diffs without commentary so people can judge for themselves:

• 22:26 March 7
• 22:57 March 7
• 23:29 March 7
• 23:35 March 7
• 23:42 March 7
• 23:44 March 7, back to back with the former

His constant reverting at that article goes back a few weeks, so this isn't isolated by any standard, and bear in mind we're talking about someone just back from a year's ban for this kind of editing and who's on indefinite probation. SlimVirgin 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah whatever, but he still didn't do what you claimed he did. Jooler 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated earlier there were two camps the inclusionists and the deletionists. I was not reverting away from the inclusion of his content and he was not reverting away from the inclusion of my content. Jooler 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? A revert is a revert is a revert. 3RR is faction-agnostic, and deliberately so. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion now remains as it was at the start. There may or may not have been a minor error on the charge sheet, but PotW was guilty of disruptive editing at least, and has a lengthy record of disruptive editing. Therefore the long block was wholly justified. Chris cheese whine 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 22:26 March 7

• (Note that Slim's previous edit falsely claims that either The Guardian or the Chilling Effects website (a site run the The EFF and Harvard Law School et al) were self published. The original deletion of the para was based on a false premise and the restoration should have been uncontroversial. Jooler

It directly undid another editor's changes, therefore it is a revert. 1. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 22:57 March 7

• This is a genuine revert. Jooler

2. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:29 March 7

• This is not a revert it's an edit of existing text that I had restored. How can it be a revert when I had already reverted to the last edit by Pigsonthewing myself (here) - I reverted to his text and then he edited it. What's wrong with that? Pigsonthewing was actually trying to address the concerns of other editors. Jooler

It is a revert, because it undid your work. 3RR could not give a rat's backside whose side anyone is one, and for good reason. 3. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:35 March 7

• This is a debatable one. He's editing my text and is restoring old content, but he is rewording the content that had been removed earler trying to address the concerns that had been raised by other editors. Jooler

He is replacing the same reference that was removed here. This is therefore a revert. 4. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:42 March 7

• This is not a revert it's a normal edit because I had already reverted it. Again I was the reverter (here) Jooler

This reference was removed here, and the same one replaced, therefore this is a revert. 5. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:44 March 7

• Er... this claim is just bizarre. Both the before and after links on this so-called revert are to edits by Pigsonthewing. He can't be reverting himself. And in fact he is removing something that he himself previously added. i.e. the words "Details can be read at ChillingEffect.org" - which was the site that earlier on Slim had called "self-published" Jooler

... and text which was added not by PotW, but by you. Undoing the changes of another editor, so I guess that's another revert. Friendly fire sucks, doesn't it? 6. Got any more incriminating evidence to bring to the fore? Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No it was added by him earlier - here or maybe even earlier, but the point is it was removed earlier (along with the rest of it) by Slim et al.

Since you're so adamant that you have this right, and the other half-dozen or so people that have chimed in here have got it so very wrong, and you're so very good at Wikilawyering, please tell us where in the definition of revert on WP:3RR it states that it has to be the most recent revision that is undone. Chris cheese whine 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Pigsonthewing has already been unblocked. So there is no further point in discussion. Certainly there is no further point in you trying to justify something that has already been undone because others judged that it was wrong. Jooler 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

How can we fix the AMA? It's a noble and probably necessary idea: users who are banned or blocked or just don't get it need people who can hold their hand and help them through the processes of dispute resolution and mediation. Yup. What they don't need is someone who mistakes their role for that of a legal advocate. I have to say that my view of AMA is strongly coloured by the fact that user:CyclePat is an Advocate. Pat is a lovely guy, passionate about what he does, but has a positive gift for escalating disputes and rubbing people up the wrong way. There are many great uses of Pat's talents but this is not one of them. Other advocates are similarly problematic: I have seen one take a case and do nothing, leaving it there as a cesspit of argument for months, for example. We definitely need a help and support process, but this does not seem to be it. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We could stop calling it advocacy, for starters. The role of people helping out in this way should essentially be to provide information about the processes involved in dispute resolution, but there seems to be the expectation from at least some quarters that these people are available to run their case for them, as it were. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Association for Member Assistance? But what title would the Advocates call themselves, given that "Assistant" would probably be non-starter? --Calton | Talk 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• In its current incarnation, we should probably get rid of it. The very idea of advocacy encourages wikilawyering. It seems that what the advocates are intended to do matches reasonably well with what mediators do. >Radiant< 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "advocates" implies lawyering. Association for Members' Advisors rings better for me. Not sure ditching the baby with the bathwater is a good idea. --Dweller 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I like "advisors" much better, that's much more the role that it should take. "Advocate" implies a lawyer-type relationship, where the advocate is required to defend you no matter what you pull. Seraphimblade 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need anything even faintly along these lines? From my own experience I have never seen advocacy, even when well intentioned, do anything good, and when it comes to Arbitration advocacy is, and has consistently been, a walking disaster zone. We certainly don't need any more wikilawyering than we already have: surely just letting the trolls stew in their own juice is a good idea? Moreschi 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, we don't need advocacy, but there's great benefit in some organised system for dispensing advice. Good advice as to how to make dispute resolution work can make all the difference in helping people resolve issues before they become serious problems. Sure, there are places to bring up queries about the dispute resolution process, but having someone offer advice one-on-one can be particularly valuable in certain circumstances, and there is benefit in organising a group of people who feel qualified and motivated enough to give such advice. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Association of Member's Counsellors? I like the idea that your advocate is on "your side," even if that boils down to telling someone, in the nicest possible way: "I'd like to see you keep editing, so cool it so that you don't get banned." "Counsellor" gets the idea that AM? members should be giving advice, not wikilawyering. (For some more thoughts on what I think is wrong with AMA, see here). TheronJ 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If we just need an organisation to dispense advice, why not just create a new "advice" branch of the help desk? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dev: at the moment this organization is a long way off being some benign dispenser of advice. I don't like "Association of Member's Counsellors": "Counsellors" implies some sort of authority. Personally, I think this is the MfD that got away. Moreschi 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should create the Information Point (or something like that - sounds better than "advice"), promote it, get it active, and then MfD WP:AMA? Their system is far too complicated for what is, in essence, usually no more than "Post it on AN/I". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think MfD is the solution. AMA doesn't do much harm, or much good, but it's a worthy goal, and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers. TheronJ 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment overall on this, since I've no real experience of them but your sentence "doesn't do much harm, or much good..and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers" seems to be becoming a common sentiment of late, when left to get on with it so far those things have failed to move forward. --pgk 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I guess I'm something of an eventualist, and your mileage may certainly vary. If we could do it with enough precision, the best solution might be to define some clear success metrics for WP:AMA and some of the other controversial projects, and delete them in 6 months if they can't show that they're doing some good. Like any volunteer project, however, it probably depends on the motivation and talent of the leader (or !leader or whatever) and the group volunteers. TheronJ 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "problem" with the AMA is the cnnotations given by the name. A persistant troll may come to the AMA expecting them to get them off the hook. Likewise, people expect that advocates can help them to win disputes by stepping in and making a decision, which is absolute crap (of course). The best way to resolve this would be to rename the group, look through and check the members list (or abolish it), remove much of the bureaucracy (meetings every month..) and make sure that users requesting the services of the AMA know what they can reasonably get. Personally (as an AMA deputy co-ordinator), I feel that Arbitration advocacy will never work, given the bad reputation the AMA already has, and the fact that an advocate will rarely be able to give more insight into a dispute than a clued up disputant. The job of the AMA should not be to actively fight cases - it should be to clue up these (frequently) new users on the ins and outs of policy. Martinp23 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I was thinking, agrees with that to a certain degree. It just strikes me that if an organisation isn't already conscious of its issues and trying to move them forward, it seems unlikely that the ability to do so will magically appear. 6 months however seems a long time in wiki terms, to be actively moving in the right direction shouldn't take that long. --pgk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm trying to push forward with the changes now. Thanks, Martinp23 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearing WP:AIV

As a non-admin in good standing, may I remove reports at WP:AIV if the report does not appear to warrant a block and I otherwise was not involved in the dispute? —dgies_c 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you can, WP:ADMIN states that anyone can act in a way befitting of an admin as long as they don't claim to be one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• More than "you may", we will thank you warmly for your efforts. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please do, thank you. _InBC 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• I very recently removed a listing placed by a vandal. I later found out that the vandal saw their own name there and replaced it with the person who had listed them. Acalamari 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Welcome to our world. :-D --Woohookitty 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Welcome to hell. Veinor 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by Overlord

Overlord has repeatedly been incivil in his edit summaries. Examples include the following:

• "Tennis Expert, I suggest you learn some basic english grammar before you edit articles in english. You vandalise again, you will be banned. Take this as a warning."
• "This statement is unclear and should be altered in formulation. Perhaps some immigrant with limited English ability decided to include this very unclear statement."
• "If you make ONE more contradictory edit on this article and delete somebody else's for no good reason (records are also stated in intro), I will have you banned."
• "Zaheen, go back to bangladesh and clean up your dirty city. Stop editing the article you illiterate buffoon. This date should be mentioned at top. Now go away."
• "The purpose of the remark not only concludes the assertion 'Einstein was not a poor student' but also adds to flow of paragraph. Compromising this for vanity's sake is act of Senility. Even for Admins"

Tennis expert 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow those edit summaries are nasty. By the way, Tennis expert, User:Overlord should probably know that you've posted about him here. Please consider notifying him. --Iamunknown 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tennis expert 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlord's response to Tennis expert's report can be read here . - Justin (Authalic) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I urged him to apologize here (after having reverted a blanking of his talk page): --HJ 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the accusation of you having been banned several times coming from? I thought he got "blocked" and "banned" mixed up, since that happens quite a bit, but I only saw one block in the block log, and that was reversed as unfounded... Natalie 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(<- reset) To Natalie: apparently because Tennis expert (TE) was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet but then unblocked the next day because it was unfounded. To all: I'm shocked and appaled by Overlord's / Emperor's (Overlord) latest comments at TE's talk page. Overlord received two warnings soon after his comments on TE's talk page. Overlord's comments are incredibly distasteful, rude, racist, and intimidating. Can we please monitor the situation to make sure if it continues to happen and react appropriately? --Iamunknown 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem AfD

Terry Shannon has been nominated again in this AfD. The first one was a trainwreck, and the nomination's already been completely deleted from AfD once (diff) by an editor who was involved in canvassing on the first AfD (I've warned). Might be worth keeping an eye on. EliminatorJR 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on credentials and identification in wake of Essjay scandal

There is at straw poll on numerous credentials and identification proposals in the wake of the Essjay scandal at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. The paragraph descriptions are not all there so wait to vote until they are if you don't want to actually go the many individual proposal pages to understand the proposals involved. Thank you. WAS 4.250 06:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically, this is an attempt to have a dozen or so policy/guideline proposals pass by voting upon them. That doesn't strike me as particularly useful. m:voting is evil. >Radiant< 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind this straw poll is that perhaps we have had enough of idea gathering and now it is time to specify the ideas in a yes/no form so a straw poll can tell us where we stand. Perhaps there will be a concensus on some of the proposals. Once the field is narrowed down we can discuss the detals. A week should be long for this straw poll so people can ask and answer questions about each proposal and everyone who wants to can have an informed !vote. The poll's instructions are to vote yes to any or all that seem similar to what is needed; and no to any or all that that are fundamentally unsound. We are weeding out stuff more than selecting a winner. Identify specific details you like or don't like if you wish. Feel free to change or add a comment to your vote at any time. Vote both yes and no with appropriate comments if that works for you. WAS 4.250 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read WP:CON with respect to what consensus is. It is not a headcount. >Radiant< 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would I want to count the number of times I get head? WAS 4.250 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• It depends. Is there a queue of people waiting to perform this useful function for you? You might want to at least keep notes in case you succumb to exhaustion... 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Or worse, asphyxiation. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys...ouch! Moreschi 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Covert edit war in progress

There is currently an edit war in progress on Rudolf Höß, where a user called User:Trueblood is blanking and re-blanking material about Hoess's dates of rank in the SS and his Nazi awards. Trueblood has been approached about this blanking by at least three people, and has indicated strong anti-nazi feelings with hints that he simply feels that an article about a Nazi should not be so detailed. He spreads these blankings out over several days, trying to hide them and making them appear as "cleaning up" the article of "shortening material" when it is in fact just blatant blanking. He also sometimes pretends to compromise, but in the end just keeps reblanking the same material over and over again. I teach history and think this mateiral absolutely should be in the article. It is well referenced and informative. Someone with anti-nazi feelings should not simply keep reblanking it because they don't like it being in there. As this has been going on for at least a month, and as Trueblood has ignored requests both on the article talk-page and his own talk-page to stop this, I'm asking for admin assistance. -195.229.236.214 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Draft

Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bios of banned people, contributions from them

Just FYI, there is a discussion here on whether people who are banned from Misplaced Pages (Brandt, Schwartz, etc.) should be allowed to post/participate in discussions about their own articles despite the bans/blocking policy. - Denny 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Snake bgd

Snake bgd created an article (Kaminari) which falls into CSD A3. I put a {{db-nocontent}} on the page, and it was removed by Snake bgd. I put it back, with the edit summary don't remove the deletion tag yourself, and the user did anyway. I left him a message on his talk page and then restored the tag, and he removed it again. Eli Falk 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just deletedthe article for having no content, so hopefully that will sort it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Eli Falk 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious copyright/policy violation

I was checking the icon Image:Vista-file-manager.png. It's saying that the image is released under GPL, and a reference to a source at http://sa-ki.deviantart.com. Why they have been specified as GPL here (and on countless other wiki-projects, including commons), is probably because that on http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=28352 it's specified as GPL.

The problem arise when looking on the authors own page about these icons http://www.iconsdesigns.com/?page_id=44. There it's a notice saying:

These free icons are provided to be used as a replacement icon theme for your operating system only. You can also use them on your open source projects. For non open source projects such as commercial ones, products website, personal website, blog, commercial or personal applications, documentation, etc. asking a permission to use them is mandatory and you will have to give credit for them. Thank you!

If this hold, then the icons is not compatible with the rules for images used on the projects. _→AzaToth 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct anyone know a commons admin to zap it. You will want to rip it out of the relivant templates first.Geni 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a replacement image is needed, Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png should do the trick. WjBscribe 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no law-talking person. However, the user uploaded the icon set under the GPL, and the package itself contains a copy of the license, even if he states in another location and seemingly at a later time that it is under a more restrictive license. Isn't this somewhat like the Misplaced Pages disclaimer that "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."? What's relevant are the conditions when he originally released the file; you can't "take back" licenses. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is we can't prove he every did release under pure GPL.Geni 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that GNOME-Look says that (the uploader sets the license there), and if you download the package from there you'll note that it does contain a copy of the GPL with no added restrictions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

but who was the uploader?Geni 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

saki. The same person who has the deviantART page, and the IconsDesigns.com page. He links directly to and from the various websites. The one and only download address is at GNOME-Looks, and that package has a copy of the GPL inside of it and is stated as being GPL-licensed on the download page. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a great alternative. Might as well give the filing cabinet a coat of paint anyway. :) Garrett 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eef. Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png makes me weep, it really does. I know it's a matter of taste, but can I offer Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg as a stopgap until this is resolved? I'm a complete novice at Inkscape, but that's my own ham-fisted attempt at a filing cabinet icon (completely from scratch), and you can have it for nothing. — mholland 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a derivative work, it wouldn't have any affect on the copyright status. That is, if it's a violation it's still a violation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My image isn't a derivative work: I drew it from scratch from brown polygons. It looks the same, but then so would a lot of images at 40px. — mholland 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See the definition at . Redrawing an image doesn't create a new copyright, regardless of the method in which you did it, or even if there are minute differences. You therefore shouldn't be claiming it as public domain either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read and understand the definition of a derivative work. I remain confident that the image I drew is not based upon Image:Vista-file-manager.png in any way which attracts copyright rights. No part of the original image is reproduced, dimensions or colours. I had, however, looked at Vista-file-manager before I started drawing. It is my understanding that you can't copyright the idea of a square, brown, two drawer filing cabinet, drawn in perspective with a shadow beneath it; however, my experience in this field is limited to UK copyright law, and I gladly and humbly apologise if my understanding of US law is faulty.

I have removed the image from this page and from Template:Archive box. I have not removed the PD claim from the image's summary, but I'll gladly do so (or endorse another's doing so) if someone would like to confirm that the image is derivative under US law, and for simplicity's sake (given that the original image is of uncertain copyright status) request its deletion myself. — mholland 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to contact the author? --Random832 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email via the Gnome-Look interface, havn't got any replies. _→AzaToth 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Was looking up the crystal icons also, and it seems that they are allowed by the author to be used on wikipedia commons:Template talk:Crystal clear, simlar here, as the "author" have posted them as LGPL on kde-looks. _→AzaToth 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Readding the conversation to gain more information on the matter, and how to procedure. _→AzaToth 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two counter issues: (1) You can release works under multiple licenses, which may be incompatible with each other; in that case a recipient may use whichever licenses they received. In case of copyleft licenses like the GPL, if the images are released under GPL and some other license, then anyone can use them under GPL if they choose. (2) It's not 100% clear in case law, but in general you can't "rescind" something you previously properly released under GPL, though what typically happens when a software author wants to use a more restrictive license is they release newer versions under a different license. Here there's no reason to believe that the author has wanted to rescind the GPL anyway, only that he has released it under a vague non-commercial/by-permission-only license in addition to GPL. Conclusion: We're fine, you can use new icons if you want (e.g. since SVG is preferred to non-SVG), but there's no pressing need to delete the old ones. —Quarl 2007-03-14 10:08Z

Request for deletion of an image revision containing accidental personal data

Hi, I accidentally posted an image to Misplaced Pages which accidentally included some personal info... I've replaced the image but the old one remains there in the revision history. Here's the image page: ] (links to current version, the one containing inappropriate data is in the rev. history). Sorry if this is not the right place to put it - I couldn't see anywhere else where it would be appropriate. Thanks a lot, --Christopher 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You want to go here to make this request. --ElKevbo 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The easiest might be to upload the image under a slightly different name, and just tag the old one for speedy {{db|uploader request}}? The JPS 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks very much... I was rather worried and panicked and didn't think straight or look very thoroughly for the right place to post it! I'll remember it in future. Thanks again, --Christopher 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the image outright. You can go ahead and upload a safe version. Newyorkbrad 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the safe image was already uploaded, and you deleted it too :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted the non-personal revision. All fixed now. — Dan | talk 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Watts...

... has seen fit to start complaining on his talk page again. I have reset the block to one month, under the view that it is a community ban for one month, not just a block. If my interpretation is wrong, undo and note it here. No need to over discuss this either, folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've protected his talk page for a month. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Why was his user talk page protected? Navou / _contribs 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Continued trolling" sums it up, I think. He's also been emailing me. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Navou / _contribs 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and assuming bad faith from User:SmokeyJoe

Even after warning, this user has continued to be uncivil and accuse me of ulterior motives for an AfD. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Later-no-harm_criterion I request the assistance of an administrator.--Fahrenheit451 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move issue

Hi. Straight Outta Lynwood was moved to Straight outta Lynwood earlier today, and then redirected back to the original (and correct) title. This solution, of course, does not move the page history back to the original title. Could an admin please fix this? --Maxamegalon2000 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CPMV. I have tagged this as {{db-histmerge}}, so it should be taken care of in due course. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see this probably wasn't the first place I should have gone. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. --Maxamegalon2000 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User warning templates strawpoll

Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project WP:UW and then when handed over WP:UTM to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the Category:User warning templates. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts here please. Regards 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Burninators required - speedies overflowing

The number of candidates for speedy deletion has reached 765. Anyone for a bonfire party? (Note: the category tracker is reporting this incorrectly). MER-C 10:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now at 843... MER-C 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat concerned that there are apparently -1 users looking for help. Is someone looking for a refund? :-) Chris cheese whine 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a DOES NOT COMPUTE situation with all the big numbers. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I leave CSD alone for a week, and this is what happens? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We're down below 400, more help would be good. There are a lot of CSD:I3 images out there. Gwernol 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated community ban language at WP:BAN

• Thread moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy. >Radiant< 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Huntsville, Ohio

Earlier in March, the same IP added a random name to Huntsville, Ohio and was reverted four times. After warnings were left on the IP's talk page, a nearly identical IP address added the same text just today, leading me to revert it again. Could someone try to do something with this? Thanks! Nyttend 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Impersonator

My well-sourced contributions to the Elvis impersonator article have repeatedly been removed with unconvincing arguments by one user and his supposed sockpuppet. See , , , , , . May I ask you to keep a watchful eye on this article. Thanks. Onefortyone 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move issue - again

Hi. Another editor moved Straight Outta Lynwood back to Straight outta Lynwood. I'd rather we not have to continue moving the page back and forth. Can someone please confirm which title is correct and take the necessary steps to make sure the article stays at the correct title? --Maxamegalon2000 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, it should be move-protected - the place to ask for this is at WP:RFP. Eli Falk 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AMG and Rolling Stone both confirm it should be Straight Outta Lynwood. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest it gets moved back and move-protected at that location while you talk it over. Chris cheese whine 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that so many admins misunderstand the issue of our naming conventions. We don't follow other sites; we follow our conventions, like any publication. For an admin to move a page and then protect it against moves seems to me clearly to be an abuse, and I've raised it at WP:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested: procedure to follow

I'd like some advice of which procedure to follow. We've had a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place (now in the talk page archive) about what information to include and came to consensus which one user does not accept. We then had a straw poll to reconfirm the consensus, but the same user now asserts that the consensus is not valid (and will not let it drop). What is the best procedure to follow now we’ve had a discussion and a straw poll? MRSC • Talk 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to take part in the issue, but I'd recommend you read this flowchart. It is quite helpful for realizing the process involved with determining consensus. Yuser31415 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Account Removal Please

Could an admin please remove my account from Misplaced Pages, as I won't be using it again, and am taking a break. Thanks! Manopingo 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but requested blocks are specifically forbidden by the blocking policy. If you want to enforce a WikiBreak, look at the WikiBreak Enforcer script. --Slowking Man 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a total break, for good and ever, thanks. Manopingo 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can delete your userpage and relevant subpages, but probably not the talk page. Your account cannot be removed forever because you have released edits under the licensing agreement, so we need a paper trail to an account. Plus technical reasons in the software don't allow for account deletion. So, we can make you a redlink, and archive the talk page, and that's about it. Teke 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks! -Manopingo 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on article Bharathanatyam

There is an edit war currently in progress at Bharathanatyam article. The users Sarvagnya, KNM, Gnanapiti are deleting valid external links along with probably questionable links. They are group editing to avoid 3RR (see this). Now they have added invalid OR tag to the entire article which is not discussed in the talk page first. I am requesting for admin action Praveen 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As already stated in the article talk page, the external link that was removed fails as a reliable source. Please refer to both WP:RS and WP:EL.

Also, admin and arbitrator Blnguyen (talk · contribs) in one of the previous disputes, had clearly commented about that website, as below:

Thanks. - KNM 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnation is a mixed collection. It is true that the editor of the website was quite involved in the ethnic conflict and I think he now supports the LTTE. But if you leave Sri Lankan politics there are also many reliable materials on the website like this translation of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea by W.H. Schoff and this paper by R.E. Frykenberg. So I think a blanket blacklisting is wrong, but each item should be examined on its merits on a case-by-case basis. -- Ponnampalam 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If Tamilnation has any scholarly material at all, I am sure we can find other scholarly sources for the same material. Tamilnation is primarily a Tamil and LTTE partisan site. Every single word on that site is written and presented with a blatant Tamil POV. Misplaced Pages can ill afford such sources. Come on, we cant start citing from a site edited by acknowledged apologists of terror groups simply because they slip in a piece of legitimate scholarly material in some corner of their site. Sarvagnya 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then find another online source for Frykenberg's paper and show me. I don't think it is available anywhere else. There are other things like that too. And please note that I said that we should examine each document on a case by case basis. Original content written by them is one thing, and secondary content written by experts is another. -- Ponnampalam 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnation.org is a collection of thousands of books and articles with links to various sources. It is a virtual library on Tamil civilization. By Blngyuen stating that the site "appears" to be supporting something, he is unsure of the topic in discussion. I request to have another arbitrator deal with this issue, since this one has been taking sides with Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, KNM, and Bakasuprman far too long. Unless this arbitrator can prove himself to be a neutral administrator, I have lost faith in him. Wiki Raja 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, another thing I would like to point out is that Sarvagnya has never contributed to the Bharatanatayam page until February 28, 2007 while his counterpart KNM started editing on March 14, 2007 page as a tag team reverter. Why the sudden interest? Could it be due to the war of the Dravidian topics template? Are those guys trying to get back at me? And Blnguyen, I do not know what your intentions are, but as an administor you are setting a bad example to others by allowing these users to do these things and by taking their side. I have been editing the Bharatanatayam article since October of last year with valid sources. I have even gone to the extent to include page numbers of what I quote. Then all of a sudden these users just hop on and remove my credible references. No, this is not a genuine edit of this particular article on their part, but an immature grudge match. Wiki Raja 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

serious backlog at WP:AIV

it's getting ridiculous... Natalie 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you should be able to assist with this problem in approximately ... one minute ... tick tick tick. :) And let me be the first to congratulate you here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You should be able to do it now. :) Congrats. Titoxd 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Will this be the first time a user issued a block based on her own AIV report? :) Newyorkbrad 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just blocked it. :P Titoxd 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I'm living in a sitcom... ah, the hilarious irony. Thanks for your congratulations, though. Natalie 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Coral Reef High School page move

The page moved properly to Coral Reef Senior High School, but the talk page could not be moved. Tamajared 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Picaroon 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I was wondering if I was going nuts, because everything seemed in order... Titoxd 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack page?

This page seems...unhelpful, as does his (now-deleted) comment on Talk:Wikinazi. Is there a backstory somewhere? --Calton | Talk 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As an immediate response I've blanked the page, I would appreciate other admins interpretation of this and I would support a delete Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the deleted revisions of Talk:Wikinazi, I have to say that calling other editors wikinazi's is very inappropriate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved that article over to WP:PT] instead of what it was ({{deleted}}. Can someone check that it has been protected. I didn't seem to be able to purge it. Viridae 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the second part, I forgot to force a refresh. Viridae 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok had a look at the page in question and I'm not sure it is speedyable as an attack page. It is however unhelpful, perhaps take it to WP:MFD? Viridae 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it then after blanking it, I'll also suggest reverting it to the user back to its original state Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it back to an earlier version and contacted PeterMarkSmith regarding this, I'll keep an eye on it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PeterMarkSmith has just vandalised my user page, as I'm involved now, I would appreciate someone else's input into this Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards