Misplaced Pages

I'm not in favor of NPA blocks, but I have recently come down in believing in blocking for fighting words, and I think a comment like that was designed to be a blow landed in a fight (or a sucker punch). Geogre 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Geogre; I normally do not block for NPA, but this is beyond the pale. Support. KillerChihuahua 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages seems awash with some pretty forthright comment on Talk Pages, a great deal of it, it appears to me, offensive rudeness by the style of remarks. However I am not sure this incident (whether seen as humorous or otherwise) falls into this category and I think instead of editors jumping on the "personal attack" bandwagon, there should be a commonsense assessment as to what is actually a fair comment or remark and an actual personal attack. I think he could at least have had the courtesey of a warning. David Lauder 08:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock

Soxrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER (number 6) after several warnings have been left at his talk page. He continues to do it to other articles. He's done this to the following articles/templates:

1. 2007 Indianapolis 500, which he made 108 edits to today
   
2. 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship
   
3. 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2007 NBA Playoffs
   
4. 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season
   
5. 2006-07 Detroit Red Wings season
   
6. 2007 New York Yankees season
   
7. Around the Horn
   
8. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final
   
9. {{2007 New York Yankees season game log}}
   

And others. He's been warned every time, yet he ignores these warnings and continues to do these edits. --Ksy92003 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let him know about what he's doing in a civil manner. Screaming at someone about the rules doesn't help matters. Editing what's going on during a match is going overboard though.--Wizardman 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye on all those pages. If he continues doing those kind of updates, I'll protect said pages for a short time. Technically that's not allowed based on the protection policy, but I think that's a case where I could invoke WP:IAR.--Wizardman 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If he continues, why would page protection be a better avenue than a block? IrishGuy 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, also. Page protection wouldn't be that great of a path, as it would also prohibit me from editing those same pages. I'm not asking for a block, but some action should be taken if Soxrock continues this. And then perhaps a block would be necessary.

Do you HAVE to be an admin to block another user? If not, could somebody tell me how in case I need to know? I'm not gonna block this user, I'm just wondering for knowledge's sake. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only admins can block editors. You can report vandals at WP:AIV to request blocks. IrishGuy 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay... thanks. I thought so. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from Soxrock on other people's talk pages regarding the instant updating which might be helpful to resolving this: Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

2007 Indianapolis 500, updating driver positions every lap

2007 Indianapolis 500 and the race being delayed, Soxrock added stuff "ASSUMING" the race would be declared over before any announcement was made.

Hopefully this well help resolve this. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Yeah, that's going too far. Why update it "because it keeps changing" when you can just wait until it's over to update it? I'll see if he responds to me, if not I'll keep an eye on him and take admin action if necessary.--Wizardman 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I, and other users, have been wondering for a while now. I'll leave it to you, Wizardman (that's such an awesome name). Thanks. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to add, for the last quote, that the 2007 Indianapolis 500 continued after the rain delay. It's currently going on right now. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue revolves around sporting events, why not block this person for the rough length of time remaining in the game/race/whatever? I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs, but Ice hockey for example plays three 20 minute periods. If the game really were that long I'd recommend a block of an hour. If he/she was reporting the Tour de France the block could be first a day and if more reporting occurs then the block could become two days etc. Anynobody 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound reasonable. While I agree that would prevent the user from updating the scores, I'm not so sure that would solve the problem. First of all, sporting events don't have a set time frame; they may be 2 hours long or 4 hours long. Soccer is the only sport that comes close, as they play 2 45-minute halves of running clock. But there's still overtime and golden goal penalty kicks and other reasons the game might run longer. And besides, a running block like that isn't reasonable. If the user would get blocked, the block would have to be for a set time; we can't adjust the length of the block simply because of what sporting event's article they are editing. Do you get my point? For example, if they are editing a baseball game, that might be 3 hours long. However, a soccer game is less than 2 hours long. Despite the different lengths of games, it is, afterall, the same infraction, the same violation. Therefore, the punishment should be the same no matter how they do it. Do you understand, Anynobody? --Ksy92003 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another quote:

2007 Indianapolis 500

Soxrock appears to be a user who thinks that they can overrule an official Misplaced Pages policy. He refuses to abide by those rules, despite numerous warnings. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Ksy92003 (talk), and indeed setting a block for events which don't have a set end time could be tricky (which is why I mentioned I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs....)

What other options are there though? If he/she keeps ignoring warnings sooner or later they will be blocked. Instead of adding a 24 or 48 hour block right away, a four or six hour block might get the message across without being unduly harsh. I realize this editor is doing something they aren't supposed to, but it's not quite as bad as making legal threats, blanking pages, or edit warring. If they go right back to these types of updates then the longer block becomes more appropriate. Anynobody 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sock puppeting

here an editor uses a false accusation of me being a sock puppet . I'd like either proof or an apology. Since any such proof is impossible because I'm not a sock puppet, I'd like it noted that this editor has falsely accused me of this and expect a retraction. Piperdown 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got me fooled. I checked Piperdown's recent contributions, and nothing seems amiss. It would be appropriate for User:SlimVirgin to explain why she identifies Piperdown as a sockpuppet instead of blanking the request for said explanation. She could also file a report at WP:SSP. Again, I don't see what the story is. YechielMan 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I see there are several BLP-related discussions on this noticeboard at the moment. Would anyone be able to look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre? I raised some concerns on the talk page a few weeks ago, and I see that such concerns are still being defended on the talk page. The article includes sections like "Students injured in Room 204" - often with an accompanying "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." This practice is, in my opinon, best described in this quote from the talk page: "There is no single canonical list of the wounded. PERIOD - as you like to say. Scraping together names from conflicting reports is original research". Some example of gratuitous details from the article, that, in my opinion, go against the intent of Misplaced Pages:Biography of living persons (names omitted below, but mentioned in the article):

• "A bullet hit left side and right arm, puncturing an abdominal muscle"
• "A 9mm bullet hit head behind the left ear. Its final resting place was reported by USA Today as the skull and by the Uruguay Daily News as the throat. Another bullet hit his shoulder."
• "wounded in the right thigh twice, causing a pierced femoral artery; used an electrical cord as a tourniquet to stem the bleeding from the inch-long gash in the artery) On Saturday, May 12, 2007 was able to walk unassisted across the stage at his graduation ceremony to receive his diploma with the use of a crutch."

In my opinion, this excessive detail about the injured students (and the details of the dead is excessive as well) is another example of the sensationalist, tabloid-style, articles that, when written about living people, should be dealt with by WP:BLP. All the material is carefully sourced, but to news articles written in the immediate aftermath of the events. The main article, Virginia Tech massacre, has improved a lot, but less-watched articles like List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre still have these sort of problems. What should be done? Carcharoth 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. WP:AN/I is not for these types of issues. Paul Cyr 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a few opinions from here first, if you don't mind. Give it a day or so? If you disagree, put the resolved marker back. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Current discussion at:

• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Remove names of wounded

Earlier discussions at:

• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors/wounded
• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Is this article overdone?

I still think the information on the injured victims is is a combination of original research (synthesis of existing sources), excessive and indiscriminate information, and sensationalist as well. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

These same concerns, which I also share, have been raised before on the page the list of victims was originally WP:CFORK'ed from:

• Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 12#Making a list of injured individuals by name
• Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 11#Victims section, its existence and contents

There are major issues with WP:OR, WP:BLP, useless morbid voyeurism, etc., but the page has had enough support to survive an AfD, and I think most of this is a content question that should be sorted out at the appropriate talk page. --Dynaflow babble 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Update:the names of the living have now been removed, so that is an improvement. I should have thought of that myself. Carcharoth 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I hope that will be acceptable. The whole question of whether we actually should be cataloguing this in such detail I leave to others, but in the past few days I've seen considerable support for edits in which I have retained information and references while removing names of private individuals. I think we may be close to the point where we can add this as principle to our guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So what was the BLP issue here, exactly? Well sourced, not negative in tone, and the few that I've looked at thus far don't appear to have OR issues, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issues were largely fixed (today) here: . The OR problem comes in because, while well-sourced, the sum total of the article qualifies as original research. Definitive lists of the victims do not seem to have been published, so the creators of the page were required to collate information from a variety of sources and synthesize it, the definition of original research. Journal articles are well-sourced too, but they are inadmissable as Wp articles for the same reason. --Dynaflow babble 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase - what BLP issues existed to fix? The article was entirely compliant. As for OR, what you describe does not appear to be original research, nothing's being synthesized in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A time bomb. Unnecessary intrusion on private identities. We should probably think carefully before using names of private individuals who happen to be involved in tragedies. We probably shouldn't be asking "why remove these names?" but rather "why retain these names?" If our articles are verifiable then the names can be obtained from the source material. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. When people read the article, they probably expect to see, well, a list of victims. As the discussion on the article's talk page mentions, other news sources have reported these names, and we also have a full list at Columbine High School massacre.

This article survived an AfD (I would have voted 'delete') so it seems there is consensus to have this information. The way, the truth, and the light 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's more like there's a point at which increasing lurid detail, however properly sourced, simply become inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. There's no real encyclopedia merit to stating largely irrelevant details of a crime, when there are references in the article which attest to them, and which the prurient reader can peruse at their own discretion. --Haemo 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to draw a bright line anywhere, I just want us to ask ourselves as a community, in each case, "is it necessary that the name of this private individual be entered into this encyclopedia which is now a top ten website?" Maybe in most cases we'll find that it is necessary. And maybe not. However we're an encyclopedia and not a phone book or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals, so if we can write about private individuals without naming them (and as it happens, we can, easily) then we should continue to ask this question, without prejudice to the possible answer. It's just important to recognise, in my opinion, that we do have a moral responsibility to ask the question. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals" thats what an encyclopedia is! Every event in history happens to a private individual, often lots of individuals at the same time. PS are thier "un-private" individuals in your opinion Tony?Hypnosadist 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not private individuals anymore, Tony. That's the first place we start. As a secondary issue, "a time bomb" is no less a justification. I'm considering reverting you pending some sort of better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse reverting, though I think the whole article is unencyclopedic anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair, since in ten years when they commemorate the massacre, they are not going to read the names of the wounded. None of the wounded people did anything notable (as reported in the media) other than just being hit by bullets from the shooter or jumping out a window. Therefore, I agree. Calwatch 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, they're certainly not public figures, at least in the legal definition. Personally, I'm not strongly swayed either way on this one: I don't think including them adds much value and so, in the interest of privacy, we may as well not; however, Googling a few of their names shows that generally the news stories on them are as prominent as the Misplaced Pages article, so our inclusion doesn't have a particularly large influence on their online presence. On balance, I think privacy outweighs the very limited value we gain from including the names. Trebor 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think something should be added to WP:NOT along the lines of "not a sensationalist tabloid news site". That would cover stories of disfigured sex offenders, star wars kids, fat kids, massacre victims, and so on. The idea is to focus on the tone of the articles, not the content per se. An encyclopedic tone would omit details like names, while still linking to sources that use the names. In effect, the names are excess information, whereas the essential details are what need to be in the article - 26-year-old man spawns internet meme etc. The idea is that if you use tabloid news sites as your sources, the article you write on Misplaced Pages will end up an undignified, sensationalist, piece of recentism. In ten years time it will look silly. Do we ask for articles to look OK now, or do we hope that in ten years time someone will have remembered to let the "here and now" reporting style, with excessive detail, slip away into the footnotes of history. And before people say Misplaced Pages must record these details otherwise they will be lost, it is not Misplaced Pages's job to record history. If posterity does not record these details, it is not something Misplaced Pages should be doing. We should be documenting what others write about history, not writing it ourselves. Carcharoth 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like Jeff to consider this. Rather than ask: are these people public or private individual, ask "do we need to put these people's names into our top ten website?" My feeling is that the names of these persons do not need to be there because their names have no encyclopedic significance. Enough identifying information is given, and enough references, to satisfy verifiability. Completeness is not an issue because the names are not relevant to the incidents and the people in question do not appear in other Misplaced Pages articles because they're not involved in anything else that we write about, or else if they are, it's mere coincidence. I've drawn the line at faculty and I think that's fair. A faculty member involved in a university shooting can expect, I think, to be regarded as a somewhat public individual, both because of his involvement as an educator and his involvement in such an incident, but I could be persuaded otherwise according to the situation.

So I'd like Jeff to make that step: to consider carefully, and admit that others may also be considering carefully, the question: do we need to include this person's name in the account of his experiences? --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not an ethics experiment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am sure that once there has been enough time for people to regain their perspective, that page will be quietly deleted anyway. We don't have "list of voctims" pages, we have deleted a fair number of them in my time here. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this argument is not about this VTec page itself (WP won't record the names of most of the 30,000+or- americans Killed by guns this year so why the injured of this event are notable is beyond me) but the some editors want to Bloat BLP from its legitamate role in protecting WP from harm to some Human Right to Privacy. All the info is in the public domain are we could not use it anyway so we are not publishing private details like peoples addresses (which would be a legitamate privacy issue). Hypnosadist 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While on the subject of Misplaced Pages drama, see spoiler warnings

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning#We don't need any of this has the claim (by Tony Sidaway, also mentioned in the other DRV drama section above, but he's far from the only person involved) that if nobody reverts 5000 changes made without consensus, that proves that obviously the proposed policy used to make the 5000 changes actually has consensus. (And yes, that 5000 literally is 5000.) See also Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler.

There's also quite a bit of other dubiousness; for instance, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates has been repeatedly edited to get rid of as much of the spoiler warning exception as possible. In other words, the proposal to get rid of most spoiler warnings has been written into a guideline even before the proposal itself has been accepted as a guideline. (And of course there's been no discussion on the talk page of the other guideline.)

Moreover, splitting the discussion between two pages seems to be an example of forum shopping, and I find it very undesirable that the proposal is being treated as a fait accompli and the only changes being discussed are its exact deatils. Ken Arromdee 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your view, isn't this announcement going to cause more drama? Please follow Dispute resolution if you have a grievance against any Misplaced Pages editor. You don't get a free pass just because the target of your complaint happens to be prominent. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned you because of the connection to the other section, but this is far from being about you. There are other people involved, and modifying guidelines before consensus and with no discussion, or making 5000 changes and claiming consensus, is bad regardless of who does it. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

JulesH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming articles with website

Not sure where this should go, but it needs some intervention. Editor has been warned not to add the link, but is adding it to numerous articles. Anchoress 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A better question is why User:Will Beback is characterizing nielsenhayden.com (or however it's spelled) as an "attack site" (, , and especially ). Buh? --Calton | Talk 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Calton, I've looked at various pages on that site, and it engages in violations of privacy. Speaking as a victim of serious sexually-motivated stalking from a Wikipedian (now banned from Misplaced Pages) who found out my real name and subjected not only me but also my family, my friends, my former teacher, my superior, and my work colleagues to a campaign of terror which lasted for a year (until he was taken into police custody over a separate issue), I would just love to know why, when people see that something is removed from a page as an attack site (especially when the removal comes from an administrator, rather than from a troll just making a point), and when the removal still leaves the article looking reasonably respectable, they find it so urgent to restore it. What harm will it do to have a not very well known article without a possibly useful but certainly not essential link for a day or so, while you're sending a discreet e-mail to the person who removed it. How serious is the damage to Misplaced Pages if the link stays out until the person disputing its removal has been able to make discreet enquiries as to what the problem is? Why do people not think a little more about the possible distress of the victim? Musical Linguist 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that TNH has made it clear that she considers herself the victim of stalking by an anonymous person who goes by the name "Will Beback." --130.189.15.61 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake. A handful of nasty comments plus a reference to an easily-found allegation about a "real" name, in the context of a vastly larger site, do not an "attack site" make. A little off-Wiki name-calling, however uncivil and unjustified, does not remotely equate to the kind of stalking described above, nor make it significantly more likely that some third party will engage in such stalking as a result of it. Will has removed more than a few links on these articles, none of them leading to the page with the so-called "outing." And yes, it does hurt the articles, and Misplaced Pages credibility. I urge both sides in this not to overreact, either by attempting to ban links to Making Light or by attacking individual Misplaced Pages editors and admins. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 11:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack site incident - comment by Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The science fiction editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden (TNH) has also been a Misplaced Pages editor (using acknowledged IP addresses), and in that context she and I have been in conflict in the past. The conflicts were civil. I had noticed that she ahd made some derogatory remarks about me on her popular blog, but I didn't respond. However I just found out that she has been making further personal attacks across many pages including trying to discover and post personal identity information.Google search Altogether, it adds up to a lot personal attacks both by TNH and her readers, some of whom are also Misplaced Pages editors.

TNH's readers' actions are not germane to this discussion Doctorow 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They most certainly are, if it means that the privacy of Wikipedians is being compromised by links to her site. Musical Linguist 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If she hosts derogatory remarks by others without removing them, as well as making her own, then it shows she's promoting personal attacks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In response I've removed about two dozens links to her website. User:JulesH and User:Doctorow have objected and reverted my deletions repeatedly. I'm seeking to contact TNH about this, but in the meantime could some other admins take over? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom has ruled that " website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances," and that "inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
• Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Linking to attack sites ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the website's trying to out a Wikipedian who hasn't outed himself, there's no reason we should help them by linking to it. SlimVirgin 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very accurate characterization of the material. Teresa Nielsen Hayden (TNH) remarked with perplexed frustration on Will Beback's changes to her edits. In this, she seems to have been quite justified. For example, Will Beback adamantly told her that it was inappropriate to use contractions in a reference work. This is wrong. TNH knows it's wrong because she has worked in publishing for decades, including a stint as an editor in a prominent series of reference books (Beback has been playing the innocent in this, saying that TNH has never offered any "constructive criticism" -- surely, disabusing him of this notion counts). She went on, in her message board, wondering about what sort of person would be convinced of such a strange idea and why he was following her around Misplaced Pages, changing all her edits. She and some of her readers put "Will Beback" into Google and mentioned what they found in the first page of results. This hardly constitutes stalking and outing of an editor -- this is *Googling* of an editor, in extremis, after prolonged provocation.

Will Beback's response (including his one-sided recounting here) has the character of a vendetta. He is removing relevant links that have nothing to do with Wikipedians or Misplaced Pages from articles in the project. In one case, he removed the only reference an article had, because it went to a page that was hosted on TNH's site. He says that he'll only stop removing these useful references from the encyclopedia when TNH changes what has been posted to her message board.

The disputed policy on Attack Sites is subject to abuse, and no example could be clearer than this. Will Beback wants someone to censor her message boards to remove links to Google and frustrated remarks about him. He is willing to delete the hard work of other Wikipedians in order to accomplish this. Being a Misplaced Pages editor does not -- and should not -- confer on you the right to edit someone else's website, nor to dictate what may or may not be posted on that website. Doctorow 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What may not be apparent here is that the attack sites section in NPA is very controversial and has been seen by many editors--including me--as being pushed through without consensus and with some very questionable arguments. See the talk page and the essay at User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy.

Note that Arbcom doesn't make policy, and their "findings of fact" are only decisions about a particular case and don't bind other people. Arbcom decisions should not even be mentioned in the policy in the first place. Ken Arromdee 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not make policy, although it decisions may be incorporated into policy by the community. With respect to the MONGO decision the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user. Whether our decision is incorporated into Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks or not that principle remains valid and enforceable. It is the principle which lies behind Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Fred Bauder 12:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Mr. Beback, whoever he might be, is part of the problem. In this instance, with his initial edit, he didn't even try to link to any definition of the attack-site term he used. Going by the material other people have linked to, it looks as if he has exaggerated the offending content of the Making Light site. Moreover, if TNH shouldn't edit the page because, being TNH, she is biased, it's arguable that Mr. Beback should stop editing the page too. Allegations have been made of bias on his part, leading to inappropriate editing of other pages. After all, we expect Judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases in which they have a personal interest.

This whole "incident" seems to have begun as part of a personality conflict between Will BeBack and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, in which most of the blame in my opinion lies with the former. I suggest that Will stays away from any Nielsen Hayden related topics, as he or she is incapable of behaving rationally in this context. --Martin Wisse 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by JulesH

Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a well-respected professional science fiction editor, whose web site is generally considered a reliable source for publishing industry information. She is also the originator of the technique of disemvowelling, hence her web site is highly relevant to this subject. She shares her web site with her husband, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, hence it is highly relevant on his article as well.

User:Will Beback has objected to the use of this site for an unspecified reason, labelling it as an "attack site" without providing any evidence of such. A brief scan of the site's contents reveals no attacks against him or anyone else who is identifiable as a wikipedia editor. I have noticed in the past that he has a negative point of view of her, for instance commenting on a discussion on WT:A (IIRC) that he wouldn't accept her web site as a reliable source due to her adding unsourced information to wikipedia in the past, although there is nothing in policy that links the two.

When I noticed he was repeatedly removing the links (removals which, in many cases, had previously been reverted by User:Doctorow) I reinstated them, feeling that this was vandalism driven by some kind of personal disagreement. When he commented on my talk page, I disagreed with his assessment. As I read the policy he quoted, we may be barred from linking directly to personal attacks on another web site, but we are not barred (except in unusual circumstances, e.g. where a site routinely disparages wikipedia editors) from linking to the site at all. I therefore, in the belief that he has misinterpreted this policy, continued to revert his removals. Neither I nor User:Doctorow have violated WP:3RR, although User:Will Beback has on a number of these pages.

Specifically, referring to the quoted content above, " website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants" appears to me to be a description of a site that routinely publishes private information about Misplaced Pages participants. Whatever the case, User:Will Beback has provided no evidence that has ever published such information (at least not without the users' permission -- for instance it does contain personal information about me that I don't mind revealing). I therefore fail to see the relevance of this arbcom decision. JulesH 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jules, what are the links being used for? SlimVirgin 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be the most relevant question. If the links are simply being used to support claims about the subjects of the articles, and are not links to attack material, that would be fine in my opinion. I'm not an expert on the arbcom's decision, and applying it to other cases would require careful interpretation lest the arbcom themselves object if this ends up before them. It would seem to be common sense that the ruling was intended to apply to (a) links to websites that are primarily 'attack' websites, and (b) links directly to attack material. In no way can I believe that the ruling was intended to be used as a blanket ban on useful information. It is similar to how useful edits by a banned user shouldn't necessarily be reverted. Technically WP:BAN says that this is OK, but if the edits stand on their own merits, it shouldn't matter who made them. Shoot the message, not the messenger. Carcharoth 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also - editors interested in commenting on the Attack Site policy in general, it's now at WP:NPA - i've commented there on the talk. Thanks - Purples 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A variety of purposes. For instance, on Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Patrick Nielsen Hayden along with Former Latter-day Saints and List of people with narcolepsy they are used as references for basic biographical information. On disemvoweling they are used as a primary source showing examples of the use of the technique and as a 'further information' external link. On John M. Ford and Villanelle they contain examples of poetry and other writings by John M. Ford, who was a frequent contributor to the site. On Talk:PublishAmerica the link was part of one of my comments, justifying why I felt another editor's opinion was incorrect. There are others that are simply external links providing a different view of the subject. JulesH 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The encyclopedia is more important than the feelings of editors. If the Haydens' website is a reliable source for various articles (and there is a longstanding consensus that this is so), then it should be linked to. To stomp our feet and complain because criticisms of Misplaced Pages or of Misplaced Pages editors appeared on that site is childish and unprofessional. This is exactly the kind of situation that critics of WP:BADSITES were worried about. Under no circumstances must these links be removed. *** Crotalus *** 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you approve of the outing of editors? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you stopped beating your wife? *** Crotalus *** 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It may be a joke to you but it matters to some. I don't see your real name on your user page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The "outing" in question is being wildly overblown, as it consists of a discussion of the top screen's worth of results when you put your userid into Google. The idea that having this on an obscure Making Light message-board (in addition to all those Google pages hosted by griefers who are unlikely to remove their information because you say so) will keep people from finding out who you are is not very credible. With or without Making Light, "outing" you is as trivial as putting your login into the Google search-box and clicking "OK."Doctorow 05:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Although it's not displayed openly, I'm sure someone could figure it out if they really wanted to. I don't see that as the end of the world. *** Crotalus *** 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the content that User:Will Beback was refering to: I had forgotten about it, but I did see it at the time it went up: a link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica, along with his real name extracted from that site (always supposing the information there is even approximately true, it just looks made up to me). A single page out of the hundreds on the site, and not one that is being linked to in any of the articles in question. JulesH 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I should note that JulesH participated in one or more of the offending threads on the website., as have other Misplaced Pages editors. So this isn't just something that's unrelated to editors here. Second, it calls the website's neutrality into question. If the editor is engaged on ongoing disputes with Misplaced Pages and its editors, can it still be viewed as a reliable source? Lastly, we blocked links to ED that didn't go straight to attacks because there were plenty of attacks on that site. The same applies to this website. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should "participation in the thread" be germane to this discussion? The thread was about Misplaced Pages in general. One tiny subset of it was about you. Neither JulesH nor any other Wikipedian participated in that tiny sub-discussion. Is it your position that merely being in the general vicinity of a discussion about putting your userid into Google makes one suspect? In my view, being the subject of criticism on a website is a much more serious compromise of your neutrality -- of all the people on Misplaced Pages, you are the one with the least neutrality in distinguishing "criticism" from "attack" -- after all, you're the subject of the criticism. Doctorow 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the editor is engaged on ongoing disputes with Misplaced Pages and its editors, can it still be viewed as a reliable source? Of course it can. Misplaced Pages is not the center of the universe, and the above statement shows a remarkable degree of egotism. Secondly, the allegedly offending comments were posted not by the Haydens themselves, but by commenters on the thread. We don't refuse to link to reliable sources because some commenters on the site said something nasty. This is childish, unprofessional behavior. That thread contains a variety of statements: some reasonable criticisms and some over-the-top trolling by disgruntled editors. The encyclopedia is more important than your feelings. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the allegedly offending comments were posted not by the Haydens themselves, but by commenters on the thread. You mean like #185 of like this, for example. Oh, wait, it has her name on it. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But it doesn't change the fact that removing these links does nothing to punish the Haydens — it merely reduces the quality of the encyclopedia. Reliable sources aren't required to kiss our butts. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even 'attack' websites can have ordinary, sane, useful, well-written pages alongside their rabid, ranting forum pages. Banning linking to any of the pages is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All it does is encourage a new game for trolls to engage in: get attack material inserted on a website (forum pages are a good starting point) and then campaign to get all links to that website removed from Misplaced Pages, and sit back and laugh at the ensuing mayhem. I've had similar arguments before over blanket reversion/deletion of material contributed by banned users. If other Misplaced Pages editors judge the content or links to be useful, then that should count for something. Trust the community of Misplaced Pages editors (the focus of which widens as a dispute escalates) to be able to judge this sort of thing. Otherwise the overall message is a condescending one of: "we don't trust our editors to be able to recognise bad edits/attack sites and we have these blanket rules in place to protect ourselves from rogue editors". Carcharoth 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur: while TNH is behaving very badly -- her attitude is disturbingly self-entitled, akin to those of people like Jack Sarfatti and the Aetherometry crowd -- a complete purge is going overboard. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one of those threatenting phone calls from Sarfatti and I've gotten other phones calls too. I haven't been blasted with an air horn, though I do know of an editor who's been harassed that way. Perhaps a complete purge is an over-reaction but not by much, considering the context. We don't tolerate on-wiki attacks and we shouldn't encourage off-wiki attacks either. I'm sure we'll be able to work this out as the subject is undoubtedly saner than Sarfatti or Primetime. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One link to an old ED thread, even though it's by one of the blog's proprietor's, doesn't make Making Light an "attack site". In a different comment, Theresa Nielsen Hayden writes a pretty extensive complaint about Will Beback's editing behavior, but that doesn't make it an attack site either. I don't see any reason to remove links to Making Light. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about calling any website an "attack site" if it names someone, perhaps without realizing that that person was "outed" elsewhere by troublemakers and stalkers. We should perhaps give Teresa Nielsen Hayden a chance to remove the material; if she's decent, and she seems to be, I'm sure she'll take the request very seriously. SlimVirgin 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I got this right? We are now contemplating removing links to sites that have so much as a single link to ED? You know that means Urban Dictionary, YouTube, amazon.com, and Digg, right? Risker 04:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that. Please don't set up straw man arguments. SlimVirgin 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I forgot that sarcasm translates poorly over the ether. However, that appears to be the theory on which Will Beback was operating. Risker 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is just sheer lunacy. Put the links back, if they aren't back already. Whining about one page where people looked into the strange actions of a wikistalking editor here does not make an attack site. Suggesting that she remove the section from her site before links will be readded is blaming the victim. As a sign of good faith all those links should be put back and maybe then she'll remove the tiny part one editor went into hysteria over, not that she has to by any means. This is pure censorship of outside sites for personal reasons, at an extremely bad precedent for Misplaced Pages to take. "Do what some editor here wants you to change on some unrelated page on your site or we blacklist all of your pages" is just an obscene and ridiculous stance to take. DreamGuy 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of wikistalking, if it were then TNH would be the stalker. Nor is TNH the "victim", just the opposite. I'm willing to see the links restored while this is being resolved, but WP:NPA is a core policy. We shouldn't be linking to sites that seek to harm Misplaced Pages or its editors. That's just common sense. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NPA is a core policy. So, however, are our requirements of verifiability and NPOV. TNH is an important source for statements about publishing, and particularly publishing in science fiction and fantasy. Under our NPOV policy, this view must be represented in some articles. These claims must be sourced. WP:NPA does not, should not, and can not trump this requirement. Deleting such links is, frankly, actionable vandalism. Phil Sandifer 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of blogs for sources is also disputed. While this blog may be acceptable in certain areas, it is not the New York times. The author is biased on a number of issues and the blog has been used as a source for topics outside of scifi (Animal hoarding?). That's a side issue, but we shouldn't confuse this blog with a undoubtedly reliable source. It's a blog that promotes attacks on Misplaced Pages editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You people just love to keep referring to "common sense", don't you? So, I guess my sort of sense, as seen in my essay on the subject, is uncommon? *Dan T.* 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs' co-conspirator

Looks like someone else is also looking to make a buck off of Misplaced Pages. See here and my response here. His response was, shall we say, less than mature.

This earlier edit to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. If he's so unhappy with not making any money here, perhaps someone can assist him in moving on to where he'd be happier? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What a weirdo. Is there any reason to have that link around? Could we blacklist it? Grandmasterka 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I like how you refuted his points one by one, as he apparently asked you to, and then he couldn't respond with more than arm-flailing and childish attacks. Good work. Grandmasterka 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe a note at the spam blacklist page -- which I'll have to hunt around for, first -- is in order. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think either Centiare or Gregory Kohs should have an article, given the notability afforded by the Washington Post and others. --A. B. 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The very slender reed of a single -- or even more than one -- newspaper mention is nothing to hang an actual article, whatever grasping at straws Kohs or his helpers engage in. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, A.B., I personally know someone (& who has attended all of the Wikimanias so far) who has been doing exactly what Kohs wants to make a killing from -- but the Misplaced Pages article on his company was placed on WP:AfD. His Wiki is also one of the ten top Wiki sites according to this person, too. So I'd be surprised if Kohs is the subject of an article in Misplaced Pages soon. -- llywrch 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is just another sucker taken in by Kohs, who is very charming and persuasive when he wants to be. Kohs' project looks to be dead in the water, despite his undoubted SEO skills, so I can see why he is desperate for links from Misplaced Pages. He can get lost. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I know several people who have been mentioned in newspapers and been on TV, can I make articles about them?</sarcasm> This guy's just trolling; I think a short block would be good, and if he keeps on going, indefblock. (Revert, block, ignore trolls.) · AndonicO 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromised Account

Someone look at Shanker Aravind per this diff and take the necessary actions. mrholybrain's talk 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Asked him to clarify, I really can't make much sense out of that request. I don't (as yet) see anything that calls for the account to be blocked while it's sorted, but I'll keep an eye. Seraphimblade 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Can someone please repond to User talk:SanchiTachi on their talk page, as I'm sick of responding to them at the minute and wish to remain professional, something I'm not sure I can do if I continue to respond. --Deskana (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In one case the user was attempting to use potential copyright issues as leverage to get unblocked, but I've resolved that problem now. Outside comment is still needed. --Deskana (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy is wrong yet again on the GFDL thing, and I see that nothing has been learnt since the last debacle yesterday. I'm not going near this guy as I'm not sure I can be unbiased given his comments recently. Suggest here that SwatJester get involved and take a look. In the meantime, the 3RR block should stay, as it's totally indisputable - Alison ☺ 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have WP:OWN issues in the extreme. --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't reply to his talk page, for some reason. However, the diff's for 3RR are as follows:

7. --Haemo 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His talk page has been fully protected by Deskana. Go figure :/ - Alison ☺ 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that SanchiTachi continued making personal attacks on his talk page when his talkpage prot was lifted. He has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana - Alison ☺ 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP speedy issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone please look at this user page (name obscured). I know that it should be speedied as a copyright violation, but the user who created the page disagrees. Thanks, Iamunknown 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation in copying a Misplaced Pages page to your own workspace. You cannot violate copyright in that regard. Wjhonson 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying Misplaced Pages pages is a routine, standard thing that we have done for years. Wjhonson 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This relates to two articles that I speedied last night for reasons currently under discussion at deletion review. I would appreciate if efforts could be made to conduct that review in a calm and civil fashion. Newyorkbrad 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and realize that the title of this section is certainly inappropriate. I now change it. --Iamunknown 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The user subpage was a copyright violation of whichever editors wrote the now-deleted article because the GFDL mandates attribution. Therefore, I deleted it under CSD G12. Picaroon (Talk) 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL states that it may be copied verbatim. The article states it comes from Misplaced Pages. That is the required attribution. If not please explain why it is not. Wjhonson 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations offers a more easily parsed version of why, "The article states it comes from Misplaced Pages", is insufficient attribution. --Iamunknown 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to say that such a copy is allowed. In any case, many users have such copies of deleted articles in userspace, and it's clear the reason this one was deleted was the BLP controversy. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article you can see that it does not require the entire edit history or any edit history for that matter. It only requires posting a certain short notice. See the example here.Wjhonson 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The application of the GFDL to Misplaced Pages histories is controversial. It makes me wonder why we have admins always talking about how the history is needed for GFDL purposes. The way, the truth, and the light 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second that - the database dumps even include HTML-only versions with no edit history. And we distribute those. CMummert · talk 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL requires attribution of the five greatest contributors to the work. This is a fact, regardless of what other pages and current practices may or may not say. Yonatan 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To whomever posted "Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article (....) See the example here." The article, however, no longer exists, and so the edit history can no longer be divined. It is an infringement of copyright. --Iamunknown 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit history is not a requirement of the GFDL and the "five greatest contributors" is also not a requirement of the GFDL. If the GFDL actually states this, please point to where it states it. Wjhonson 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So all the guy needs to do is have any admin look through the deleted edits and make a list of the contributors? I'll do it if he asks me. The list of users is all that they include on static.wikipedia.org. I think you're putting process over results here. CMummert · talk 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(IANAL) Interesting assertions, CMummert. I thought that I was attempting to apply standard practice regarding userfied pages; if that means that I am putting process over results, so be it. Incidentally, what results are you referring to? The page is currently at DRV, so if it were to remain deleted, it would be inappropriate for the page to remain userfied; if it were to be undeleted, this whole discussion would be moot. And it is still moot, because there is Google cache.

At any rate, deleting userfied pages that are merely copy-and-pastes does seem to be standard practice, so I guess that if you are going to take issue with that, you will need to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me, like the Free Software Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, or a lawyer. Beyond that, you would need to redefine standard practice within the Misplaced Pages community. --Iamunknown 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of assertions, it is common practice to delete copy-and-paste userfied pages, *when those pages* are copyright violations of other works. Userfied pages which are copy-and-pastes *from* Misplaced Pages are standard. We often tell Wikipedians to *do* just such a thing in order to edit "in their sandbox". This is S.O.P. Your assertions above however do not match what the Wikimedia Foundation has, or hasn't said on the issue. Wjhonson 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm interested why you concern yourself with what the Wikimedia Foundation would say; I would think that you should be concerned with what (1) trained lawyers, such as from the Free Software Foundation, or (2) the Misplaced Pages community (upon information from such lawyers), would say. --Iamunknown 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Iamunknown: By process over results I mean that there is a trivial way to make the copy acceptable under the GFDL - just list the contributors at the bottom like static.wikipedia.org (example: Main page). Since that is an official WP page, I think we can assume it shares the foundation's interpretation of the GFDL.

In any case, copying speedied articles to userspace so that they can be improved is completely standard practice, so long as there is a good reason to do it (see Category:Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles). Of course it is not a way to premanently avoid deletion of an article, but Wjohnson explicitly said the copy was only there temporarily. In this case, there is a good reason for a copy to be temporarily available, so that the DRV can proceed more smoothly. CMummert · talk 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Except the Google cache works fine for this purpose. Ultimately, though, this is a pretty pointless debate IMHO. The level of discussion needs to be elevated instead of what is essentially dirt kicking on both sides. Calwatch 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I don't feel knowledgeable to elevate the level of discussion. And at this point any further discussion is moot, as we have the Google cache and a uber-userfied copy hosted by Wjhonson on his or her personal website. I guess then that the discussion is resolved per lack of anything to actually discuss.  :-) --Iamunknown 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Iamunknown. CMummert · talk 03:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

question

a particular admin has threatened me with a block, so i'd like to know whether that is reasonable.

on this article, an older image has advertisements on it and is zoomed out to quite a distance. one editor cropped the image down to what looks more in line with the rest of biographies wikipedia (a headshot with no ads, not zoomed way out). this change was reverted and i was threatened if i put the image back in i will be blocked. can you tell me if this is acceptable?

• before:
• after:

thank you 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't tell you. You have not given us sufficient context to judge the situation. For example, the warnings issued? And the reason that was given for the reversions. No administrator would revert you and say "I will block if you continue reverting" without giving a reason. --Deskana (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:71.112.115.55. Phony Saint 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the issue here. A number of IPs have been harrassing David Shankbone who uploads a vast number of free images of celebs (see his userpage). The images are fantastic and, as we know from issues with replaceable fair use, very hard to come by. David has rare access to the sort of people we really need photos of.

This account and another which I blocked for trolling have been systematically replacing his images with cropped images uploaded to Commons which do not contain proper attribution (the reuploader claims to be the author) and hence are invalid as far as GFDL is concerned. Whether or not cropped version are better is a matter for discussion. However these IPs have only targeted David's work. I see this as part of a campaign of harassment against David and this IP's history as well as that of User:84.178.254.52 show clear Wikistalking. They are not the first to display a strange interest in his uploads in particular. Such conduct against a valued member of the community is unacceptable and I have made it clear that if any of these accounts continue in such behaviour, they will be blocked. WjBscribe 04:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His pictures are definitely needed, but don't forget that if anyone comes up with a better picture, that will be used instead. There are several of those pictures that I would agree need cropping and/or have backgrounds that are too "busy". Best to get people to stand against a monochrome backdrop, rather than a mix of an American Express advert and a movie poster, as in the Patricia Neal case. I agree with the cropping there. Don't get me wrong, we should all be grateful for the pics, but cropping is something that is allowed. If David Shankbone doesn't want his images cropped, he needs a more restrictive license. Carcharoth 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just about the cropping. That's a part of this. And there may be an argument for cropped pictures. Both those have to properly attributed. And this isn't about just one picture. Going through someone's contribs and altering them is problematic. Particularly as part of a wider pattern of harassment. It isn't the crops in of themselves that are the problem, but the way this behaviour is targeting a specific contributor and the background to this incident. Editor have been wikistalking David for months now under various IPs. He's undertstandably stressed by this and we have to make sure that editors are not being harrassed. In my judgment, the behaviour of this editor is not legitimate (regardless of whether cropped versions may be preferable in some instances). WjBscribe 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't the cropping, it's the Wikistalking. There is a systematic effort to remove my Misplaced Pages name from the photographs. No more, no less. --David Shankbone 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, wikistalking is bad. I haven't looked into that closely, as I'm just looking at the photography issues. Hopefully WJBScribe can deal with the alleged (I always say that to cover myself) wikistalking. Carcharoth 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be fooled by this IP. Their most recent incarnation is User:71.112.115.55, but they have also trolled and vandalized under User:71.112.142.5, User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35. Their most egregious behavior which had them blocked about four times was under User:71.112.7.212, which is where there vendetta against me was born since I listed about ten reasons why they should be blocked. In those reasons you'll also see an admin review of their behavior mentioned. It's clearly a Misplaced Pages editor who goes anonymous since from day one they had a handy knowledge of tags, AfDs, RfCs, block reviews, etc., not to mention the Wiki style. They have teamed up with a friend, German IP User:84.178.254.52 for re-naming all of my hard-worked on, difficult-to-obtain photographs. It is an issue not only on the Commons, where the IP was warned to stop claiming credit for my work by an admin there. Their work stretches to all international projects. Both IPs continually vandalize the Afro page with a blurry photo of a guy in a photoshopped afro wig, to name only one instance. This IP was blocked for edit warring POV edits on Nancy Reagan, began remove all mentions of the Academy Awards from articles, and the list goes on and on... This has been going on for months. Once the heat on one of their IP addresses gets too much, they switch to another IP address to make it difficult to follow their behavior. Welcome to the world of my troll. Now the troll has enlisted the help of a German user who is re-naming all of my files. This is becoming a problem. --David Shankbone 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i looked at the image on commons, it is properly attributed. it says it came from davidshankbone: 71.112.115.55 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It says says "Author | Frauleinwunder" which is incorrect, that is the name of the person who cropped it. And even with attribution, the wikistalking would still be an issue. WjBscribe 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think User talk:71.112.115.55 helps. From what I can make out, the user cropped a picture released under a CC license, but neglected to make it clear that the new (cropped) picture was not their's. Well, maybe. I'm not entirely sure of the exact sequence of events. I did something similar with Douglas Adams: before and after. I was worried about getting the attribution correct, so I asked on the Commons Help Desk. Not quite sure of the history that led to block threats. Ah. Now I see. It is explained at User talk:WJBscribe#My contributions. Carcharoth 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

so is it ok to put the cropped pictures up as long as they have attribution? the uncropped photos have a lot of ads in the background. the advertisers make sure there logo is there behind celebrities but we don't have to play along by having pictures that are zoomed out so far to show them. 71.112.115.55 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I mentioned the advertising as well, but I am sure this is just a case of the photographer managing to find Ms Neal and saying "can I take your picture please", at an opportune moment. The background is just poor photographic composition, but necessitated by the brief "window of opportunity". I've done this sort of thing before. You feel embarassed to say, "can you move over here where I can get a better picture", and sometimes you can't do that, but sometimes it is worth trying. As for Photoshopping images to clean up backgrounds. I only do that with my own images. Cropping is as far as I go with other people's images. Carcharoth 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

just a side note, blurring the ads with photoshop might not be legal. i remember a spiderman movie swapping in its own ads for billboards in times square and getting in trouble for it. 71.112.115.55 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That lawsuit was dismissed: . It was clearly frivolous and I'm surprised that there weren't sanctions against the lawyers who brought it. *** Crotalus *** 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think removing them completely is OK. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, what license would you recommend I use to not allow cropping? Also, did you see my message above starting with "Don't be fooled by this IP..."? --David Shankbone 05:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I'm afraid. I have changed the authorship details on the cropped picture so that you still get primary attribution. I am going to put the picture in the article and credit you directly in the caption. Is that OK? Please revert my changes if there are any problems, and we can discuss. Carcharoth 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the images that have been cropped have been re-uploaded on the Commons. Putting my name in the caption is problematic. The main point to have my name in the file name is for external-Misplaced Pages downloads to keep the attribution. --David Shankbone 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm still unsure here: can i be blocked for replacing the photos with others that are cropped if they have attribution? 71.112.115.55 05:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to first check the license, then crop if that is allowed (in most cases it will be), and then add "cropped" to the filename. Don't change the filename, and at each stage ensure you keep the attributions to the original author. If you mention yourself at all, make clear that all you did was crop the picture. If you do everything right, it should be fine. But, until the allegations of wikistalking have been sorted, I'd steer clear of pictures by David Shankbone. There is plenty of work you can do elsewhere, and nothing particularly urgent that needs doing with Mr Shankbone's work. Carcharoth 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create these photos, i just want to know if using them is grounds for blocks? also about the filenames, should each person that changes the photo add his/her login to the filename? it seemes like it could result in some long filenames. thanks 71.112.115.55 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:65.102.179.133

contribution history

This user is edit warring, disrupting, inserting nonsense and personal attacks against me into an article, most likely has violated 3RR tonight... Just all over the place. This might be related to User:TheDeciderDecides from last night. This editor may have a legitimate beef about content, but they are going about it completely wrong. Edit history is limited to a single article. - Crockspot 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP has now received an appropriate final warning from SlimVirgin. I suggest you report it on WP:AIV in the case of any recurrence of its behaviour. Sandstein 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't quite sure where to report this one. The only article this user edits is now sprotected, so unless they find a new interest, they're hamstrung for now. - Crockspot 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HideandLeek (talk · contribs)

There's excessive political and religious POV on this user page, as well as attack towards homosexuality, illegal immigration and defamation towards someone named Holden Caulfield. Suggest deletion of userpage. --DarkFalls 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The user that page belongs to has made less than 50 mainspace contribs. His last contrib was March 2, 2007. He has also made personal attacks against openly gay users. See , , and more in his contribs. This user is not here to contribute constructively. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA troll, blocked as such ˉˉ╦╩ 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Continous insertion of unsourced material

I had previously pointed out the edits of Sc4900 (talk · contribs) to ANI. Editor was subsequently blocked.

• Sc400 (talk · contribs) is no doubt the same
• 60.241.54.145 (talk · contribs) is also the IP used, judging from continous insertion of the same sort of articles related to Sashank etc

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages by inserting fictional creations and unsourced material. Please stop this vandal.

xC | ☎ 07:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sock indef and User:Netsnipe has blocked the IP 3 months. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quick work! Thanks for taking care of that, happy editing! xC | ☎ 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

confrontational user

Hello, User:LuciferMorgan adopted a confrontational attitude during a GAR that he initiated. I guess we can live with his mockery, although his response was hardly in good faith. However, he challenged to report him to this board, 'or else', and frankly, I think he is overstepping certain boundaries with his behavior. Arcfrk 08:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he needs to chill a little bit, but there's nothing really "pushing" there. It's not exactly sugar and spice, but I don't really see the problem. He wants more footnotes, and believes strongly they have value - and doesn't appreciate being baited. That's about it. --Haemo 09:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you adopt LuciferMorgan's characterization of descriptive remarks as "baiting" suggests you are not impartial. I would be curious to hear from others. For example, to me his statement reads like a threat, not a civil dialog.

Food for thought: Given the extreme attitudes we are seeing at GA/R, such as "each para should have at least one citation", I believe it likely that the substantial proportion of Wikipedians supporting the scientific citation guidelines will choose to voluntarily withdraw from any participation in the whole GA business. --KSmrq 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's pretty clear that someone stating:

No, I recognize the name of the nominator; this is simply more footnote-worship

Is attempting to bait that editor, since they (1) admit to recognizing the editor, and their views and (2) dismiss their concerns in a derogative fashion calling them "foot-note worship". I don't know where you would get the impression that I'm not impartial, since I have nothing to do with the article, or editors in question, nor do I have any strong feelings about footnoting, and I've never heard of scientific citation guidelines before.

If you insist on labeling everyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being "not impartial", you're not really looking for any honest input here - you're looking for support. --Haemo 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are impartial; I speculated based on your words here, and nothing else. And perhaps my mind is clouded by battle fatigue, for my experiences with footnote wars have not been happy ones. But your second post diminishes my confidence in your judgment again. I responded to one post, which is a far cry from your suggestion that I 'insist on labeling everyone who disagrees with interpretation as being "not impartial"'. Furthermore, I used moderate language ("suggests", not "confirms"), and I said I was curious to hear from others.

We digress, for which I apologize. In truth, nothing here rises to the level of ANI, and I shall not comment further after this.

But Arcfrk is relatively new to Misplaced Pages, perhaps new enough to still be put off by endless arguments about Jewishness and a public threat by LuciferMorgan to "report" someone (Septentrionalis) who complains about a zeal for footnotes. (This was in a forum where Arcfrk and Septentrionalis regularly post, and where LuciferMorgan is a stranger.) Is Arcfrk wrong to speak up? For Misplaced Pages's sake, I hope not; because what he is asking for is true civility, not a sham used as a bludgeon. --KSmrq 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Haemo's take. Also, WP:V is WP:POLICY; anything that makes things easier to verify makes Misplaced Pages better. Advocating for that is hardly grounds to expect someone to recuse him or herself from a GA review. Can you show where the "mockery" and "baiting" were taking place? I don't see it happening at that GA review. --Dynaflow babble 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dynaflow and Haemo. The article is currently heading toward being delisted partially due to a lack of citations, as you can see at the article's GA/R. I myself complained in the past about the lack of citations (as you can see in that GA/R) and was also brushed aside. Quadzilla99 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should be grateful that juvenile and incompetent editors are engaged in this frivolity, and not doing wider harm to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC) - - this is taken from here at another Maths talk page section. As concerns needing to chill which Haemo said, I received a block this week for incivility and cannot afford yet more trouble. I'm not the most loved person on Misplaced Pages, so if I step out of line just one iota I'm gonna get blocked. All I'm saying is if PMAnderson wishes to protest at the fact mathematics GAs are being put on GAR for lack of citations and feels it's wrong, he can do so by opening a debate on the GAR talk page. If the GA criteria asks for citations, he can raise a debate on the GAC talk page asking for the criteria to be changed. He doesn't need to specifically refer to me in his remarks that's all. As far as I'm concerned, both me and PMAnderson will never agree on the citation issue and we're better off just leaving at that rather than specifically naming one another in the citation debate (wherever we're both debating it that is). Furthermore, I don't wish for this ANI to go further, and I don't wish for anything to be done to me or PMAnderson by an administrator. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan was unnecessarily confrontational and dismissive in relation to this GAR at first, but I agree that there is no case here for further action, and welcome the sensible tone of LuciferMorgan's response. I second User:KSmrq's comments, and would also note that some of the quoted comments by mathematics article editors reflect a general despair with the current state of the GA process rather than a personal attack. There is also general despair that editors' time is wasted on peripheral issues (such as "was Cantor Jewish" in this case) at the expense of improving articles: the "punishment" comment merely reflects this.

One of the challenges of Misplaced Pages is that the wiki spirit goes against a lot of normal human interaction. When something is wrong, or mistakes are made, the normal response is to complain, whereas the wiki response is to fix it. My own view is that procedures such as GAR and FAC are not currently helpful in this regard. It often does not require expertise to add citations or remove original research from articles, so I would encourage more editors to just do it, and only go into talk/complaint mode after a revert or two. If we complain first, we are bound to feel brushed aside if our complaints are not addressed. Procedures like GAR and FAC encourage complaint mode. FAC just about works because the nominator is often dedicated enough to answer the complaints and fix the article him/herself. GAR is currently broken in this regard, and it is no wonder it leads to trouble. Geometry guy 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Geometry guy has hit the root of the problem. It is aggravated by the name of the process, which implies that articles that GA approves are good, and that articles they delist are not good. Since their standards would not produce this result, even if they were implied intelligently - and they all too often are not - this is deplorable. I will return with a link to the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Requested_move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason that this needs administrative intervention. This isn't Requests for comment. That said, I am sympathetic to the argument that GA is currently on the road to pointlessness, since it seems destined to approach the requirements of FA closer and closer over time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people by name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As identified below by Carcharoth, this is not really the right venue. Kudos to him for proposing closure, and bringing the drama to a calm close. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Srikeit has suggested I post this here although I'm really not sure if this is the right place as all I wanted was his opinion as closing admin. Anyway, below is the discussion from his talk page. <KF> 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize this, but the list of people by name article has something like 1400 subpages. Does your DRV closure encompass these? --- RockMFR 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the subpages are covered under the close. I realised that after the closure and was trying to figure out the best way to go about it when I received your message. I requested Eagle_101 to help me out and he has graciously accepted to help me out using a script. --Srikeit 04:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're carrying a huge load of responsibility now. In your closure, you have failed to address the concerns of all those, including myself, who were against deletion without any replacement. Various suggestions have been made for that, but it seems no measures have been taken. Could you comment on that, please? All the best, <KF> 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is my responsibility to clarify and counter each and every argument in a discussion before closing. I considered the arguments offered, determined the consensus achieved in both the former AFD and the DRV, used the discretion I have been afforded as an admin and made the call, which seems to have been accepted as fair by most (as indicated by the lack of complaints here). However if this close seems grossly unfair or irresponsible on my part, please feel free to start up a discussion about it on WP:ANI or any other avenue suitable to you and if you can garner enough support for your cause, do bring it back to DRV. In the meantime, I stand by my decision. Thanks --Srikeit 10:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be awful, wouldn't it, if you as an admin didn't stand by your decision, so I didn't expect anything else. I'm talking about an altogether different thing here, as the inevitability of this bulk of information being eventually deleted was clear to me (although, personally, I don't see any consensus anywhere). No, I'm talking about an alternative to the c.1,400 pages that are now lost. Their removal has orphaned what may well be hundreds of biographical stubs, and the next step might be their being tagged for deletion by an insensitive bot.

Carcharoth has made a suggestion (at the end of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name) what could be done to counter this, and my (and other people's) humble idea was to "projectify" all those pages in the way it was done with User:Black Falcon/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines. That's what you haven't addressed in your closure, and I just want to know what you think about it. Best wishes, <KF> 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth's was an interesting suggestion but even after a dual listing at AFD/MFD and a complete DRV discussion it did not gain any substantial consensus nor did it provoke any discussion elsewhere. However the consensus to delete the pages was quite clear with substantiated reasons in both the discussions so I based my decision on it. As for the loss of information, I request you to look at WP:EFFORT. Anyway, I don't think my talk page is the best forum for drawing attention to the matter. Please go to WP:ANI if you want a more thorough discussion about this. Thanks --Srikeit 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus at AfD and DRV to delete this. I suppose you could start a category for "every person on Misplaced Pages" if you think it would be useful. 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just re-reading this. You are aware, right, that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography have effectively been trying to do just that? There have been valiant efforts to tag all the talk pages of biographical articles (articles about people) with {{WPBiography}}. That does effectively create a category (albeit for the talk pages) of "every person on Misplaced Pages". So I fail to see what point you are trying to make? That such an effort is doomed to failure? Maybe. But LoBpN was one way of attmpeting it. {{WPBiography}} is merely another such attempt, and I've been trying to ensure the information from one is transferred to the other. Carcharoth 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with Srikeit that the closing administrator is under no obligation to bear the responsibility of either refuting the opposition on an AFD, MFD, DRV, or other page dedicated to the consensus-creation process. All that an administrator must do is to ensure that his or her decision is in line with "consensus", give or take the minor discretion that the administrator is allowed to take. It is, then, not Srikeit's responsibility to offer any suggestions as to how the deleted data is to be preserved on Misplaced Pages, if at all.

If I am allowed my own, personal, opinion, then it is that it is an intrinsic attribute of the List that it is unwieldy and difficult to maintain, regardless of whether it exists in article (main) space or in a wikiproject. The reason why our categories system works to the extent that it does is that it features an article->category relationship, not a category->article relationship. With a list, (1) All users working on a biography must know the existence of this List; (2) Any user who decides to put the biography in the List has to actively move to edit the List to add that biography, and (3) Any such user must know how to navigate and maintain said List, difficult when the List needs a whole page of instructions dedicated to it to address this topic. With a category, on the other hand, the user (1) has to find the relevant category, but (2) only needs to edit the article itself to add the article to the category, using a pretty self-explanatory syntax that almost all seasoned editors have mastered.

Please note that in no way am I against the idea of a List; in fact, I think it is quite useful. However, its usefulness can only be maintained as long as it is complete and concise. Completeness on an encyclopedia this size (not to mention the abundance of biographical articles), and on an encyclopedia without a definite editorial team, is difficult; however, I believe it can be achieved through the use of technical means. While I do not call for Misplaced Pages to become semantic overnight, I do believe that a few useful software tools, leveraging the power of the categories and templates system that already exists on Misplaced Pages articles, could generate an automated list that would be more complete, although maybe not as concise, as the List. Anyway, that is just a personal idea of mine. I encourage you, KF, and everybody else who is reading this to provide alternative ideas for the defunct List, as it is ultimately the responsibility of the community, not the deleting administrator, to provide such an alternative and to implement it. With best wishes, Tangotango (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If all biographical articles are categorized as such, perhaps a bot could keep a set of indexes up to date by reading vital information from infoboxes. But I agree that deleted system was just a tangled partial out of date mess. 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, the trouble with these lengthy discussions is that many contributors pick out one (maybe unwisely chosen) word or one (maybe unwisely worded) argument and elaborate on it while paying no attention to the rest of the text. I was talking about Srikeit's "responsibility," and I knew already when typing this that people would pick on it. I wasn't saying, was I, that it would have been his responsibility to come up with dozens of counterarguments. What I was saying is that it would have been ... nice? ... if he had also dealt with people's suggestions on how to preserve, and make accessible, the data from the now deleted list. As I have already pointed out, many contributors who were patrolling the New Pages and came across a biographical stub automatically did two things: (a) basic wikification and (b) add the new name to the List of people by name so that it no longer figures as an orphan, not even for the time being. Also, I have already made my suggestion: projectify the 1,400 pages or so. And please let's not start the "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate etc." discussion again (although the only thing that is clear to me here is that there is no consensus). <KF> 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to preserve the content of an article the time to do it is during the AfD, and the place to do it is your hard drive. I am sure if you ask nice you can have the deleted content e-mailed to you(though 1400 pages may be a bit much). 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us please discuss this seriously. My hard drive is only open to myself and maybe one or two Trojans but not the general public. <KF> 13:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of deleted are you having trouble understanding? The whole point of deleting it is that it's not really useful to the encylopaedia, which means that hosting it somewhere else on the encyclopaedia is not going to happen. The fact that there are over a thousand subpages rather makes the point that it is hopelessly unmaintainable. What do you want that mass of junk for? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not having any trouble understanding things (except maybe the concept of Misplaced Pages:Consensus). Also, as I have learned, WP:USEFUL is not an argument, so why mention it here? Thirdly, I don't believe you are the new benevolent dictator around here to be in a position to say "that hosting it somewhere else on the encyclopaedia is not going to happen". (Aren't you willing to discuss Carcharoth's proposal, see below?) And fourthly, I want that "mass of junk" for the same reason people want indices in books. And once again, please let's not start the "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate etc." discussion again <KF> 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly may have been "nice" for Srikeit to have provided suggestions on "how to preserve, and make accessible, the data from the now deleted list", but even if had, it would not have been part of his role as deleting administrator. Indeed, if he had provided suggestions, those suggestions in themselves may be attacked as not mindful enough of every opinion voiced. The deletion and the preservation, if any, of the data deleted are two different topics. You are welcome to start a new Wikiproject or a new user page with a List of People by Name; however, you should note that unless radical changes are made to the List, the same problems that afflicted it will continue to afflict the new List.

On a different note, I do not agree that simply listing a biography on the List qualifies it as an unorphaned article; in fact, I think that is quite a dangerous attitude to take. If the only thing that links to a particular article is a global list, then it is quite possible that the subject of that biography is not notable. Listing an article on a list makes it an unorphaned page as far as MediaWiki is concerned, sure, but it simulatenously makes it difficult for the orphaned article to be detected and possibly integrated into Misplaced Pages, or possibly dealt with in another fashion. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen from the edit histories of both User:Black Falcon/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines, those lists had quite a number of active contributors as long as they were in the main space. Some of those contributors have now left (e g User:Whycreateanaccount, my pet example) but the main thing is that those who want to work on, or simply consult, the lists—and there is no longer any way of telling how often a page is accessed, is there—can do so in peace without the list being attacked all the time by the opponents of its existence. Even if they are considered "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate" etc., lists in the project space are not controversial—at least that's my experience. That's why I have made that suggestion.

I don't think it's "dangerous" (it's fun picking on a word) to try and complete a list as long as you have made sure beforehand, for example when patrolling the New Pages, whether a new biography is worth keeping and wikifying or not, after you have decided against speedy-deleting it. <KF> 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Missed the DRV completely

Um. I managed to completely miss that a DRV was taking place on this. I would have raised the same arguments that I did at the MfD. If I had known that there was a DRV heading towards deletion, I would have requested a few days to make a copy of the contents (as I did at the MfD). As it was, once the MfD closed I carried on with other stuff, and tried to generate discussion for my proposal. I am frankly rather horrified that people were participating in a DRV and were completely unaware (I'll assume good faith and presume, that like me they just missed the discussions going on elsewhere) of the discussions taking place at:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution
• Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it

I was aware that there was little discussion going on, but I am about to take a wikibreak and I was going to return to the issue in June and advertise the proposal a bit more widely and start working on it. So how did these discussions completely miss each other?

I effect, my argument sums up as:

• (1) I was willing to take the time to make a copy of the now-deleted list (see the talk page of the MfD), but this good-faith offer has been ignored and indeed snubbed.
• (2) I was actively making detailed proposals on how to carefully move from this system to one based on categories, but people seemed to have lost interest in helping me carry out that proposal, so I was preparing to advertise it more fully and indeed carry out the required work myself (the actually LoPbN pages could have been blanked to page history to preserve the data while making the pages defunct).
• (3) A DRV opened and closed without me being aware of it (I don't think I've ever actually edited the main LoPbN page, so it probably wasn't on my watchlist). The closing admin said that the proposal "did provoke any discussion elsewhere" - that is just plain wrong. I have linked to the discussions that were taking place elsewhere.

Can I please ask for the pages to be undeleted and blanked and protected. That way the data is still accessible, but people cannot keep adding to this system. Carcharoth 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thinks its a really unfortunate coincidence that you missed the DRV as your comments could have initiated an alternate discussion which in turn might have affected its eventual outcome. However that did not happen, consensus for deletion was established, I made my judgment call and here we are. However my statement about your proposal not provoking discussion elsewhere isn't incorrect. The links above show that despite your honourable attempts to initiate them, few comments were offered and the discussions have been completely dormant since the 23rd i.e since the DRV discussion started. As for your request, I'm sorry but it is out of my capability to undelete 1,400+ subpages single-handedly. Even the deletion of these pages was done by the diligent efforts of Eagle_101 and ABCD, whose help I solicited and who used a script to carry out the mammoth task. I'm sorry to be so unhelpful, but I feel I have done as much as is expected of an admin closing a DRV. Thanks --Srikeit 15:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for responding, it is much appreciated. Can I just asked whether blanking to page history was ever even considered? That tends to preserve data while still rendering a page effectively defunct and dormant. Also, if a script was used to carry out the deletion, couldn't a script have been used to create the list I asked for at the MfD? I still feel, like I did there, that there was little effort made to preserve the information before deleting the system of pages. Unless someone can generate a list of all the pages listed on those pages, there is no way of saying for certain exactly what pages were listed there in the first place. Also, as I said at the Esperanza discussion, umbrella deletions like this really need to have a list at the MfD of all the pages deleted. ie. a simple list of all the 1400 pages deleted. Who has that list? Carcharoth 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This might help. --Srikeit 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. One more point. Template:List of people by name compact page-index is what I would have used to make a copy. Theoretically I only wanted to make a copy of 26*26 pages, minus several pages as some are merged together. Probably less than 500 pages actually. So not quite the 1400 figure mentioned above. There were a lot of subsidiary and connecting pages. Carcharoth 15:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

More background

Further to the above, one of main things I had come up with was User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. This is what I am proposing would be used for all biographical articles, using a category based on some bot-generated list from {{WPBiography}}. I can still go ahead with this, but I was intending the first step to be to compare a list from LoPbN with {{WPBiography}}, to ensure nothing got missed. The list from {{WPBiography}} has already been prepared. It is a compressed size 3.4MB file at File:Bio list.sxw, containing 376,274 names. So work was (slowly) being done on this, and I am depressed that stuff was just deleted without anyone even acknowledging that discussion and work on the problems were taking place. The template talk page discussion also threw some interesting light on different methods of finding comprehensive lists of people with articles on Misplaced Pages, and how no single system seems to work yet. The methods were:

• LoPbN (human maintained - often out-of-date)
• Existing disambiguation pages (human maintained - often out-of-date)
• Using indexes of relevant categories (automagically generated, requires human use and maintenance of category tags and pipe-sorting)
• Transclusion list of {{WPBiography}} (more difficult to generate, requires humans to identify biographical articles for tagging)
• Brute force, extended Google searches (requires human ingenuity to construct search terms)

All these methods were tried for finding a complete list of Misplaced Pages articles written about people named Fry. It was amazing how the lists were all different and had varying levels of success. The human-designed Google searches turned out to be best.

Thoughts on process

Finally, can I ask what went wrong here? If I make detailed proposals, and cogent arguments, is it normal for them to just be ignored? Should I have advertised them more widely? Should I have not looked away after the MfD and had in the back of my mind that a DRV might have been possible? Should those at the DRV have noticed that one of the most vocal participants in the AfD seemed to have missed the DRV entirely? I really don't know what to think abot this any more. I know I should have been more alert, but I feel the system is partially at fault as well in that numbers were being looked at rather than arguments and, that detailed proposals to move from one system to another before deletion, were just ignored or brushed to one side. In essence, the way I see this went is something like:

• Delete, unmaintainable.
• Oh, but why not do it this way?
• No, delete.
• But look, I've made this proposal.
• No, delete.
• But I'm willing to do the work on this
• No, delete.
• Are you listening to what I've said?
• No, delete.
• Hello, is anyone there?
• No, delete.

I hope this gives some idea of how frustrating this has been for me. Apologies for writing at such length, but I do feel strongly about this. And to be crystal-clear, I am arguing only for a delay in deletion. After the new system was in place, I would have been very pleased to prepare a new MfD/AfD for these pages, or simply get them moved to Misplaced Pages namespace, and blanked to page history. Anyway, it is bad timing, but I'm going on a wikibreak for a few days, so won't be able to respond. I hope my arguments above are clear, and that others will argue on my behalf if they agree with me. Thanks for listening. Carcharoth 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing that went wrong here is your luck and a few ill-timed and unfortunate coincidences. Your arguments, cogent and detailed as they were, garnered few comments; probably because few shared your point of view, probably because they thought it was too tedious, maybe because they just weren't interested. We're all volunteers here and none of us are obliged to support every valid point and carry out every task however noble it might be. A more public forum might have helped your cause as it could have possibly have gotten you suggestions like Tangotango's above about the technical ways to maintain the list and maybe Eagle_101's script help. But that is all speculation. In hindsight, you should have probably watchlisted the page you were working on so hard and kept a general eye out for things going on with it. However you too are not obliged to do so. The participants could have informed you but again it wasn't obligatory. They might have thought that you had lost interest (like many other MFD particpants) in the matter as well. The system worked just as it was supposed to. Disputed close, DRV filed, consensus for overturning established (however not overwhelming), admin makes a judgment call and closes it. And I must say I did not consider just the numerical advantage in my close. Several detailed explanations (including the fine argument by Radiant! in the nom) were provided by the commenters favouring overturning. And I found many of the "endorse" comments to be essentially WP:ILIKEIT arguments in their various forms. Nevertheless, we can argue endlessly about the merit of the close and never have any valid solution. I understand that this entire situation has been frustrating for you and I apologise for it but blaming the system is never the solution. I hope a constructive discussion about this matter does occur and a mutual solution is formed. But in the mean-time, I think it is for the best that the current decision be accepted and we move on. Thanks --Srikeit 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Again, I really appreciate it. I just feel that my arguments were being ignored. I understand you can say Radiant's nominating argument was good. But then where does that leave my arguments? All I ever wanted was a list of the names on those pages, or the time to make a list. That was consistently ignored by those voting delete. The MfD no consensus closing had the unfortunate effect of prompting me to put it on the backburner until June, and I missed the DRV. The point is that it is always possible to reverse things on Misplaced Pages, and people should be prepared to if needed. The time taken for deleting shouldn't be less time than for undeletion. Carcharoth 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential solution

Would anyone have any objections to it being moved to the userspace of someone willing to work on it, so that an appropriate solution may be found (I would suggest categories, since thats what they are meant to be used for)? This question is being asked of the community as a whole, not just the aobve user. Viridae 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems raised at the MfD was the potential for libellous comments hiding in the morass of pages. I tend to agree with that, but the solution would seem to be blanking to page history. That removes the links from Google searches, and depopulates "what links here". However, the actual data is still accessible in old versions. I would have proposed this at the DRV if I had been aware of it. Carcharoth 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by "potential for libellous comments hiding in the morass of pages". Viridae 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this quote from the MfD: "Additionally, there may be BLP problems. One redlinked entry from this sublist reads "American criminal". Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I have no idea how long it has been there (it predates the last subpage-shuffling on 24 Mar 2007) nor who added it. How many other entries present this same problem? How would we know?". Now I've cleared that up, can anyone confirm or deny that blanking to page history would deal with that, just like courtesy blankings of certain AfDs and DRVs? Carcharoth 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not a second DRV

Just wanted to point out the ANI is not a second DRV. 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about that. Can I open a second DRV? I didn't realise that. If I can, I'll wait until I get back from wikibreak, and then request a "history only" undeletion of, um, 1400 pages. That should be fun. Carcharoth 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not directed solely at you, not trying to single you out. A second DRV would only make sense if something has changed that would render the previous decision incorrect. 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So, "I missed it" doesn't count? :-) Seriously, I would have had several key points to add to such a discussion (see above). Whether or not those points would have changed the results is not really for me to judge. There is a step beyond DRV, but I don't want to go that route yet. A "history only undeletion" request (to enable me to review the content of the pages) is effectively what I am asking for. I just hope that those that carried out the deletion are aware that the onus may fall on them to carry out something like that. That is one of the things about massive deletions of 1400 pages - you have to be prepared to undelete if necessary. "It would be too much trouble" wouldn't really be a valid response, as it was just as much trouble to delete. At least I hope I've interpreted the DRV notes correctly. Carcharoth 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do implore you to attempt to use the google cache first, I might even see if I can't rig up a page that has google links for you, that have all the old pages. You could use the cache from there. If we must undelete, a script will need to be written to effectively undo the deletion, should not be too hard. In any case, as a prelude, would you like me to undelete a few select pages and let you look? Again I'd suggest going the google cache route first, as that requires the least effort. (Give me a few moments while I rig up a page with links, if I can even do such a thing efficiently.) —— Eagle101 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How long does the Google cache last? I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days. I should be packing now. :-( Carcharoth 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-people-by-name-aa (for instance) is a Misplaced Pages mirror that's likely to contain these pages for a couple of weeks or so. --ais523 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Names by X is a great example of an index list that can't currently be done with a category. Mainly because Category:People is depopulated into its thousands of subcategories. But hopefully if a bot can be got to re-add Category:People to all the {{WPBiography}} pages, then a category based index using {{largeCategoryTOC}} can be implemented. There. That sums up my plan, and if you (the audience here, not ais253) don't understand that, look at User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index to see the system in action for Living People. Carcharoth 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here I've created a page with links to google cache, and if you like I'll make a page to whatever mirror you ask for. Go to User:Eagle_101/Sandbox where I've done the text replacement for you, and most if not all the links are now links to the google result from which you can get the cache from. —— Eagle101 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do note I did mutilate some of the formatting, but it gives you the results you need, even though the page is not the prettiest ;) —— Eagle101 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both so, so much. You have been really helpful here. I can now finish packing and go on holiday with a clear conscience! :-) All I ever had here was a vision to use categories to produce a maintainable system to replace LoPbN, and to carefully ensure all the information under one system was transferred to the other. If anyone wants to go ahead with the plan laid out at Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution (please, please, read that before commenting), then please do so. I'll stop here, and add a final comment right at the end. Carcharoth 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Eagle 101's text formatting might need tweaking, as it doesn't quite work yet. But no matter, I get the general principle and I can easily generate URLs like that myself. Thanks again to you and ais253. Carcharoth 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing this thread

I'd like to propose that this thread be closed now. Though I'd be interested to see other's people's opinion on all this, I am aware that my typing and arguments have been increasingly frantic. For that I can only apologise. I don't normally do this, but as I said above, I'm packing to go on holiday and am a teeny bit stressed. Bad timing, I guess. Apologies if anyone was irritated by the drama here, and thanks again to those who were very patient and responded and helped find a solution to this. Thank you so much. Now, where's that wikibreak template... :-) Carcharoth 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For someone who has put in an incredible amount of work on a project only to see it deleted without notice, you have been extremely polite, civil and understanding. I must commend you on that and I don't think any apologies are needed. If anything a lot of highly possible drama has been avoided and that's a real achievement. I hope you enjoy your holiday and relax those nerves. Looking forward to seeing you later. Cheers --Srikeit 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking votes in AFD discussion

In the following AFD number of keep votes have been striken by those who want to delete the articles. I checked one and found out that the striking was not done by the editor who voted. I fixed one but there are others. This is getting out of control as well as personal attack as terrorists who voted to keep the article or edited the article. Need Admin input. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It could actually do with closing to be honest with you - it's been open long enough, good luck to whoever does :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've closed it with the result "no consensus". My rationale is on the page. Now I brace for possible angry editors :P. Paul Cyr 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack page

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite Is a personal attack page against me, using incivility and bashing me.--William Henry Harrison 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but you orignally called me a sockpuppet - hence why we had a little laugh about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Harrison. You accused Ryan of trying to get a sockpuppet of his through RfA. That was an outrageous personal attack on you part. You are going to have expect some fall-out from such a rash accusation against a well respected admin. You owe Ryan an apology. WjBscribe 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I crossed out what I said about that. That is a good enough apology. He needs to apologize to me for alluding to me as unimportant. Calling me a sock puppet and not crossing it out as I did. And calling my comments, "pointless". I ask for an apology.--William Henry Harrison 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why anybody would want to apologise to a pointless unimportant sockpuppet is beyond me. Nick 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, you have curious definitions of words... you use "personal attack" in a way I've never before seen, as with "sockpuppet" and "apology". Crossing something out is not an apology. Ryan is not a sockpuppet. And I havent seen a personal attack against you yet. Philippe 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user he supported on RFA, and who gave himself a barnstar to... Majorly (talk | meet) 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move Challenge?

An admin recently turned down the RM of the Dokdo article. It seems odd that he decided there was no consensus when there was about 60% in favor of the move just on raw votes of established editors alone (the old bar that needed to be met). Furthermore, clearly some of the votes for Dokdo had no reason listed (just a signature) or were not in line with policy. It seems that with far fewer than 40% in favor of keeping it, the result is there is no consensus for it to stay--exactly how high of a bar do we need if 60% isn't enough even when we do consider the votes that aren't according to policy?

I might add that several admins voted in the poll, all in favor for the move for whatever policy reasons they had (presumably they might have more knowledge of policy than the newer editors). It seems that this poll just tossed out all the reasoned arguments and instead went along with the raw number of politically based votes. Any opinions? —LactoseTI 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Voting is evil. Paul Cyr 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls only gauge current sentiment regarding a situation. They do not make decisions. —Kurykh 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

why?

I just see my block log and found that some weeks ago I was blocked permanently (without giving any reason!) and then was unblocked in the same minute, without any note on my talk page. why?--Pejman47 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An admin's account was compromised and used to block several people. See User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 13#Desysopped and blocked. Phony Saint 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

oh!, thanks for your clarification. --Pejman47 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntapple, block-evasion sock-puppet of indefinitely blocked Grazon

Burntapple very much appears to be a sock-puppet of indefinitely blocked Grazon.

Burntapple's edit history reveals:

• the same, somewhat odd combination of preoccupations, including:
  • negativity about homosexuals and about opponents of Christianity, with
  • attempts to cast left-wing political figures in the best light and their opponents in the worst.
• editing of the same sorts of articles and often the same articles (for example Burntapple has attacked the article on Brian Flemming in the same manner as Devilmaycares (a confirmed sock-puppet of Grazon) once did;
• edit summaries of the very same flavor, including:
  • many empty summaries,and
  • inappropriate use of “rv” and of “rvv”.

Burntapple's talk page shows repeated violation or near violation of WP:3RR, and otherwise conflicts of the same sort as characterized edits by Grazon with his or her various accounts.

I'd formally request a Checkuser, but I'm not quite sure how to edit a page on which prior requests have been made. —SlamDiego 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Burntapple stopped editing on 25 May, the day that 132.241.246.111 was blocked because it was being used by Grazon for block-evasion and problematic editing. —SlamDiego 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request for checkuser: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proven, account blocked. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo... Go push your agenda else ware Grazon. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help at Talk:Factory farming

Please help at Talk:Factory farming. We need a miracle or arbcom. WAS 4.250 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin says "I don't know where you get the idea from that a dictionary is a good source for Misplaced Pages, because it's not in any of the policies or guidelines. On the contrary, these say we prefer secondary sources, not tertiary sources, for obvious reasons." at Talk:Factory farming#Mediation WAS 4.250 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it is just nuts to say that dictionaries can not be used to define words in wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't the correct page for your pleas. Note above where it says such things as “This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.” —SlamDiego 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of policy is an important part of administrator's job. I am asking for administrators to weigh in on SlimVirgin's unique representation of our verifyabiliy policy. WAS 4.250 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropropiate venue, and an RfM has been filed anyway, which WAS could sign up for. In brief, however, the use of dictionaries instead of reliable sources has been rejected many times, and was the issue at the heart of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RJII (which was closed without a decision), where one user wanted to define "capitalism" using a dictionary instead of economists. The issue in this case is whether the terms "intensive farming," industrial farming," and "factory farming" are used interchangeably by reliable sources. They are used interchangeably by CNN, the Washington Post, the BBC, and Reuters. WAS is rejecting the use of those sources and wants instead to use reference.com. SlimVirgin 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's not an appropriate venue, you shouldn't be making a case for a particular resolution. —SlamDiego 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with those assertions, but I am not going to argue here. WAS 4.250 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're writing about whom in response to a point about where. —SlamDiego 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is nuts to say that dictionaries cannot be used to define words on Misplaced Pages... as long as they are cited to verifiable and reliable ones (Urban dictionary, etc., doesn't count, obviously). DreamGuy 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Goguryeo

Currently, Goguryeo is under intense dispute and discussion. Several editors on both sides have been being extremely incivil to others.

However, I feel that User:JakeLM and User:Naus have been the most discourteous to others and I am requesting a final warning or a block. I have already warned them, but they do not seem to heed.

• JakeLM has called the talk page "a giant circle jerk for Korean ethnocentrists"

• JakeLM has grouped editors of his opposing party and accused them of preventing good faith edits and has also called Good friend100 and Cydevil38 as "trolls", something that I find to be very rude.

• Naus has called the article "ultranationalist Korean crap"

I feel that these editors have not made the situation any better at the discussion page of Goguryeo and I think they should calm down a bit before edit warring or more incivility from both sides erupt. Good friend100 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 describes the most recent developments at the Goguryeo article, but I wonder why the user posted this notice since mediation is pending? The situation there is very tense indeed. However, with respect Good friend100 describes only several of the troublemakers. There are many more miscreants and highly disruptive trolls lurking about. Ultra-nationalism is a crippling problem on both sides. Nevertheless, I concur with Good friend100 that User:JakeLM's behaviour has been trollish, to say the least. Respectfully, the User:JakeLM has deposited a taboo curse-word on the talk page of an Anonymous IP which has not been reverted and has recently left a scary, vicious, and completely over-the-top 'message' at Talk:Goguryeo that cannot possibly be viewed as helpful in the slightest. Mumun 無文 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnsome and incivility

Hi, I've tried to explain to Johnsome that this edit isn't helpful, both in my edit summaries reverting it, and at his talk page . His reply was far less than civil. I don't want to get into a 3RR with him, but his edit really does make a long, run-on sentence. He's got no interest in discussion. Can someone else go help him learn about Misplaced Pages? thanks. ThuranX 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Start a discussion on the talk page, and get some input. That's the correct place to discuss. You can bring him around. --Haemo 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't, actually. And further, after this, I'm not interested in trying any further. ThuranX 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

per this, I think any further efforts by myself are pointless. Admin please? ThuranX 02:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebbie Jackson articles by User:Onthe6

User:Onthe6 has been creating some articles related to singer Rebbie Jackson, in particular: Centipede (album), Reaction (album), R U Tuff Enuff, A Fork in the Road (Rebbie Jackson song), and The Rebbie Jackson Collection. All of the articles this user has written have had to be moved because of naming conventions and have been tagged with the cleanup tag, as all the articles are copy-and-pasted from Windows Media Guide, iTunes, and Amazon. First of all, I'm sure that Onthe6 had good intentions, but I know him from a board I was once a member of, and he's only 13 years old, and has quite frankly done a terrible job. I haven't left him any messages, but I think an administrator should. I'm also wondering why these pages with bad naming conventions and copy/pasted descriptions have gone by unnoticed by admins. I've been the one who has tagged all the articles and corrected their titles. What's going on? Rhythmnation2004 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's stuff copy/pasted it might be a good idea to re-write it straight away, or blank it and come back to it later, as it's almost sure to be copyvio. DrumCarton 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content from Afd logs by User:Rodrigue

Rodrigue removed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Woodhall from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 28 as seen here . When I tried to discuss this with him on his talk page, he removed that without response as seen here . That, to me, shows an unwillingness to discuss a rather serious conduct issue. I can only conclude that he acted deliberately to alter the record of Afd debates. Perhaps you fine folks will have better luck getting through to him than I have. Deranged bulbasaur 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. It looks like he accidently removed it when adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. Nothing to get upset about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile trolling

this is pedophile trolling. Can an admin please look at this and take action. To accuse a good faith editor of being a perdophile is claerly unacceptable andf should result in action being taken. Said pro pedophile activists have also struck my legit comments twice, eg ] SqueakBox 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the person who struck out your comments for other pedophile related edits. User:Zscout370 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pschemp - copyright dispute

User:Pschemp removed my possible copyright violation reports and blocked his uploads without explanation. Those files have been deleted from Commons (see: commons:User talk:Pschemp#Your icon images). A.J. 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep Commons disputes there, unless you are talking about disputes here. —Kurykh 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That affected Misplaced Pages, because Pschemp transfered those deleted files here... But eventually he explained all doubts and I consider this matter resolved. A.J. 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• she Viridae 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Marioemily101 Chronic Edit Warring

User has an extensive history of vandalism and edit warring, first in List of best-selling video games and most recently in Insane Clown Posse. User has made a habit of "correcting" already well-sourced material, and has displayed hostility when edits are restored to their sourced versions. User has been warned against 3RR violation and edit warring. Though user is not currently in violation of 3RR (edits are more than 24hrs apart) the user has persisted in altering data that has been accurately sourced in the database of RIAA album certifications even after having been warned.--Rosicrucian 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

abuse by previously blocked User:Platanogenius AGAIN

User:Platanogenius , as well as his IP address 70.177.181.129 has been warned on many occasions and placed on notice that he will be blocked for vandalism and extreme POV.. User:Platanogenius has already been blocked in the past and continues to express and use extreme POV and abusive statements. User:Platanogenius and his IP address, 70.177.181.129, has taken a personal interest in the article with statements like:

• I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but I do find the demographic article to be offensive to Cibaeño(Northern) Dominicans. We know who we are, we know our country."

He has also gone about with multiple personal attacks with:

• "YOUR CONCEPT OR RACE IS LUDRICOUS..To ip 64.131, you are trying to impose " one-drop rule myth", hyperdecent and other racist thrash from the legacy of Jim Crow into a country like DR. Ernesto Sagas is a Dominican professor at CUNY,and not even him accepts that thrash...I'm not here to discuss the " screwed up concept of race" in other countries, but the reality of DR."
• "DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT FARRAKHANISTIC MORON Why do you argue with that Farrakhan?? Ignore that moron, he doesn't know any better....This idiot doesn't know jack about our history...I'm Dominican, nobody has ever called me Black, even in the redneck deep south, ..Anyways, ignore these idiots,look how he is bad-mouthing white people. white people have done lots of evil, true, but this idiot wouldn't even be talking garbage thru this computer if it wasn't for this invention from the white man in the first place. That's just to tell you about his pea-sized brain. Some people's intellectual levels, in any race or ethnicity, is just Jurassic, just stay away from debating things like politics, religion or race with Neantherthals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platanogenius (talk • contribs) 01:55, May 25, 2007 (UTC)"
• YOUR INTELLECTUAL LEVEL NEEDS TO GROW. Hey Einstein, when did I say anything anti-africanist here?? ... blaha blah and all the non-sense So I am the anti-black, racist,denier??? ...You think that you where going to deal with an ignoramus, but when it comes to history, you are kindergarten compared to me. You say " society" says that such words are offensive? wow, impresive answer. ..The article will be changed.Platanogenius 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius
• UNBELIEVABLE, TALKING TO A CHILD... Anyways,the hijack of Misplaced Pages's English language Dominican Republic Article by radical afrocentric-onedroppist will be over soon.Platanogenius 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius.
• WHY THE HAITIAN IS GETTING AWAY WITH THIS? Fellow Dominicans, this biased, prejudiced and reactionary Haitian has hijacked this article. Any edit that we put, whether it has sources that are better than the sources that he presents, he deletes. Is this guy a moderator here that is abusing authority here?The word is spreading thru out the prominent Dominican websites on the internet, " a tomar cartas en el asunto".70.177.181.129 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius. ,
• "or make DR look like Haiti or Ghana,Congo, etc....70.177.181.129 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius." ,
• "ABUSE I'm tired and irritared of your abuses and narrow-mindness. Besides, I've said that " mixed European and African people" can be a suitable replacement for " Mulatto". So what the hell is your problem?? You are very disrespecful, this is clearly a bias. - written by 70.177.181.129 (Talk) ",.

It is at this point that a request for a possible permenant block be implemented, the smallest being a weeklong block, possible RFC, and checkuser for User:Platanogenius and 70.177.181.129 be implemented. YoSoyGuapo 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do the Checkuser part yourself, there are instructions there. Bringing that back here would give Admins more info to use in making a judgement about his actions. ThuranX 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP in question signs its posts as "platanogenius", I think this would be a foregone conclusion. --Haemo 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser filed: YoSoyGuapo 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested on a talk page

Hi there! Could someone take a look at User talk:124.148.69.200 and let me know what they think? They posted their response originally on my talk page and I copied it there for continuity. I looked at this user's contributions, and feel that they are indeed rather heinous (and not valuable). Yet, this user has now taken the time to request a new article at Articles for creation and have it created, which doesn't strike me as vandal behaviour. I don't know if I buy the "account hacked" bit, but perhaps a reformed vandal possibility?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He stated on his talk page that he was just bored, so he was lying. So, as a blocked user, he is not entitled to edit here. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the dates wrong. He could be telling the truth, but I don't buy the "account was hacked" thing. 24.136.230.38 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi

Well, following a long and twisty tale of arguing and wikilawyering it appears that User:SanchiTachi has decided to leave. this, of course, is his choice. He did do some good work on the site but found the way we operate to be too difficult to grasp (in my opinion that is).

Now, the issue I have at the moment is the large rant on his talk page that he has posted as his parting gift. Please can a couple of admins take a look and see if I am right in thinking it is not appropriate, no matter how mistreated a user thinks they have been? Thanks, Localzuk 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A long string of personal attacks? Bizarre, and incorrect assertions about the GFDL? A series of legal threats, and assertions of criminal offenses by other users? Sounds like inappropriate content to me. --Haemo 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He also refuses to allow anyone else to edit, or reply, to his talk page to rebut his allegations. --Haemo 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"The following is quoted from my personal website and is only accessible here via quote. Any altering of the following text or taking a majority of it and copying to any other page without my explicit approve will be deemed as a violationg of my copyright/Intellectual Property privledges and is against the GFDL policy." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this an explicit claim of copyright? While I'm not sure whether such a legal claim is even valid, there are no allowances for using fair use / with permission copyrighted content in userspace. ˉˉ╦╩ 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (Nor in the Misplaced Pages namespace, come to think of it. Did I just violate copyright? :) ˉˉ╦╩ 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's apparently copyright, and violates the GFDL, but it's so confusing I don't know what to say. I mean, you can't simultaneously claim it's copyright, and it's licensed under the GFDL. --Haemo 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A few random thoughts: Does this have any bearing? If I have written something and then release it as GFDL (on here by clcking the button below) then can I take that all back afterwards? Does anyone have a link to this personal site? If it is his site and he owns the copyright doesn't he also have the right to give it away under GFDL which he has done by publishing it here? (Emperor 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

He can, but he cannot then claim that his website's copyright claim supersedes the GDFL agreement he consents to every time he clicks "Save Page." He also cannot hide behind copyright claims to dodge the general regulations regarding user pages and user talk pages at Misplaced Pages because again he's implicitly consented to Misplaced Pages policy by dint of getting an account here. By first posting his screed on his website and then claiming that it's been quoted on his talkpage and thus subject to his own copyright claims is Wikilawyering of the worst sort. Beyond that, most of his claims for his grievances seem based upon similar misuse and mangling of copyright claims.--Rosicrucian 04:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamedog -- Block

Sunday User:Willkca, post some comments a school talk page, these comments identify individuals who have been subject to criminal investigations to which no charges were laid, the comments were a your guilty this how, leaving both himself and Misplaced Pages open to WP:LIBEL under Australian law. As soon as I became aware of these I delete the comments. Notified Willkca and after discussions with another Admin he realised the position he had placed Misplaced Pages and himself in. The problem with Hamedog is he believes he was a subject of these comments and asked Willkca to repeat them. Since then Hamedog has continued to push the I want to know its my right and every body elses to know the comment line. Even after warning him pointing him to both WP:LIBEL and Slander_and_libel#Australian_law he has continued to refuse request by myself and others to archive his talk page discussion and is still saying the discussion isnt closed.

To end this continual request for the comments, I have Blocked him for Trolling for 72 hours(his 3rd block, previous 2 were for vandalism). Can other person review, and they choose to alter the block I have no problems with that. thanks Gnangarra 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni blocked for edit warring-- please review

Good evening, earlier tonight I placed a 24-hour block on Geni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring on the Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not page (see , , and , history). While Geni did not go over 3, I felt that a block would be necessary in order to hinder further edit warring. Supposedly the story is that s/he is reverting something Jimbo put in, and while discussion is taking place, edit warring is as well. Needless to say she's probably not the only one involved, but perhaps the most chronic. I've no problem dropping the block, but I thought I'd drop a note here (as I should have done earlier) to see what you guys think. What do you guys think? -Pilotguy hold short 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block, you can still be blocked even without 3RR - it certainly doesn't help his cause reverting Jimbo. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Jimbo is fairly stupid, regardless of reasons. Block fully warranted here. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world should it matter whom one reverts? It is well settled (see, e.g., the What is Jimbo's role? mailing list thread) that Jimbo, whatever may be his considerable merits, is to be accorded no special reverence when he acts qua editor (or, really, in any capacity except to the extent he acts at the direction of the Board), and that, whilst he may be better situated than some to adjudge where a consensus lies (he has been here, of course, as long as anyone and surely devotes more time to the Foundation than do most), he should not be understood as enjoying some special community-conferred capability in the latter regard. It may well be that Geni's behavior was untoward and that a block was necessary here to prevent further disruption (I can't say that I've a firm opinion on that issue, although Brad appears to have things quite right), but any decisions should surely be made irrespective of the identities of those with whom Geni may have revert-warred (we are, after all, a collaborative project upon the success of which depends in part our concentrating on contributions rather than on contributors). Joe 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Personally I think Geni's editing here was a little more stubborn than necessary, but I believe that an admonition and 3RR warning would probably have been sufficient in this case, reserving a block in case there were further problems. I also suggest that if you were going to block, a little more detailed explanation at the time of the block would have helped, as you cited a 3RR violation as the block reason rather than a more generalized reason of edit-warring or disruption. I would commute this block to time served with a reminder that the editor is at the revert limit and should stick to the talkpage for awhile. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support that if it was a user that didn't know what they were doing, but Geni quite clearly does, and quite clearly understands what a revert war is. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. When I first saw Jimbo's edit, I had the thought "I bet Geni will turn up and start reverting," and sure enough. His wading in with this kind of POINTy behavior is too predictable. SlimVirgin 01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the block and would implore Pilotguy to unblock Geni. I don't believe the issue is with removing content added by Mr. Wales, but with the lack of a warning or a direct appeal to Geni by Pilotguy before blocking him (especially as the citation of 3RR was a bit off, as Geni didn't actually violate it). Had Pilotguy approached Geni, I feel that this situation would have been resolved much easier, as both fellows are trusted, devoted Wikipedians who, in my experience, are easy to talk to and engage in discussion. I believe Pilotguy simply made a small error in neglecting to approach Geni first, and this can easily be rectified by an unblock and a discussion. Also, it should be noted that Geni wasn't edit warring with Mr. Wales or anything (history clearly shows this of course, but it's worth mentioning I think). gaillimh 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a block may have been a little too far. It's true that his unilateral reversion of Jimbo's text was pretty obstinate, but nevertheless they were simply being bold, and it probably should've been handled like any other edit war instead of escalating it right to a block. Krimpet (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• On looking at the issues again, although I still fully support the block, I agree that commuting it to tie served would be a less punitive measure now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this block. Geni was attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page (the right thing to do). If someone tries to game the system, by all means, block them, but blocking an established user who has three and only three reverts to this page and no other edits in months just doesn't make sense. If blocks are to be preventative, I don't see how this qualifies. I seriously doubt Geni would break 3RR by reverting a 4th time, so there is nothing to prevent. --BigDT 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR. Geni knows 3RR isn't a license to game the system. Support the block. KillerChihuahua 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What other rational responce is there to blunt force reverting that ignores talk page comments?Geni 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page comments weren't helpful; they are rarely helpful, to be honest. You seem to thrive on acting like someone's annoying little brother. SlimVirgin 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

can you show them to be internaly inconsitant, based on a logical fallacy or conflicting with what we can discover about the world (assumeing an objective shared reality)?Geni 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni, that comment is virtually meaningless. Please don't make me regret that I supported unblocking. I suggest we archive this thread and that you go edit an unrelated page. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a short recap of the principles of logical debate. Hardly meaningless if that is what we are meant to be doing.Geni 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was meaningless in context in the sense of having little continuity with or relationship to the discussion that preceded it. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there is, at any rate, no consensus for a block, and I've removed it. Which is not to say that the conduct was necessarily justified. --Michael Snow 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity, because the behavior clearly isn't regretted. SlimVirgin 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We generally block based on conduct, not motivation, and for very good reason. --Michael Snow 02:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's understood that "not bad enough to warrant a block based upon input from a closely divided group of administrators" is very different from "endorsement of the editor's behavior." Geni, I was the first to question the block—but please don't do this again. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR" - No, it doesn't. Have you even read the 3RR page? There needs to be a whole lot less blocks by admins making up stuff off the top of their heads and a lot more trying to act like reasonable adults. DreamGuy 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the bit which states "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period", as I stated on Geni's talk page. I assure you I am quite familiar with 3RR. This was gaming the system. KillerChihuahua 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Jimbo's wording in what should be an uncontroversial manner, for clarity and to match the style of the other sections. I think the principle is a good one (though Jeff might not), though we obviously have disagreements over its application. I haven't read through the recent discussion at talk so I don't know what to make of Geni's reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

I just blocked TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours due to revert-warring at Wii. As one can tell from the article's history, he reverted the article seven times in the past twenty-four hours, primarily removing two (possibly spam) links another user had added. Now I realize that simple vandalism is exempted, but does that really qualify as simple vandalism? Another admin had blocked the other editor involved for violating the 3RR. So, I'm on the fence here... perhaps the links here could be considered simple vandalism, but WP:3RR says it is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. Additionally, seven times in twenty-four hours just seemed excessive and Alfiboy (talk · contribs) is not just a new kid on the block who doesn't understand the rules or is a serial spammer. Comments are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the situation was borderline or questionable, did you consider a warning before blocking? Newyorkbrad 02:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the admin who blocked Alfiboy. Had I noticed that TJ Spyke had reverted him 7 times in 24 hours, I probably would have blocked him also. This is exactly the sort of stale edit warring that WP:3RR is intended to prevent. I would probably only have blocked him for 24 hours, though. Perhaps you should consider adjusting TJ's block down to that, if this is a first offense. Nandesuka 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariq already unblocked outright and gave a warning; see TJ Spyke's talk. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

USER:Sparkzilla

A recent COI was proved against the above user. He has now laudably admitted his COI and declared his true identity. One result of the COI was that he was warned too back-off editing the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) page, by admin Mangojuice

However, although I have been trying to engage in dialogue with him to include his input via the talk page, he has now resumed editing the article directly. He has also lapsed back into personal attacks.

Sparkzilla is displaying strong WP:OWN issues and does not seem to have taken on-board the advice the admin offered or any lessons from the recent COI. I feel some action should be taken, and his editing of his company-related articles curtailed. Thank you very much David Lyons 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, User:David Lyons history shows he is a WP:SPA that has an undeclared COI as a member of Baker's support group. His whole posting history has been either to remove negative information about Baker, or to attack Metropolis for exposing Baker. In fact, I have asked him to supply sources for items positive to Baker that I could not find , but instead of adding them, he perefers to attack me.

I am a published critic of Baker's case, which includes an editorial I wrote about the case , an article about my criticism of the group in the Swindon Advertiser, and a follow-up article in Metropolis . I am also the only person to have analysed of all of Baker's public statements, in a 30-page report that I wrote while the trial was progressing, and which is available on my personal website . (please note that I do not use this as a source, mindful of WP:OR). This 30-page document and my opposition to Baker's support group was notable enough to be acknowleged by Baker's mother Iris in a lengthy rant on the support website. I attended the appeal trial on several ocassions and have talked with many journalists about the case. I have far more qualification to discuss this case than him.

David Lyons is misrepresenting the RFC I created (mindful of my COI), to gather independent comments regarding the use of my editorial and subsequent article as sources in the Baker article.

From WP:COI You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

According to this policy, I put the inclusion of my sources to RFC. The respondents' comments say clearly that claims made by me, and by my magazine that have mutliple sources can stay in the article.

To clarify: There are three respndents to the RFC who are for inclusion if the items are properly sourced (cla68, jossi, and ZayZeeEm), one who is neutral bordering on inclusion (SMcCandlish) and one who added a source (Addhoc). There are no editors who say the source should be removed. I recently received confirmation from cla68 that he agrees with my summary of the RFC results.

In fact, I have not added two of the disputed claims because they only appear in my magazine and don't have multiple sources and have told David Lyons that I am will leave the "reactions to the trials section" as-is. I also edited the section down to reduce concerns of undue weight by removing a "criticism" section and removed some other outdated claims.

This is also not about self-promotion. Each item about my magazine's involvement that is currently in the article is backed up by multiple secondary sources. My op-ed is backed up by the Swindon Advertiser article, the claims in the Metropolis article are backed up by the defence's own documents, and Baker's support site, and the claims about the MP have two sources. I am not asking for any other claims to be added at this time. This case was controversial because it was a disputed conviction -- it would be strange if the opinion and supporting facts of people who don't believe Baker's story are not acceptable. In other words, removing this properly sourced material makes the article have a POV that Baker's innocence was not in dispute.

David Lyons is simply asking for the removal of well-sourced items to suit his POV. He has been engaged in a campaign to remove negative information about Baker since day one. He has so far tried the following methods for removal: He has questioned the notability of the sources, questioned the expertise of the writer, tried to claim the items are self-published (all of these claims were rejected). Then he got another editor to bring a COI against me. He is now using the COI to force his POV edits unopposed onto the article and bringing this to AN/I to gain further leverage for his POV.

USer:Mangojuice says on the COI I have raised against David Lyons that his recent edits regarding the circumstances of Baker's arrest are pushing POV (he is stating Baker's claims about his arrest as facts).

I have told David Lyons on numerous occasions that WP:COI is not a get-out-of-jail-card that allows him to inject his own POV edits. This is what WP:COI says...

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I have also told him to concentrate his effort on "attacking the article, not the editor".

I would like David Lyons to...

1. Declare his COI as a member of Baker's support group
2. Stop misrepresrenting the results of the RFC
3. Stop trying to invoke COI to push POV edits
4. Stop pushing the POV that Baker's claims about his arrest are facts. They are not.

I have also offered to stop editing the article if David Lyons (and his meatpuppet Heatedissuepuppet) also do so, and let other editors take over. I think this is a reasonable solution.

I hope that admins will see that despite my COI that I have followed policy, and am trying to get to proper resolution using the dispute resolution process. I hope that admins will see through David Lyon's attempts to game WP to his advantage and bring this issue to a close. I know it was long, but this guy has really been doing this for too long, and it has to stop. Sparkzilla 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyons may well have conduct issues. They may need to be investigated. But there is no exception to any policy for "but the other user was being bad too!" So you still haven't shown that you should not be sanctioned for misconduct. -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why I should be sanctioned. According to COI policy I can cite my own sources if they are relevant, and can edit to remove POV. There are many experts in many fields who also do so (global warming for example). Even so, mindful of my COI I have followed the dispute resolution process properly through RFC to get the opinion of uninvolved editors. David Lyon's simply doesn't like the results of the RFC and is escalating the incident to here as yet another part of his long history of disrupting the dispute resolution process. Sparkzilla 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At the least, you made the personal attack he cited. There may or may not be more. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I called him an anonymous coward because he has is editing the artcle with an undeclared COI, while using my COI to force POV edits. Pot/Kettle. I have been very patient with this person for a long time. If I made a comment that was out of line then I apologise. Sparkzilla 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, it is not the first time he has resorted to personal attacks. David Lyons 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut the crap about minor civility issues and focus on dispute resolution -- I call on uninvolved editors here to comments on the results of this RFC, particularly the comments of uninvolved editors on the RFC (in other words, is my summary of the RFC correct, or is David Lyons) Sparkzilla 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sockpuppet

Legal prowess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --Srikeit 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

No admins have blocked anyone on the list for at least fifteen minutes--someone needs to hop over there and clean this mess up. Thanks. —Dark•Shikari 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no longer a backlog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of disputed AFD

Per Misplaced Pages deletion policy, non admins "may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Paul Cyr (talk · contribs), who is not an admin and has no prior experience with closing AFDs, closed the discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as "no concensus", thereby directly violating guidelines. Regardless of whether an experienced admin will agree with Paul's decision, given the extremely lengthy discussion - and the numerous "delete" votes by anon IPs - I'm sure that an admin with a lot more experience should be actually going over the discussion and then closing the AFD, let alone the fact that's what should be done according to policy.

In that respect, can this be judged as an improper closure and the discussion be reopened, pending proper closure? --snowolfD4 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reopened the AFD, but I have no intention of closing it now. Sean William 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help Sean. I also re-added the AFD tags onto the article's page. --snowolfD4 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Page has been deleted three times so far and recreated three times by User:Ned Scott.

User reverted the MfD closure by an admin and went ahead and recreated the page.

I find this to be disruptive.

-- Cat 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The MFD was incorrectly closed, that is all. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Doc glasgow's closure was based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you've a problem with how the MfD was closed, please make a request for review at WP:DRV. gaillimh 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't it make more sense to just keep it open, rather than opening a DRV, which will naturally result in "inappropriate early closure" and another MfD? What does that accomplish? —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What misunderstanding was that? User pages can be speedied on demand. Put a note in the deletion log with the user's new name if it's that big of a deal. --BigDT 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U1 points to Misplaced Pages:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for details on how to handle such situations. There it says "...If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page...." -- Ned Scott 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What "disruptive behavior" do you want to retain? It's a redirect. If it's that big of a deal to everyone, what about using protected titles? We can make User:White Cat/New identity, protect it, and transclude the old page. That way, it will be a redlink, but anyone going there will get a message telling them where to find his new identity. --BigDT 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, but a redirect is much simpler—this is the purpose of redirects, and presumably for whatever unknown reason Cool Cat doesn't want a redirect, he wouldn't want the message. —Centrx→talk • 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott has overridden the deletion of the page by 4 admins (2 speedy 2 MfD close) so far. -- Cat 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not make sense to include days-old actions prior to the MfD that were already disposed. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, Cat, but I've done nothing wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott, I count 4 reverts on the user page itself and 3 on the MFD. I strongly suggest you not revert either again. --BigDT 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am probably one of the least "process wonky" people you'll see on Misplaced Pages, and I can understand the desire to be bold, however I do think that we should extend respect to our colleagues by not arbitrarily reverting *fD decisions simply because we don't like the outcome. Mr. Scott has been edit warring on this matter and is close to violating our three-revert policy, and while I tried to re-instate the original decision, I don't feel as though my further participation in this matter will help resolve things. Cheers all gaillimh 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't condone unilateral reversals of other sysops' closures, but it's difficult to fault Ned for undoing one that was based entirely on a verifiably incorrect premise. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. —David Levy 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear why it was an incorrect premise. Unless that redirect somehow is evidence of bad behavior, I don't see any reason in policy to deny the request. --BigDT 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Except the part where other editors might express a reason to keep the redirect? I did just quote that to you.. Even without that, we have lots of bad behavior if you think that is the only reason for keeping the redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misread the quoted text, BigDT. A history of disruptive behavior is a reason for the speedy deletion request to be denied. If it's fulfilled, "others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." (emphasis mine)

I don't, however, know what gave you the idea that Cool Cat has no history of bad behavior. Perhaps you were misled by the fact that his block log wasn't transferred to his new username (another reason why it's important to inform users of the connection). —David Levy 06:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Mixino1 (talk · contribs · logs) made a couple of (what seemed like) joke edits to Irish-Scots. I warned him about WP:BLP and he reverted anyway, vandalised my user page a bunch of times, and has had fun since then with my comments on his user talk. I don't want to block as it might look like I was annoyed at him for vandalising my user page. Could somebody else please take a look at it? I'm obviously open to the criticism that I should have been more patient when he made his silly edits. --Guinnog 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your behaviour. I just warned him about not editing other people's comments and user pages. He's clearly in his "do something just becaue I was told not to" phase of vandalism, and I'm expecting vandalism of my comment and/or user page within minutes. I'd recommend a 24-hour cooldown block if he vandalizes again. --Ashenai 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin and Ashenai, for your interventions. --Guinnog 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Clear vandalism is going on removing WP:RS with their own judgements. Please stop this before the closing of the AFD.Lustead 06:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)