User talk:A. B. - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 7 January 2008 (→Heraldry Online: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:29, 7 January 2008 by A. B. (talk | contribs) (→Heraldry Online: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B..

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will respond here to avoid fragmenting our discussion.

Archives

/May-June 2006
/early July 2006
/late July 2006
/August-October 2006
/November 2006
/December 2006
/January 2007
/February 2007
/March 2007
/April 2007
/May 2007
/June 2007
/July 2007
/August 2007
/September 2007
/October 2007
/November 2007
/December 2007

(Periods are approximate. Exchanges have been kept
together across periods to avoid breaking continuity.)

A quiz

Spammers, friends and critics can't agree -- is User:A. B.:

A. "She (because clearly she's a bitch) is just doing her thing up in New Jersey. No one likes you, mother of three. No one."

B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females."

Same user also edits as Tony.dean

C. A stalker "from birmgingham england."

D. A "robot."

Oh no!

E. Hiding a pornographic fire-parrot in Misplaced Pages's sandbox.

F. Living in Minnesota, USA.

G. Canadian, eh? Tamil, no?

H. A Yankee? A Tennesseean? A Yankee and a "Kerry freak"?

I. Just stupid.

J. All of the above.

K. None of the above.

L. Somedays one, somedays another.

You decide.

User:A. B./Sandbox6

Hiya, I see you been working on this. Just give me a shout if you have a large amount of spam to remove again, as always, I'll be here to help for it. :) — Save_Us_229 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more spam than the last batch -- and I'm saving the Greek pages for you!

Seriously, thanks for your help before and thanks for stepping forward this time. I want to give this one a bit more time today before we start ripping stuff out so potential objectors have time to speak before we do anything.--A. B. 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

A.B. how should we name the article? Should it be PHSDL or Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

PHSDL is an acronym and will be easy to reference. Also there is no article with PHSDL so should work fine, and we can 301 redirect it to the full name.
Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

What do you think? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Igor, I'm tied up with a big spam case, so it may take me a few days before I can look at this stuff. --A. B.

A.B. No problem, take a look at it when you can. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A.B. please reference this for PHSDL notability references. Igor Berger (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

js Popups

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'  
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try. User:A. B./monobook.js. allows preview without opening every diff. more features at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Investigation skills requested

A.B., please see this - our old friend the cookie-cutter pornstar spammer is back. I did some preliminary digging...looks like this is just the tip of the iceberg. It appears at a quick look he's registered hundreds of sites using GoDaddy, so an IP filter won't pick him up. How do you suggest we proceed? Videmus Omnia 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I left some tips on the WPSPAM talk page, but I'm tied up with other stuff for a while. (Also, I share this computer and don't care to leave porn cookies and browser histories on it for others to ponder.) --A. B. 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Sorry for the late reaction – been busy elsewhere. Anyway, you said: I find your stated purpose on your user page very interesting. The culture and dynamics here are interesting to me, if once in a while a little off-putting. I don't think human nature has changed much in the last few millennia, but its forms of expression are constantly evolving. Now we have this big experiment, Misplaced Pages, that really doesn't have many close precedents (in my opinion).

Thanks for reacting to my user page. Regarding doesn’t have many close precedents I offer for your consideration a concept that (in my opinion) is a precedent – democracy. This is not to say that Misplaced Pages is (or should be) a democracy. Instead, what I mean is that the participant in a democracy and the participant in Misplaced Pages both don’t have (or need to have) perfect knowledge but that ideally the outcome of democracy and the outcome of Misplaced Pages are better than any participant can offer individually. Obviously, this opinion goes back to a mathematics-driven interest in systems, complexity and emergence. Cheers. -- Iterator12n 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Important message about recall

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin as well. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change in process. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin as well.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change in process.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this this table as a resource for the benefit of all.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

++Lar: t/c 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(the above is a message I am thinking of sending to every member of the category but am trying it out on a few folk, feedback welcome. You get to be my test subject #3... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right about setting this down now. I haven't had time to think this through carefully whereas you have put a lot of thought into it; for now I had already added a link to your Accountability page from my user page.

As for posting this message on 130 user talk pages, I suggest you do perhaps 10 to 15 at a time and see what evolves. That, or post a much shorter message with a link to a discussion page.

I don't buy this "Good admins could never survive a second RfA because of all the good things they do that make them unpopular therefore they should never have to have another RfA again." Editors should be servants to our readers and admins should be servants to our editors. I also don't think that RfA is "broken"; imperfect and quirky, yes, but better than the alternatives I've seen so far. Instead, I think some long-time admins are bothered that standards have risen; they might not have ever passed in the past, let alone now, having bitten too many users. Some of the same folks that claim "adminship is no big deal" sure seem to want to cling to it at all costs. It even seems sometimes that the very existence of the purely voluntary recall category feels threatening to some other admins.

Personally, I think term limits are not a bad idea, perhaps 18 months. That or a reconfirmation process similar to Meta's after 12 months. But we should probably crawl before we walks and those ideas can wait for now.

I appreciate your leadership on getting all this going. You've been very wise to grow it from the bottom up as a voluntary measure rather than try (unsuccessfully) to get it pushed through some sort of policy-making process. --A. B. 12:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi.... There have been some changes in what I recommend, see User:Lar/catmsg to see my final recommendations. I am doing a few letters at a time, I'm up to F and there are more than a half dozen entries in the table already... I have gotten great feedback. Also since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. Since you're using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with A only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kinder?

Original remark at User talk:MrWhich#legistorm.com links (permanent link):

"Can I ask you to be a little bit kinder to those you disagree with on this topic? They are human beings too. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Background to that remark:

--A. B. 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

When have I been other than civil? I have a strong opinion, that I've expressed clearly, and without attacking other editors. I'm not warm and cuddly, but I don't feel that I've been "mean" to anyone in the course of discussion. To what specifically are you referring? Mr Which ??? 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well perhaps "kinder" was the wrong choice of words. Stuff like this doesn't help reach compromises or gain concessions, though:

"No, I don't even concede that your premise is true ..."
"That is an extremely bad faith assumption, and involves some crystal-balling as to motives from you that is not appropriate for this discussion ..."
"This "after the holidays" stuff has no rational basis at all ..."

This makes it harder to maintain some sort of collegiality among editors in finding a way forward. --A. B. 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Which. Your contributions to wikipedia recently consist of a pattern of interupting discussions with tendentious comments and disrupting otherwise productive discussions.--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to chime in as well. When everyone in a debate is calm, polite, and respectful, it is more likely that a productive solution will result. Mr. Which, your comments of late have not always been calm, polite, and respectful. Thus, your participation in recent debates has not always contributed to a positive outcome.

I appreciate your zeal and passion for the project, I really do, but your demeanor has been undermining your own positions. I would ask that you please reconsider how you present your opinions, and just tone down the rhetoric a little. I think you’ll be surprised at how much more effective it is in getting at least some of what you want. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit pointless. Every actual example pointed to is a comment on an idea, not on a person, and they are cited completely shorn of their context. To classify my edits as "tendentious" or "disruptive" is simply beyond the pale. Edits don't become "disruptive" or "tendentious" just because you disagree with them. I'll thank you to not accuse me of being disruptive when I have not been so. Those are serious accusations, and unless you're willing to back them up with an RfC, an AN/I report, or some other official dispute resolution, I suggest you retract them. Mr Which ??? 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mr Which, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. --A. B. 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, we can't "agree to disagree" on whether I'm being "disuptive and tendentious." Those are two hot words on this project, and they have specific definitions. I won't just be accused of being such without proof. I have not, at any time during this discussion, been disruptive and tendentious. Brusque, perhaps, but that's much different than what I've been accused of doing. Being disuptive and tendentious is blockable. If an admin thinks I'm such, they should block me. As I haven't been such, the block would be quickly overturned, but if the admin truly thinks that (and isn't simply throwing those words around loosely), they should block me, and let the chips fall where they may. If I now sound angry, I am. That anyone could interpret my vigorous discussion at the spam page as D & T is just outrageous to me. Mr Which ??? 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above and on your user talk page. I did not call you "tendentious" or "disruptive"; others did. Those terms have very specific meanings and implications for your activities on Misplaced Pages. Templates, warnings, mediation, blocks, etc.

No, on the point of "brusque", yes, Mr Which, we do agree on that.

"Brusque" is an excellent word. Dismissive of others' ideas as you acknowledged above. Always inside the bounds of WP:NPA and usually within the wide scope of WP:CIVIL (a low hurdle). Not particularly worried about WP:TACT or WP:NICE but, hey, one's a red link and the other's just a little stub of an essay. Sometimes found vaguely unpleasant by other editors when the going gets rough but not likely to ever get blocked or even warned. Quick to throw out the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". Sometimes the recipient of unsolicited, unwanted smiley faces from fellow editors.

All the more reason for us to "agree to disagree" on everything besides "brusque" and just move on.

No "RfC, an AN/I report, or some other official dispute resolution" for you this year, Mr Which -- just a "Merry Christmas".
--A. B. 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you placed your "a to d" response directly after I had responded in frustration and anger to being called d & t, I assumed that's what you were talking about. If we're "agreeing to disagree" about my tendency to be brusque with opinions I hold in low regard, then there's no disagreement. It's true. As for the smiley left on my page, I've never seen a more disingenuous "gesture" in my WP tenure. I have no problem with smileys, just smileys left with a snarky message. And, just for the record, I hope your Christmas is wonderful as well. Mr Which ??? 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see my advice above has been completely and utterly ignored. Being angry is not an acceptable excuse for being uncivil, and the sooner you learn that the more rewarding and productive your Misplaced Pages experience will be. — Satori Son 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Satori Son, I don't think he cares. --A. B. 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking another look at the civility policy. There's a very clear definition given, and it has nothing to do with not becoming angry. I have not violated policy in any respect. Your assumption that I "don't care" about being civil seems to toe that line a bit though. Please assume good faith of me in my efforts to contribute to the project. Mr Which ??? 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control ? Perhaps secretly inside you enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation, but to everyone who is busily trying to work together harmoniously to build an encyclopedia, you become an impediment. this wastes everyone's time, including yours--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much I can add to that other than to take another look at that "good faith" guideline you love to cite; I think you're still a little unclear on the concept. --A. B. 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You two just need to stop. Just because someone disagrees with you (even vigorously so), does not give you the right to speculate as to what that editor feels "secretly inside", and to say that I have become an "impediment." That you see absolutely nothing wrong with the offensive accusations you level in this thread regarding my motives angers me very much. As such, I will not be returning to your talkpages, and I will consciously avoid dealing with any of the people who have contributed to this thread. And if any of you choose to add warnings, notices, or otherwise interact with me at my talkpage, you can expect for those to be reverted on sight. I'm finished dealing with editors who attempt to read my mind, and impute motives on my contributions that do not exist. Good bye. Mr Which ??? 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Good!

Nice to see you doing some work :) Don't forget to log them. And good wishes for 2008 - cheers --Herby 18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

~~How do I log these? I looked for a log page page but didn't find one. --A. B. 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)~~

OK, I found it. Taken care of. --A. B. 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RFARyou might want to be aware of

Igor Berger has initiated an RFAR in which he identifies himself as having been assigned to spam patrolling by you. I thought you would like to know that your name has been mentioned. Risker (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Risker thank you for notifying User:A. B. to arbitration request. I have followed admin A.B. instructions User_talk:Igorberger#88.232.163.140 I very much appreciate your flagging this editor. I notice you're involved with SEO topics; we especially like to have white hat SEOs helping us at WikiProject Spam, so if you're interested and have time, please check us out and pitch in.--A. B. 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger WikiPedia Patrolman Authority

A.B. you asked me to patrol WikiPEdia for Spam, which I have been doing. I have noticed Talk:Knol is being social engineered by anon IP user and I have stepped in to do my job, because social engineering is Malware Spam, as defined by McAfee security experts.

We've come to understand that almost any high impact media event is going to be used as a social engineering tool for malware," said Dave Marcus, security research and communications manager at McAfee. "It's such a horrible event, but at the end of the day, it's a very good social engineering tactic." Malware Sites Exploit Bhutto Assassination

Here is more proof of Knol WikiPedia article is being social engineered by Google! http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knol-looking-at-wikipedias-rival/6158/

When I said on SEJ, "Knowledge is not for sale," a user replied, "I would say everything is for sale these days and Google knows it best!"

If WikiPedia is for sale, and we as Spam patrolmen do not have Authority to do our job protecting WikiPedia, I would like to stop being WikiPedia Spam patrolman! I do not need to be called a Troll by a WikiPedia administrator for doing my job. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry you've run into these frustrations. There's really nothing official or "authorised" about looking for spam and getting rid of it. WikiProject Spam is just an informal, not especially organised group of volunteers. Our general goal is to try to get rid of the least useful, most commercial, most cynically spammed links with the least disruption to our readers and regular editors. We focus on inappropriate links added by spammers. We use these guidelines in judging the appropriateness of links:

Reliable Sources Guideline -- for links used "inline" within articles' text
External Links Guideline -- for other links

Our Spam Guideline defines "spam" slightly differently from other some others' definitions; also take a look at our Conflict of Interest Guideline.

As of about a year ago, the English language Misplaced Pages had about 3 million external links. My own personal estimate is that about a third were inappropriate links. Most of these were "good faith/bad judgement" links added by well-meaning editors, but several hundred thousand were probably added by site-owners seeking traffic from Misplaced Pages.

Most spammers aren't aware of our rules -- that's why we use an escalating series of messages; see:

Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates

We start with nice requests (level 1) and only move to stronger messages if the user continues spamming.

We really work hard to avoid conflict and hard feelings.

Perhaps as a start, you could work on some of the existing cases already identified at WikiProject Spam.

Good luck, Igor -- I hope things run smoother for you going into the future. --A. B. 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks A. B. I am learning on the job..:) I got my whole body wet today, did not bother with feet first. But sort of getting a hand on things. Sorry to have bothered you! And will work hard upholding my end. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope next holidays a few patrolman are around. Today I feel I need a holiday..:) The Social engineering spammers come out of the wood work when no one is around, to do their dirty work. I am glad with the help of the community a lot of Social engineering Malware was averted. There is no right or wrong way of doing it, you just have to go with your insticts and apply forensic investigation skills. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch list article update email altert

A.B. is there a way to receive an alert by email of what has been added to an article you are watching? I know other WikiMedia projects have this option.

Why I am asking, is that, this can be used as an exploit by someone who signs up with a disposable account and stalks an article or/and an editor. This can be a very destructive Social engineering Malware exploit for the Misplaced Pages community. A usernetx Trojan horse can create an account and never contribute to the project until there is an oppurtunity for an attack. Igor Berger (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, that is a MediaWiki software feature but it's not implemented on en.wikipedia. --A. B. 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank God, for that! Igor Berger (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! --A. B. 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bases for beliefs

I can't speak for Jim or OM, but I suspect that one could come to the conclusion that that was likely based on a quick look at his editing pattern. I remember the dispute with VO. When you are engaged in a multi-page dispute with a group of editors, its very apparent who edits all day. When someone says that they are in the Air Force, and has pictures of themselves in uniform on their user page, it's easy enough to figure out that they are probably editing from work. It's one of those things you figure out when you interact with people a lot. I have always known that Jim doesn't edit from work, although until now I thought it had more to do with private virtue than employer regulations.

And when you see someone doing something that you know can get them in trouble, the correct thing to do is to drop them a heads up - whether you like them or not. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your conversation with Swat. By the way - Jim's email said "Do you have permission?" He didn't say "you don't have permission". OM's comments relate to his take on the situation - that if he is aware of what he believes to be violations, that he is legally obligated to report them. He isn't obliged to snoop, and chose not to do so. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested, I got the answer back from the JAG, it's on my talk page. ⇒SWATJester 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, thanks for checking that out and for your contribution at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence‎. --A. B. 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really think that this was a stupid issue that got blown out of proportion, and if everyone could just step back, drop the whole thing and stop yelling and threatening each other with what they claim they are obligated to do, we can get back to editing. If you're (collective you) really certain you have some sort of obligation, than do it. My guess is that no IG complaint will ever materialize, certainly not cross-service. That's rarer than rare, even for places where you can't shit without hitting the word "joint". Thus, we're putting out an imaginary fire here. ⇒SWATJester 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, regarding the editing hours issue, take a look at my comment on the evidence page as well as Swtajester's comment about military hours and Internet usage. --A. B. 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding hours, it's a matter of intent, not fact. What was Jim's intent, how did he read the situation. Work hours aren't the major issue - distribution of edits is. If I see someone editing over an 18-hour period on a regular basis, I could conclude that either (a) they aren't working full time, or (b) they are editing at work. Regardless of job. On the other hand, if their editing is bimodal, spaced by 8-10 hours, I'd guess that they are editing before and after work. Back in the days when I edited a lot, I would try to guess someone's pattern and time zone, just for the fun of it. It really isn't hard to do, and it doesn't require any sort of prying. Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the context of the original e-mail -- were VO and Jim62sch already in a dispute? How did Jim62sch come to be e-mailing VO? --A. B. 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for adding such comprehensive spammer tracking info. on User_talk:76.16.242.32#JP_NetQuest.2C_Inc._spam. I've never seen the likes of this before, I assume that admins have some neat tools. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Actually, some others and I developed those tools when I wasn't an admin, so you don't need to be an admin. Here are the templates:

I use the various links those templates produce to find what other accounts have added the same links and what other related domains we should be watching for.

Tracking and dealing with the bigger, more organized and crafty spammers is actually pretty interesting -- sort of like detective work. We're short handed at WikiProject Spam so feel free to join in the fun. --A. B. 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Most admins probably aren't aware these tools exist. Ours is sort of a specialized craft around here.

I will seriously consider joining, I enjoy detective work, my trouble is that I get hugely frustrated when I percieve that others don't treat spammers as the threat that I do. Consistent low level spamming seems to be tolerated. When the good guys are made to jump through endless hoops to prove their case, the spammers have won afaic. I don't know if thats just my warped view of things ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Famicom World

Hello, I am the webmaster of Famicom World. I noticed that you added my website (I can't say the URL because it doesn't let me on wikipedia) to the "MediaWiki blacklisted links". I don't know what exactly that stuff means, so is there a reason why you added the link to my site to that list? Thank you. FamicomJL (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me the domain, minus the "http" part? I'll look into it. --A. B. 13:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... yeah I should've tried that, my bad. www.famicomworld.com Thanks and regards, FamicomJL (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to log all blacklist additions. Here's my log entry with 11 domains for blacklisting and here's the actual entry with 12 domains; the extra one was yours. I goofed.

adventuresoflolo.com, smb3.com, bowsershrine.com, kongcountry.com and mariopartyds.com were persistently spammed. I had been looking at related Nintendo sites to make sure any with similar registrations were also blacklisted. Apparently I crossed yours off one list but not off the other.

You are not allowed to add links to your own site to our articles -- see the Conflict of Interest Guideline. I'm happy to correct my mistake and remove your domain from the list but only if you promise to not to add it to articles yourself (talk pages are OK). It's OK for others to add to articles just not the site owner. --A. B. 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry Online

I'm not too sure about all the Wiki protocols but it seems that the website heraldry-online.org.uk is deemed a spam site. Is that correct and if so why? --Heraldic 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the discussion because of the prior discussion. It looks like you've worked out this question with Hu12 -- if he's happy and you're happy, I'm OK. --A. B. 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

themartialist

Funny..:)

Rub on rub off... Igor Berger (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he is missing a few!

Ministry of Disinformation Troll
BearClaw Troll
FuBar Troll
Evangelist Troll
Mc'D Troll
Superman Troll
Spiderman Troll
Transformers Troll
Red Ridding Hood Troll
The British are Coming Troll
Apocalypse Troll
Nobel Troll
Make my Day Troll
Terminator Troll
Eraser Head Troll

Will try to come up with a few more funny one's. Maybe we can add them to our Troll article or even build a new article page to fit them all in one rubber room..:) Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comments

Orangemarlin is a former Navy doctor (a staff corps officer, not an actual line officer) who did a tour of duty 20 to 25 years ago when he was presumably in his late 20s or early 30s. He hasn't been on active duty since that time. He is or was on the Inactive Reserve list (most officers go off the list after a few years). The Inactive Reserve is truly inactive for those members not immediately needed -- there have been people on the Inactive Reserve list that have gone without so much as a postcard from Uncle Sam during their time on the list. Based on his own self-description about the fit of his uniform and the lack of VCRs and computers when he was on active duty, he clearly has had little or no involvement with the military for a very long time. Now, after all this time as a civilian, through wars, disasters and crises, he suddenly hears the clarion call of duty to his country and intervenes in the Jim62sch case with comments to the effect that he has a pressing duty to report an active duty senior NCO to the military for supposed inappropriate editing of Misplaced Pages to the military.
And this rush to uphold military law and order has nothing to do with Orangemarlin's close relationship with Jim62sch or their earlier

dispute with VO over a fair use image. (Note for instance this vitriolic comment) --A. B. 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is done, a decision has been rendered, I saw nothing involving me, and, frankly, NOTHING, was settled, let me respond to your attacks, assumptions, and lack of good faith, none of which I care about, but before you go forward making attacks, assumptions and lacking good faith in your next vendetta, you'll be better prepared. First, I was in the US Navy for over 12 years, and have been called up several times up through 9/11, after which I was placed on inactive reserve. Apparently, you didn't quite know me as you represented yourself in your attacks. Sorry to disappoint you. The military has a pressing need for physicians, so I have allowed myself to be used frequently.

Yes, I was in Medical Corps, and not a line officer, because I have no qualifications to be a line officer. Since you appear to once again know so much about the military, I guess you have read the rules that physicians have no authority whatsoever in the military. We don't have to obey orders nor can we give orders. I wish I knew that long ago, because I would have been much more of an ass to Admirals than I already was.

And your comment that my call of duty disappeared. I'm not going to dignify that attack at all.

Everything you wrote above was insulting, denigrating, and mean-spirited. Your attacks against my person and my background is unacceptable. You totally lack any facts about me, since I do not give out details about myself, so your assumptions were insulting, denigrating and mean-spirited in more ways than you can imagine. You may apologize if you have any honor, your choice. OrangeMarlin 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

"let me respond to your attacks, assumptions, and lack of good faith"
A perusal of my edit history throughout this matter will show that I started out with disagreement and concern but still believed you were editing in good faith. It was only with your increasing stridency and a review of your earlier history that I lost faith in your motives.
"but before you go forward making attacks, assumptions and lacking good faith in your next vendetta, you'll be better prepared"
I don't see that sort of behaviour in my edit history; neither did 86 other editors just 4 weeks ago.
"First, I was in the US Navy for over 12 years, and have been called up several times up through 9/11"
I apologize for saying: "He hasn't been on active duty since that time" This was based on my reading of your comment that when you were in the Navy, there were no DVDs, no Internet, etc. That appeared to date your service to the 1980s only.

"Apparently, you didn't quite know me as you represented yourself in your attacks."

You're right. As I read over all the stuff you wrote about the American military, I misinterpreted your remarks about your service after the 1980s based on your description of the technology around you.
"Since you appear to once again know so much about the military,"
I know what I read and hear about the American military -- and my understanding was reinforced by what others with recent service wrote. It was also reinforced by the research I did during this dispute on officer training for American Navy doctors, etc. It's apparent many others disagreed with your picture of the way things work.
"I guess you have read the rules that physicians have no authority whatsoever in the military. We don't have to obey orders nor can we give orders."
You got me there. I truly never knew this. I thought they could give orders related to medical matters. I should also note however:
- This seems inconsistent with your remark that you would order miscreants to swab the deck.
- This independence of authority makes your insistence on reporting someone in another service for misuse of government property (in the absence of proof) still the more puzzling.
"The military has a pressing need for physicians, so I have allowed myself to be used frequently."
I appreciate your service and I know everyone in with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan do as well. Many physicians could have bailed out earlier along the way. I also understand this probably comes at a financial cost to you.
"And your comment that my call of duty disappeared. I'm not going to dignify that attack at all."
I apologize. I was wrong.
"You totally lack any facts about me, since I do not give out details about myself"
- Actually you made a number of assertions about yourself during this affair to reinforce your authority. I based my comments on a close reading of what you wrote.
- Your strenuous assertion of your so-called "obligation" to report VO for criminal behaviour (based on zero proof) showed you're willing to play very hard ball in the absence of facts.
"Everything you wrote above was insulting, denigrating, and mean-spirited"
I disagree. I believe it was relevant to the discussion based on everything you'd written and the assertions you made. It was factual with the exception of the mistake I made above, which was based on your own comments.
"You may apologize if you have any honor, your choice."
- Where I see I'm wrong, I will promptly admit it as I've done above.
- I wish you could do this; I think you need to make amends to many, starting with the active duty serviceman you went after.

Additionally

I believe your characterization of the way things really work in American and similar military services profoundly incorrect in terms of super-tight discipline, Internet use, reporting others in other services, etc. These services are primarily task- and performance-oriented, especially when deployed.
Everything I've read or heard has stated that the backbone of the American military is its pool of senior NCOs. Military historians have written this repeatedly. Generals, admirals, colonels and captains say this all the time. I find the notion that an officer would make implied threats against a senior NCO on intermittent combat duty based on editing Misplaced Pages just downright appalling, especially when it has its roots in an earlier editing dispute. Talk about "insulting, denigrating and mean-spirited"!
You are so quick to accuse others of bad faith. I won't even bother to inventory all your instances of bad faith in this affair; your edits speak loudly for themselves.

--A. B. 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)