Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nat (talk | contribs) at 01:42, 16 March 2008 (→'Permanent protection' for China: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

• If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban

I know its unusual to see someone ask for a review of a community ban imposed on a user that has presented cronic sockpuppetry after said ban was issued, but this case is different, every time that one of this user's sockpuppets is blocked the same discussion appears on WP:PW, the arguments in favor of Hornetman are usually "should he be given a second chance? he has tried to be a better editor when given the chance", other users have also noted that he hasn't been given a second chance yet. The arguments for keeping his block are his cronic sockpuppetry as well as often using these socks to repeat past disruptive patterns. Now the idea of finally bringing this to the community has been pitched around several times, the user has been in contact with some of the members of WP:PW and has agreed to comply with the community's decision if he is given a review of his ban before the community. Please note that personally I object this unblock strongly and am only taking this action for the wellbeing of WP:PW, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same: he doesn't deserve more chances. What is this... his 1000 chance already? People fall for Hornetman's lies too much, which leads to problems. People have made deals with him, and even told him how to "lay low with socks" which is simply unacceptable. Hornetman's deserves to stay banned, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He's been socking right up until last weekend and has been disruptive on other wikis. He's even gone to the trouble of bugging me about his block on other non-English speaking wikis (in English!). The mayhem and the Utter. Waste. Of. Everyone's. Time last time round was too much to bear again. I'm pretty AGF-y at the best of times - ask others here - but this guy wore me down. Add the fact that he lies about his socking again and again and again and promises reform then doesn't deliver - Alison 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Alison, this is as close to an open-and-shut case of "no, sorry, this isn't being overturned for a long time to come" as any. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, per Alison. I don't think we're missing out on much either, he wasn't very constructive even when he wasn't banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Alison. Leopards can't change their spots. ···日本穣 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - and he's still causing problems on simple.wiki. It's patently clear that absolutely nothing has been learnt - Alison 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I can't possibly support his unblocking. I let my emotions cloud my judgment. He has to stay banned. SexySeaBass 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I support the continued ban. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the community ban. It takes a lot to get banned in the first place...he had multiple chances before his ban. He has also shown that he isn't mature enough to be unbanned. He had a proven sock only a couple of days ago, he's getting into arguments on Simple, he has tons of confirmed/suspected socks, etc. Moreover, in January, one of his confirmed socks vandalized my talk page, as well as others': . Is this somebody people really think deserves a yet another chance? I'm sorry, but I don't think we should humor him by even discussing it. Nikki311 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the unban - absolutely not. Is the lesson here that someone can earn a ban, consistently prove that the ban is warranted through further abuse, and then get unbanned upon request? Avruch 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was done in order to reafirm the community's desicion so WP:PW can finally continue its work without having to engage in 10, 000 kb conversations everytime one of his socks appears, this way we can source a consensus in order to prevent these from happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note also that Hornetman has now taken to bringing the fight to simplewiki - Alison 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Heyyy, the first amendment line, that didn't work before either. :( I really doubt anyone from simple is dumb enough to follow through on that one, but let's keep an eye out nevertheless :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On simple english Hornetman16/Christianman16 demands that I give my opinion as a condition for ending a discussion. That sums up his contribution to SEWP. He is combative, uncooperative and, to use a British English phrase, bloody-minded. Almost two-thirds of his contributions to SEWP have been in the user or usertalk space. I did not support his recent attempt to become an admin, one factor being his apparent lack of commitment to the[REDACTED] community. I would not support a his return to ENWP-- Barliner  talk  18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SEWP admin.

Wow, inter-wiki canvassing, that is something that I had never seen before, he is actually bribing users into commenting here in order to drop a disruptive pattern, he will end up banned in simple if he continues there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Nothing has changed has it? Now that his actions in the Simple English WP have been clearly pointed out I have seen enough. I connot support his unbanning.-- bulletproof 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd been open to maybe letting him being unblocked if he accepts mentorship--and I was willing to take that up. I'm a pentecostal/charismatic Christian myself, and I figure I can get through to him. But after seeing the cross-wiki canvassing--uh uh. Keep him blocked. Oh, and please get ahold of his ISP. Blueboy96 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

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

Sorry for boring everyone again with this guy, but I'd like to work with him. I've just been through his contribs and I can see there's some useful stuff there to help the encyclopedia - the problem is his disruption and trolling. I'll be honest from the start - I'm not his biggest fan. I would however like to work with him and act as his mentor, but obviously under strict instructions as follows;

"Lar is placed under community parole. If any of his edits are seen to be trolling, uncivil, assumptions of bad faith or any other form of disruption, he may be blocked for upto one week by any administrator. After 3 such blocks, the maximum block length is extended to one year/indef. He is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite and is expected to abide by his jurisdiction. Further, he is limited to one account and anymore evidence of sockpuppetry will result in an immediate indefinite block."

I realise that he's been an idiot with the socking, but there does seem to be some good in him and hopefully I can knock it out of him. I'm not scared to block him myself, and I would expect him to follow exactly what I say. Anyway, just putting that out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found his lack of restraint in the last attempt to be very frustrating, but I support trying again. If somebody wants to seriously write article content, as Lir does, we should try whatever we can. That being said, if he screws this one up, he should be blocked for at least a year before he gets another try. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this for years, Lir might be the first time I ever heard about ArbCom. You can try, Ryan, and I know that Lir has submitted great content. My philosophy in this case is the motto, "If you go looking for trouble, you will find it." Collaboration and compromise is not censorship and that's something he has to accept. That's really all I have to say about that. Keegan 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even as I think that we ought to keep an eye on Lar—I've always been a bit leery of adults who like LEGOs—I think the instructions read better were they directed at Lir. Joe 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Keegan 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe! You blockhead, how could you say such a thing? As for the confusion about instructions applying to me? It's always been said I don't follow directions well, and there was confusion about Lir/Lar as far back as my RfA (see question 6) All that said, and with a tip of the hat to Ryan for willingness to try, no, I don't think this unblock would be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan notice that I offered to unblock him if he agreed to a similar set of terms and he refused instead telling me i should unblock him and take my case to arbcom to get authorisation. That completely disregarded the fact that I didn't block him in the first place. He has also treats DR like a quasi legal system. However if you can get him to agree to those terms, I don't see why he shouldnt be unblocked - they are very similar to some I provided. However, make sure he really understands the terms, or I will be first to reblock. Viridae 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Ryan, I think you're being highly optimistic. I have no hope at all that Lir can become a useful editor again. I did have hope when it came to the lifting of the ban recently, but he did nothing to suggest that he has any intention at all of helping the encyclopaedia. Sam Korn 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Is there an section where I can put in my vote on this or whatever? Seriously, why do we want to unblock someone that's caused enough hassle to have been blocked for three years? All that will happen is that a month down the line we'll be back here again discussing whether to ban him again. His ban was so long in the first place because he kept on socking, vandalising, disrupting etc. And he comes back and we want to keep him? Good grief. No. No content is that valuable that we need people poisoning the environment and causing drama as much as that. The harm he's done to the Misplaced Pages over the years far outweighs any possible good content we might get out of it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance when one of these admin-led quasi-paroles was successful, and I can think of at least one where it was demonstrably unsuccessful, to the point of disruptive. Mere days ago he earnt himself a re-indef-block, mere days after finally expiring a multi-year ban lengthened repeatedly by his own interminable intractability. There is no evidence that an unblock will cause anything other than further heartache, and before long we'll have yet anohter thread here discussing the block, with someone claiming they thing just one more chance is all it takes. The end of the road was back there somewhere. Enough is enough. Misplaced Pages is not therapy; for anyone. Splash - tk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents of this edit (removed inexplicably by the 'single purpose tagger') are interesting. Splash - tk 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting certainly but why would someone create a sockppuppet account in order to accuse others of being sockpuppets? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure this is a such a great idea. Ryan, I know you've worked miracles before, but Naerii is right. We can do without Lir. Any worthwhile content he might contribute is not worth the price we will have to pay - the disruption he will inevitably cause. Moreschi (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Um, no. When an umpteenth chance lasts less than 48 hours, there is no chance umpteen+1. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please no, I'm getting flashbacks. I don't think this is a good idea at all. And the idea of having to cycle through three one week blocks is rather "sigh-some". I was all for giving Doc's unblock a go but all he did was prove that he hasn't changed one iota since his banning. I would be really surprised if Lir even agreed to this or took it seriously beyond seeing it as an opportunity to resume his trolling and disruption. With utmost respect, Poss - you know I adore you - but this just seems to me like a very bad idea. I think that people who haven't been around all that long and don't realise how much disruption Lir caused back in '04 and '05 should look through the Arbitration pages and his old talk page archives and see that his recent behaviour is pretty much what led to his Arbitration case. It's not like he just came back feeling disenfranchised and pissed off and will get over it with a touch of mentoring. This is what he does and how he behaves. Sure, he makes a few good edits to mainspace articles but he is too disruptive and has made it clear time and time again that he has no intention or desire to do anything but troll us. Sarah 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm the one who reblocked Lir after Doc's attempt at giving him yet another last, last chance. If you do go ahead and unblock, I would recommend that you arrange in advance a complete prohibition to claims of censorship, one of his favorite trolling baits. — Coren  16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose Ryan's proposal, if only based on the statement "knock it out of him". I doubt that, given my relatively short familiarity with Lir's personality, any method that includes any suggestion of force will achieve desirable results.

Aside from that, it doesn't seem like Ryan actually has very much in common with Lir. On the other hand I share interest in the discipline, propose collaboration on articles, and integration of Lir into an editorial team, and a Misplaced Pages Project. Aside from the fact that there is way too much writing to do within the project to worry about all the other issues, there are competent admins in the Project that are able to deal with any situations which may arise, and be able to evaluate Lir's probation over a period of 6 months, which I think is a significantly longer period to evaluate a person's intentions and abilities then a day.

Coren, while I appreciate your statement, I think the approach used in mitigating Lir's behaviour, and in community's ability to emphasize, has been less then ideal. While several editors above have expressed Lir's return from a negative perspective, I think a bit of positive thinking would not go astray, right? Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article! Surely that seem to indicate good intentions? He also starts to express his opinion on Misplaced Pages on his user page. So what? Do you think New York Times reporters are going to use Lir's user page for an expose on Misplaced Pages? I looked at it when I first read his declarations on the article talk. So the guy has issues with authority, tell me something new! The page had nothing to with the article, so I wrote to him. Lo and behold, beyond the facade was an editor with actual knowledge of the article subject, good sources, and willing to, even impatient to contribute! For crying out loud, does every 'tree' need to be uprooted to 'plow' a Misplaced Pages field?! I for one would be shocked if anyone returning from such a long ban had no feelings at all to express on the experience. Bitter and twisted people often suppress feelings and thoughts, and lie low, hatching plots. I don't see Lir doing this at all, so enough with amateur psychoanalysis, characterisations and labels. This isn't some TV drama. --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article!

Wrong. His very first edits were as an IP , and they were to build his User Page as a billboard against The Evil That is Misplaced Pages and How I Have Been Done a Great Wrong. His very first edit was "I am the Lir. What I've realised is that the Misplaced Pages has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't. The idea of a Wiki is a great idea, but the Misplaced Pages is überghey...", and his very first article edit doesn't come until after nearly three months of soapboxing. He's not really here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter. However, lets try an experiment. Lets ban you for a year for a reason you don't agree with, and see how you feel about it later. I am not supporting Lir's behaviour, but I do understand it as typical of individuals in similar circumstances in the real world. Believe it or not, but Lir's behaviour since his most recent unbanning was normal! You just failed to recognise it as such. Did you expect a placid angelic-like Lir singing praises of those who banned him? If he did, that would have made him a liar, and anyone able to lie to oneself, can lie to others, those being Misplaced Pages readers. I would rather an editor called me a moron a hundred times then he/she write one lie that will be read by a thousand. Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie. I can live with that. Chill out Calton. Allow me to explain to Lir why calling people names, and living in the past is not healthy. Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned because currently he is still running on fight/flight instinct.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Lir = IP, and its editing is his editing. The rest of your comments make even less sense: he was blocked for a year, yes, and his behavior is what led to the constant reblocking and the additional 19 months of block time.

Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie.

I'd say trying to hide your identity through sockpuppets counts as lying, but let's leave that aside. You believe that jackass behavior and trolling is okay if you're sincere, do I have that?

Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned

So his not understanding why he's doing something wrong is a reason NOT to ban him, do I have that? You've officially gone through the looking glass. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you constantly hit someone over the head ("constant reblocking") to prevent behaviour, but behaviour change is not internalised as justified, the only thing that will change is the punshment avoidance strategy (not to get hit). You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing.

Using sockpuppets (in this case) is not lying, but rather evading being constantly hit over the head.

Well, I didn't know there was anyone watching me...officially. Is 1984 your favourite book?

Lir understands very well what he did wrong, but seemingly others like to constantly remind him of this and make a point, a very large point, of showing him they don't have any intention of letting him forget. There is all this great talk of "Misplaced Pages community". Do you know what a community looks like, or do you live in front of a screen? A community is not judged by its firewalls alone. Community also welcomes, appreciates, understands, etc. All I have heard is "defending community". Let me spare you the time; lets have a welcoming interrogation committee so no-one will ever get banned. May I remind Wikipedians that we are a part of the freedom of information community, so lets not become the paranoid brigade.

What has Lir done wrong? He decided to create a user page that may be seen as undesirable? You Calton live in a country notorious for public scandals over deeds by public officials. You come from a country where morals of presidents have been found wanting. On a scale of Misplaced Pages "sins" within the thousands of user pages, does Lir rate public enemy #1? You (plural) have treated him as one, and he obliges every time. What a surprise. You'd rater have editors writing articles who will cower every time they are challenged...not. (Japan excepted; a different culture there)

Have you banned Lir because he consistently shows POV, uses OR, never cites sources? This is what I am saying, did you ban an editor, or his personality? If it the later, its only because you failed to 'connect', and seemingly never tried. You are the community "shoot first, ask questions later" cop. I had to connect, because I have the intention to collaborate with him. It all comes down to purpose and motivation. It seems too me Lir's most recent banning was snowballed, so please lets take a pause now that Lir has, and consider all sides of the argument for and against unbanning Lir. All he tells me he wants to do is edit articles. If he is lying to me, then I will be the first to support his indefinite banning and you will never hear from me here again. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are talking such rubbish because you don't know Lir and we do. He tells he only wants to edit articles, he is lying and you are naive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing. - Actually, banning him outright seems to have solved everything neatly, without Misplaced Pages having to act as his therapist. As for the rest of your strange and tangential moralizing -- well, it was hard to read, what with my eyes constantly rolling. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock. I had my doubts about letting him come back after reading his history, and after this past weekend, it's obvious he's too unstable for Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that he is threatening to sock (in an email to me) but they all threaten that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir joined Misplaced Pages in the early days, back when there were few rules, only Jimmy Wales could ban people, & we tried to talk the problems & disputes out. Lir couldn't handle even that permissive environment. People with a lot more patience than I tried hard to mentor Lir; it didn't work. So he was banned, & the only reason he wasn't banned for good then was that the software didn't permit it. I'm honestly amazed that he avoided getting blocked again as long as he did this time around. -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep him banned, forever. Lir has much to contribute by way of trolling and headache, but nothing useful besides that. His antics predate many of the users on this page who now so naively want to unban him, not realizing what they are getting themselves into. Much as he might need one, Misplaced Pages is not his therapist. Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

I propose a community ban of

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

The Mantanmoreland ArbCom case is apparently about to close, with 4 net votes to close in place. Therefore, I propose that the community act to tie up the loose ends here, by enacting a community ban of Samiharris as a disruptive sock and POV pusher, and Mantanmoreland as a disruptive sockmaster and POV pusher. I am willing to enact the ban myself after discussion. (but not until the case actually formally closes) As a reminder, despite ArbCom findings not specifically acknowledging it, the community has already found the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling, as documented in the RfC. I was debating where to propose this but this seems the best place. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion continues at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion

Somebody ought to leave the occasional comment, lest this notice get archived. R. Baley (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice that: The motion to close the RFA/Mantanmoreland has been opposed by user:Newyorkbrad (for now) in consideration that this thread at AN/I may attract discussion. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They have closed the case because there are still a sufficient number of votes to close. This thread appears to be winding down, as threads do when they reach such considerable length. Jehochman 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not over till we say it is. (quote from Animal House) SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As of this moment, you're on double secret probation. (from same movie) - Dean Wormer 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I had wondered where ArbCom derived the wording of its remit from... serious question, how long does a topic have to be inactive before the archive bot does its thing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AN threads are archived 48 hours after no edits, ANI 24 hours. To check this (or indeed change it - oops, WP:BEANS....) look at the archivebot template at the top of each page (you need to click edit to see this). In this case, Miszabot and the time periods I stated. You can fool the dumb bots though by putting a "future" timestamp on this section (or indeed no timestamp, though I'm not sure about that). What you can't guarantee is that some human won't try and manually archive the subthread and manage to lose everything... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonstsndard sigs will also throw the bot, as what happened on 16 April 2007 with Quadell's one-post-only topic that wasn't archived until I manually redid the timestamp to be standard. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was a member of the Deltas... but at da tech, not Faber_College, Also for the record I think this is the longest AN thread I've managed to start, so far. Not that I was trying for a record, mind you. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, following recent developments (block/unblock of Mantanmoreland), I am presuming there is another thread on this matter, somewhere? --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note

diff. So who wants to call the cops? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:RBI I think. Black Kite 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The note mentions me; it is possibly related to threats that myself and other users (Jack Merridew, Gavin.collins) have been recieving from members of another website regarding our work to clear out a lot of crufty D&D articles. There is at least one archived thread in WP:ANI regarding this matter. I am taking no stance about what is to be done about this particular threat. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SUICIDE CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked. We'll let the usual people know, just in case it wasn't a sick hoax though. Nick (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi'd Misplaced Pages:AN as well. Black Kite 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

agian :/ CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly a troll, we have one edit from an IP which is dynamic ComCast, and no identifying information. Black Kite 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen more than one person threaten suicide and then continue coming back to pick fights--both on and off wiki--but I left the editor some information on crisis hotlines anyway. If they're serious, that's certainly a better resource than we are. --Masamage ♫ 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This method of posting the same message in the same place from unrelated IPs which are not open proxies is consistent with the way 4channers have vandalised talk pages and articles I have worked on before. I'm not going to say how its done for deny purposes, but I can confirm that this matches their style. Whether the threat should be considered serious is a different matter. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV I am taking this seriously. As a licensed EMT, I opine we get this fellow help to wherever he is ASAP. Let's start tracking him down so we can contact his local ambulance service and police. According to NetSol, he's located in Houston and on a Comcast network. Bstone (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find them, please tell them to stop trolling. (Seriously though, the second "suicide threat" came from Special:Contributions/70.169.18.67 which previously issued a threat against J Milburn). I think we can safely call this resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RBI, oversight the edits (they have been using permalinks to old revisions to harass Milburn and two other users on their talk pages). Nothing more needs to be done here. -Jéské 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Comcast. It was not possible to determine the physical jurisdiction of this subscriber or to reach a Comcast representative by telephone. Durova 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems 85.226.112.161 just reposted the threat here tho it was quickly reverted. One might be curious to know that this is the same city and country as our Plano HS threat. Bstone (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the nature of the threat here makes this one in particular not credible, the fact that multiple IPs across a wide area are posting the same content makes it clear that it's trolling not a legit threat. However, if it's near the Plano HS harrassment/threat site, then it might be tied in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still WHOIS them and call the cops in their respective areas; these IPs have been harassing Milburn and two other users for the past month. -Jéské 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to estimate which suicide threats are real and which are hoaxes. Every suicide response protocol I know is to treat all threats as serious until trained personnel determine otherwise. And if this were a hoax, a knock on the door by some personnel in uniform might not be such a bad thing anyway. Durova 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also contact the ISPs behind the IP replacement edits here? Maybe cops at where those IPs are will get them to stop thinking this is a joke and that they can lose their liberty because of it. -Jéské 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We're in no position here to interview the person who made the threat. Given it's odd to see it coming from such wide geographical areas, but there could have been an original legit threat which is now being copycatted by the stalker. Bstone (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the only info we have is from whois saying it's Comcast and Durova has dispatched an email to Comcast informing them they may have an issue, the only next thing to do is call the local police and inform them of the IP making the threat and that it belongs to Comcast. I shall volunteer to do this is no one else does. Bstone (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's coming from a wide array of geographical areas is that this is all coming in from an external forum (I'm not going to say which one per WP:DENY). It's the same for all the death threats on J Milburn's talk page. Revert, Block, Ignore, Contact Cops (for harassment, as that's what this really is), and Oversight the edits. -Jéské 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeske. The IP that re-posted the suicide threat on this page resolves to Leeds (UK), whilst the two that are re-trolling J Milburn's user page with the same threat as the one from the "suicidal" editor above resolve to California and Sweden. This is standard off-wiki trolling, folks - I know the procedures for suicide threats, but seriously, don't waste your time on this one (although a knock on the door from the local law enforcement might be useful for some of these people). Black Kite 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So are these all unique threats or from a proxy server? Bstone (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Different people, co-ordinated off-wiki. As above, no further details on here though. Black Kite 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, per WP:TOV I am taking them seriously. I cannot risk not doing so. Bstone (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this I have informed the Houston, TX ambulance folks of the IP and it belonging to Comcast with a threat of suicide. They have said they will take it from there. Bstone (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also been reported to the Atlanta, GA police. I gave them the IP and the number for Cox Communications. Bstone (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

69.84.98.179 (talk · contribs) has posted the exact same suicide note over at the Help Desk. See #Suicide announcement below. Aecis 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries Redux

original note on this here...

The article has become a battle ground between church supporters and detractors with allegations and denials of direct church involvement, general incivility, misleading edit summaries (with a valid point raised), allegations of vandalism and edit warring. At this point it's no longer about the Afd, which was apparently vandalism but the establishment of anything resembling a stable argument. I have no vested interest in which "version" of the article exists but I'd prefer it to be something stable. It appears that the at least several of the editors have some connection to the church, including the IP, although some are handling it far better than others. I think the edit warring and article in general needs an eye by someone not headed to bed this minute. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do it myself because I've voiced my own opinion at the AfD, but is there any precedence to protecting/semi-protecting the AfD itself? I've never seen that done, but then again, I've never seen a lot of things, a million dollars being one of them. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been some recent AfDs protected due to socks and other shenanigans, unfortunately I don't remember the article names. Something about Maoism in India and SriLanka, that might jog someone's memory. I'm so sick of this recent trend of nearly all out wars on AfD. I think there's a lot of good faith here but if the church is involved and/or vested detractors, this is never going to be a calm article. Has it just been deleted once (the speedy) or does it go back even further? TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. As for calling this AfD "bad faithing" a recent trend, well. It's been going on longer than either of us have been here. Everyone has there "pet" articles or feels that they're topcis/hobbies/interests are important enough to be here. Some can discuss that civilly, others not. Churches/church groups, unfortunately, are no exception. Deep breaths, Cari. It will all be over soon.....and then replaced with about 100 more per day....sigh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just that I've been involved in a number that have gotten rather heated. I think the ones that truly amuse me are the ones where people have no apparent tie but argue for the sake of arguing. This one at least has more context as there are at least two parties with some tie (official or not) to the church if they know about an article that hangs on the back wall. I like article stability :) TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in my fair share of hotplates too, and I haven't always been civil. All I can say from my own experience is to be sure you're keeping your head above the fray. <insert cliche about flies, honey, and vinegar here>. In debates, use policy/guideline/precedence/logic to describe your opinion, but be dispassionate about it. It isn't personal, so don't attack other editors no matter how ridiculous or combative they may come across or how much they attack you. Report ludicrousness here (as you've done in the past). Keeping in mind that bears in corners tend to show their claws, most of the n00b and IP contribs are to be expected in some sense when they don't understand this place well or simply say "BUT I LOVE IT AND YOU SUCK!!!". I'm not saying that you are guilty of any of this, BTW, quite the contrary. From what I've seen, you conduct yourself nobly and with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind, not just your own interests. Keep going! Glad you're here, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I like it here. I just think I live in a fantasy world where I'd love people to not take a deletion discussion about "their" article as a personal attack. That's why I think people should have minimal involvement in subjects close to the heart, I think it's natural to feel under a microscope so discussion is good but some lately have not gone so well. Thanks again TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained rename of "Lists of companies" pages

About a day ago User:Russavia renamed just about all the article (around 100) in Category:Lists of companies by country from names like List of Australian companies to List of companies of Australia . I posted to the user's talk page asking why this was done or where it was discussed but they have not answered and I couldn't find any discuss looking around. I feel that the new naming is sounds a lot worse than the previous wording and should be reversed. IF there was in fact little or no consultation about this could someone with better tools than me please reverse it? I was starting to reverse a few manually but though posting here might be a better idea. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush in setting things straight -- massively reverting is probably just as bad as massively changing, unless there's some reason doing so is urgent and obviously correct. I can't speak for another user, but I believe the "Foo of Bar" construction is more widely used, at least in this area (see Category:Companies by country, Category:Companies by country and industry. It's a bit wordier, but may make things easier for some purposes -- many people know Australia->Australian, but fewer might know Yemen->Yemeni (for example), and using only one form may make searching easier. Obviously this convention is not universally used or preferred, if we look at examples like Category:People by nationality, but it does seem to be common in the particular area we're looking at. Feel free to discuss, of course, and we should await Russavia's response. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a response on SimonLyall's talk page, and will post here verbatim.

You may or may not have noticed that List of companies in the United Arab Emirates is up for Afd. Just one of many of these lists which have been put up for Afd. I made the changes firstly by following WP:BOLD, because of the following reasons:

• The country specific category which these lists belong to is Category:Companies of country, not Category:Countryian companies (e.g. Category:New Zealand companies or Category:Barbudian companies)
• Using titles such as Barbudian companies and the like present problems, as if someone is searching for the list of companies from Barbados, they are more likely to search for the country name rather than the descriptive. It also presents the problem of companies from Dominica and the Dominican Republic, both could be titled List of Dominican' companies. If people are not familiar with the descriptor for a country, it is going to make it harder to find and to categorise (wasting time looking), whereas what I have changed it to makes it so much easier.
• Using the word "of" denotes that these lists are for companies OF the country concerned. --Russavia (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, of sounds really bad. Shouldn't that be from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth (not a whole lot), I looked into this once and found "in" was the most popular overall, but with species "of" was most common. For people it always seems to be "from". It's nice to have uniformity because it makes it easier to guess an article or category name. I don't know of any style rule on it. Third Opinion might be a better forum, or Village Pump.Noroton (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My £0.02 would be that neither "from", "in", or "of" is as good as the plain simple "list of Ausralian companies". As a template- and bot-coder I approve of standardisation as much as the next editor, but sometimes a little bit of common sense should be applied. Who cares if the parent category has a different name to the list (Incidentally, I woudl support a renaming of those categories to "Countryian companies")? It still reads horribly. Happy‑melon 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Associated_Content_links.2C_get_paid_to_spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep#http:.2F.2Fwww.associatedcontent.com

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#Associated_Content:_another.2C_bigger_Suite101.com.3F

See also - Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

Past actions and for comparison, here are two links to the many Suite101.com removal discussions:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com

Associated Content links

• Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
• Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
• Fails Misplaced Pages's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Major concerns. Associated Content articles are no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. Articles are not professionally written, don't have sources, and are not suitable as reliable sources. We have been spammed with over 730 of these low-quality links. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source, (in any appropriate context). This type of material is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. This 'is another, bigger Suite101.com and should be delt with in the same manner. --Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should blacklist them. MaxSem 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someone should take a sharp pencil to Associated Content as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

These are just downright unencyclopedic and we're an encyclopedia.

These links have been cleaned out before only to come back in even greater volume. I strongly recommend blacklisting. --A. B. 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the decision to blacklist. Maybe this should be commented on more officially, so that external links which have no value can be blacklisted a bit quicker, to prevent some people having to perform a lot of work, and to prevent damage to articles (specific urls on such servers can be whitelisted when necessery). --Dirk Beetstra 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting seems appropriate here. The site is not a reliable source and probably won't become one, unless they severely alter their publication/editorial standards. If that ever happens they can be whitelisted. I can't personally figure out how the blacklist works, but if there's an admin around who can, I'd suggest they just go ahead and do so. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can get it added to the blacklist by an admin who knows what they're doing by putting a notice up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight on time at the moment and won't have time to put up a proper notice there, though I will when I'm free if no one else has by then. --Infophile 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've put up a request at the meta blacklist. This still leaves us the problem of how to deal with the current links. We could set XLinkBot on the task, though that has the potential to cause some chaos. Whatever we do for a project this large, it would be best if we have a clear resolution here we can point to to say this isn't just a bunch of users on a personal crusade. --Infophile 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted links certainly cannot someone's personal crusade. I've already filed a BRFA to receive a permission for my bot to remove such links. MaxSem 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot only reverts, and associatedcontent is already on the revertlist (it only reverts unexperienced editors and IPs). XLinkBot does not have a function to clean back in time, a bot that could do that would be an asset! --Dirk Beetstra 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving RoboMaxCyberSem a barnstar!--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll still need to handle to handle the links outside enWiki, but those seem to be much less in number (I found 13 on fr and 7 on de when I checked a bit ago), so it should be possible for a human to handle it. I'll likely get at it myself, assuming this link does get blacklisted. --Infophile 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to wander over multiple projects (my matrix). I'll get those--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta request was deferred pending further investigation. I've put up a request at the local blacklist for the time being. --Infophile 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full spamsearch results (as in all wikimedia wikis) for associatedcontent.com are at User:MER-C/associatedcontent.com. There's about 800 links altogether. MER-C 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too bold to go now and remove these links by hand? And is there any context where we shouldn't remove the links? Because I see a few links on the commons are just pointing out associated content uses a particular image. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd start removing the links after the site is blacklisted. And I'd generally leave anything that isn't in the main namespace (not worth the effort) and especially urls like http://spam.example.com, which are trackers used by spam patrollers. MER-C 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, will do. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting paid to spam - other sites

Some other sites that have a similar (or the same) setup. these also lack oversight, pay for your publications, fail the core content policies, and tend to be spammed quite often, and in those cases also often with a conflict of interest. There is a lot of work involved for several[REDACTED] editors in cleaning after the people who add these links (though the bots tend to help a bit). A list (feel free to expand):

• lulu.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • & ("Lulu gives you all sorts of ways to sell your fabulous new creation to the whole wide world – you set your own price, we print and dispatch each item as it’s ordered, and you collect 80% of the creator revenue on every sale.")
  • Example: The top 4 edits caught by COIBot are from user:gianna_61, who added www.lulu.com/giannivenice 4 times to Premature ejaculation
  • Reverted by XLinkBot.
• ehow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • ("First things first, in case you didn’t already know, all eHow registered users can write and publish articles on their topic of choice and, through our new Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), automatically earn extra cash through PayPal.")
  • Reverted by XLinkBot.

--Dirk Beetstra 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, These fail the core policies also. --Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

• squidoo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • This one is already blacklisted!
  • ("Lenses pay a royalty to hundreds of great charities. (Or straight to you! Lots of lensmasters earn hundreds or thousands of dollars a year")
• hubpages.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • ("Take advantage of royalty-generating tools. HubPages provides you with easy access to the Internet's top income generating tools: Google ads and eBay and Amazon offers. The opportunity to earn more and more royalties over time simply by writing about your favorite topic is the icing on the cake!")
  • Reverted by XLinkBot.

--Dirk Beetstra 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehow's parent company (Demand Media) owns 30+ websites...it looks like the new ones are the spammiest. I removed all the expertvillage.com video links, some Cracked.com links, along with most of the ehow links (there are several new ones added each week it seems) and some of the 64 or so golflink.com sources (see the history at one golf course with four references, since they seemed to be little more than summaries from the golf course info surrounded by advertising links. Flowanda | Talk 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When they advocate the same principles, then they could be added to this list. Are there also similar sites on the associatedcontent.com site? --Dirk Beetstra 12:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

I'm not sure where to put it, so I'm putting it here. I recently tried to fix an article on New York to fix the name of the governor. I tried to fix it by reverting, which also put some comment about 9/11 into it. It had already been there and I was unaware of it. I was notified that I was going to be blocked for vandalism. I had found this statement afterwards and was trying to fix the problem (it was an honest mistake, I didn't know it was there). When this came up, I told the notifier what was goning on, and was immediately posted by another individual I was going to be blocked for vandalism User:Invisidble Diplomat. I tried to tell HIM what was going on, his reply can be found on his talk page (a picture of a gun) . Just now, I was told (by him) to go to an administrator. Here I am.65.65.230.53 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have left a civility warning on Invisible Diplomat's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SV Dynamo and multi-indef-blocked User:Kay Körner

Kay Körner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indef-blocked under multiple names, including that one, Fox53 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and Kay Körner 20.12.1983 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for disruption, sockpuppetry, and general shenanigens at the SV Dynamo-related articles.

Matter 1: He's now back as a number of IPs, all of which unfortunately resolve to a public library and thus should only be blocked sparingly. These include:

• 194.95.143.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 212.201.55.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 194.95.142.179 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I would recommend liberal use of semi-protecting on articles related to SV Dynamo to hem in the disruption (and give poor Wiggy a break -- read through the edit summaries, you'll see what I mean). If it comes down to it, an abuse report may be appropriate, but I'd feel a little bad doing that to the poor sap since it's the library where he goes to school.

Matter 2: I'm pretty sure he's always been here. I thought about taking it to WP:SSP, but in my opinion it's just too obvious, and too obviously abusive, to necessitate an SSP case.

• Captain Future (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Captain Future, who edits almost exclusively in Kay's pet area of SV Dynamo, has been creating articles for the IPs to edit: . If that's not using a sock to avoid a block, then I don't know what is. On the outside chance it's a meatpuppet instead of just an alt playing nice, the same standards apply.

I am hesitant to block this user myself because of my history with the situation, but I would strongly endorse a block of this user. - Revolving Bugbear 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's him. Compare: , . I will look for more evidence upon request, but I will block this user unless someone raises an objection. - Revolving Bugbear 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User leaves confusing message on my talk page... Possibly admits to COI

Could someone please look over this message: and see if I am reading this person correctly. They appear to claim to be editing Misplaced Pages to increase their own financial gain by pushing a certain POV in some articles. Its a bit confusing, but that is what I read on that. Any ideas or alternative theories? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I read it too and if so, it is reprehensible. The user did not sign his comment, (it is User:Nukeh). He should be told the facts of life and if he wants to increase his visibility/Google ratings he should go somewhere else. -- Alexf 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens: He claims to be doing the work pro-bono, but this is a CLEAR admission of COI and seems entirely against the basic core principles of Misplaced Pages... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right, so he admits that he has a conflict, so we can educate him about our COI policy. Has he spammed his site anywhere? I don't see any evidence of it. Wave power is a pretty small field, we're unlikely to get many experts who don't have some kind of vested interest one way or the other - the usual problem for wave power is that assessments of the field are dominated by those with a vested interest in some other form of generation, as far as I recall from my electrical engineering degree studies. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to obtain user's passwords

Beware of User talk:67.135.27.111. Has attempted to obtain my Admin password by fraudulently requesting the Wikimedia software to send them a new "lost" password. Obviously this ruse does not work as an email is sent to my email address with a new temporary password. I found a warning from another user on their page where they had done exactly the same. I blocked the account for a few days pending a review to see if anything else can be done for this type of fraudulent activity. The IP is registered to Qwest Communications and it may be a semi-static home address IP. I do not know if this situation has arisen in the past (I suppose it probably has). A longer block may be in order. Comments? -- Alexf 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block as it stands. He actually CAN'T get the password using the methods he is trying, though trying it is grossly disruptive and deserves to be blocked on its own. A week is fine by me. If he returns and does something else problematic, we can always return the block for longer then. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to bring it up or even to bring up this IP's conduct (I'm the one who warned him after he attempted this method of acquiring my password this morning). The person behind the IP had tried the same behavior last month with me under another Qwest IP as part of a harassment campaign against me for trying to keep him in line; he is likely the sockmaster behind Gsnguy and related sock accounts, so I am very familiar with this fellow. Thank you for the block action and I'm sorry that he tried to get you too, Alex. Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this appropriate. It certainly isn't necessary, since the action can't harm anything; and it could well have been done entirely innocently. Regardless, I get things like this periodically; it's at most annoying. --jpgordon 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the IP's edit history; it's clear that they are not doing this under innocent pretenses and are attempting to harass other users. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jpgordon but I work in data and software security in RL. I don't see attempts to obtain user passwords, no matter how ineffective or misguided as being "entirely innocent". In RL this type of behavior in the company I work for would get our attention and could start prosecution by the proper authorities. In WP, all I can do is block the account. Has been warned, blocked for a while and watchlisted so I'll keep an eye out. To me (personally) this is second in abhorrent behavior after racism/antisemitism/et al. -- Alexf 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no realistic way that the lost password requests can do harm. Annoyance. Deliberate annoyance, in the case of this IP (and, of course, I spoke up without looking at the contributions). But still just annoyance; it's hard to see that an action which can have no harmful effect (and which the perpetrator knows could have no harmful effect) could be prosecutable as a security issue. --jpgordon 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are coorect in that regard. I did not mean to imply it is the same case. I just meant that I don't believe this to be an innocent act. Stupid and misguided in the part of the user, yes. But as REDVERS said below, I vented already, now I'm content with WP:RBI. Cheers! -- Alexf 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Will a block actually do anything here? I believe Special:Userlogin still works if your IP is blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Little or nothing that can be done, other than setting up a filter in your email client to dump such requests. Assuming I'm not atypical, such requests for a new password come from one in every 20 or so blocks, perhaps a bit more. It's actually touching: block a vandal and then get hopping mad that suddenly they can't vandalise. So they request a password, as if, somehow, it will appear on screen for them or come through the mail the next morning. Bless. WP:RBI is good advice. That and chortling to yourself about how incompetent they are being :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(RE "REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight" -- Is FEH! considered uncivil in this neck of the woods?? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) )

In Misplaced Pages's current fashion, breathing is considered uncivil by many people. Especially if the "uncivil" person doesn't agree with you, in which case it's an unprovoked personal attack. Fuck 'em, I say. So, no, "FEH!" is not in the slightest bit uncivil, as far as I am concerned. But I'm in a minority. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Misplaced Pages's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Misplaced Pages's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current or future editor making substantial edits to these articles is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a "topic ban"?

I just noticed that a user was blocked for violating a "topic ban". Apparently they were not allowed to edit a given article or its talk page. How do such bans work? Does an admin just say on the user's talk page that they may not edit a given article from now on, or is there a more formal process for it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's normally the Arbitration Committee that decide on topic bans, although it's possible (though usually quite unlikely) for a group of administrators to decide and enforce a topic ban without more official support. Nick (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand a little, a topic ban applies to a set of related articles, so that if one applied to The Beatles, it would also apply to all articles about their albums, films, singles, and the individual members. A topic ban can result in wide-ranging limitations and therefore is usually only applied at a fairly high level. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Administrators can issue temporary topic bans unilaterally for articles on article probation, as well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, uninvolved admins can issue short term or long term topic or article bans. It should happen after attempts to nudge the user toward collaborative editing has not worked. Often the user can still make comments on the talk page. In those cases, it can be a way to help an user began to explain their edits instead of reverting. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I know which user that Arctic.gnome is referring to. This particular user has been ban from editing both the article and the corresponding talkpage. At this point, it's at indefinite because this individual wishes only to push his/her POV and has, in the past, been uncivil while making libellous comments. nat.utoronto 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of bizarre hijinks

Some interesting behavior came to my attention today, involving Handy wall link (talk · contribs) and various socks. For some reason, this user creates a new account, lists himself as his own sockpuppet, and then posts their password on a bunch of random talk pages (this is how I originally came across this). I've been indef protecting the user and user talk pages, since they are only used by the user putting indef blocked, username blocked, and sock puppet blocked tags on his sock's talk pages. I'm wondering if we should delete and salt the sockpuppet category, since it's apparently only being used for disruption. I'm also going to file a checkuser to see if we can rangeblock or something, since autoblocks are clearly not helping.

Some of the other sock accounts are The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), Hjuikopl (talk · contribs) and The golden easter party man (talk · contribs). There are also some IP addresses involved, but I can't tell if they are part of the disruption or are acting in good faith. Natalie (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this here several times regarding The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs). He also uses many many IP addresses, other socks (potentially a gigantic sock army), and carries on weird discusions on his own sock talk pages where he accuses himself of being socks of other puppetmasters (primarily Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) and Rastishka (talk · contribs). Some of the IPs resolve to Ukraine and some of the to the UK. So far, nobody has done anything about it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A Speech of Apology

This is the father of Gsnguy (Mr. GSNII),

I just want to inform you guys about Gsnguy's spree on reverting 75 slogans and performing miserable behavior, and fighting you guys.

It's a fraud for them to let them know that my son, has creating an spree of 75 slogans way back in October of 1986 err 2006. But then, he came back of January of this year, doing the same process over and over again, and eventually fighting other wikipedians (a very good encyclopedia person). Creating about 10 sockpuppets is very awful! And especially using the "Forget Password" feature. So I would've been trust my son, to let him suspend from this Wiki Net until April 1. Gsnguy? What did you say?

Gsnguy: To all of you Wikipedians and the Misplaced Pages Network, i am sorry about all of this nonsense i did, when i come back to editing on April 1, here are the five commandments of Misplaced Pages:

1. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FALSE SLOGANS

2. THOU SHALT NOT FIGHT ANY WIKIPEDIAN

3. THOU SHALT NOT PASSWORDS

4. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FALSE BLOCKS

5. THOU SHALT NOT BLANK PAGES, OR ADDING SWEAR WORDS!

I will follow the Wiki Rules and Regulations of this encyclopedia forever and ever, and ever. Thank You! And God Bless America!

(applause)

Mr.GSNII (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is a sock of User:Gsnguy Tiptoety 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And.. exit, stage left. The father can email the Foundation if necessary and offer an apology there. A credible one, that is. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably, he just posted the same cut-and-paste to mine and Gladys' talk pages. Reported to AIV and of course, he can't come back on April 1 due to his indef block. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And I just denied his unblock request. Tiptoety 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just blocked another sock. Tiptoety 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though: does it count as "fishing" to request a checkuser if you already know you've got a sock-farm and just want to ferret out ALL the footwear? Because if it's not, in this case I would think it might be a good idea. Thanks for all your blocking thus far...Gladys J Cortez 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Be on the lookout for Gsnguy3 (talk · contribs), Mr.Hasselholf (talk · contribs), Vinneboombox (talk · contribs) and KGSN-TV (talk · contribs). Thatcher 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking 213.140.17.103

Someone in #wikipedia has requested an unblock of 213.140.17.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); it was indef-blocked back in 2006 due to Squidward. He says it's an ISP NAT IP now (and appears that it was before the vandalism too), and I see no reason to disagree. If someone has other evidence that this IP is still an open proxy, please act on it, but two years is enough time for an IP to change hands or be closed. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Misplaced Pages (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection level again

We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting AN. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move.

In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good move, I am getting tired of reverting. Thanks, Tiptoety 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

Firstly, I'd like to say that I appreciate the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnights work here, but I've had concerns for a while about their use of {{Current Australian COTF}}. They always place this template on the main article page, several users including me have tried discussing this on the collaboration talk page because these collaboration/project tags belong on article talk pages. Article space tags inform the reader of problems with the article whilst collaboration templates belong on the talk page. I've pointed out Misplaced Pages:Template namespace#Usage which states "Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." yet the participants seem unwilling to comply with this. I'd appreciate opinions here about how we should handle this issue, and come to a consensus once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you could deal with a whole project; on the one hand, they are ignoring a guideline, but on the other, a casual reader seeing the template on an article (and it's only on one as I write) may well contribute and improve that article. I'm wondering if it's such a big deal? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But the template looks awful - readers to the page want information, they don't want adverts about editing. Our major concern is the reader, hence why we keep notices limited to article information to main space and we always put collaborative tags on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As an Aus project member, and infrequent contributor to ACOTF, I don't particularly like the placement of the template on the article page either. But I imagine there are arguments for and against - helps to get people involved, introduces people to the concept of editing... looks messy, too much internal information for the casual reader, etc. I guess you need to ask whether we want everyone who reads the article to edit it also? I do. It's kinda the point. But I don't like templates! :) I'm overall pretty neutral, and don't know that this requires admin intervention. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just move it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Riana - didn't want admin intervention, just wanted to open it up to more users. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article protection template(s) appear within article space. They don't assist readers in any way either. If something isn't broken, and is actively helping to bring attention to promote article expansion, why knock it? -- Longhair\ 10:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can another admin do it? Ryan and I have complained about it previously on Misplaced Pages talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, and they've argued that we don't have an accurate understanding of what the community's consensus is on it. If there truly is consensus to leave them on talk pages, I'd appreciate another admin/trusted user moving it; if Ryan or I do it, they'll just argue that we're biased, and revert. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If its going to be on article pages, at least use {{ambox}}. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a village pump, and the ACOTF talk page, for discussions re. this. Why limit discussion to administrators? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not following policy after being advised of it. Move the template to the talk page, if they revert, block them since nothing else seems to get their attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and was immediately reverted by Matilda (talk · contribs). Anyone want to get the cluebat out? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole situation is blown out of proportion and absolutely ridiculous. It's been discussed several times before and no good reason was come up with to remove it. As it stands, the template sits on an article for two weeks. I'd object if it were longer, but I think that it serves a useful purpose and talk of blocking is more disruptive than the template itself - I'd question the merits per WP:BLOCK of any such action. Orderinchaos 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Placing this kind of notice on an article page, rather than a talk page, is a significant departure from normal practice and must therefore be well justified. The justification I have seen here appears to be "well, why not?" and the idea that it is temporary. I have issue with the idea of its being temporary -- while it may be temporary on that article, it will soon be moving over to another article. The notice will always be on some main-namespace page. Secondly, it is ugly. Thirdly, collaborations are quite obviously a inwards-facing operation rather than an outwards-facing operation; they are functions of groups of established editors. There is an invitation to edit every page; singling out one particular page is somewhat bizarre. Talk of blocking is, of course, premature to the extent of being somewhat absurd. Sam Korn 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be ugly (I agree), but anyone is welcome to improve upon its' presentation. -- Longhair\ 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly the purpose of the template is to highlight that the article needs improvement and to encourage people to work together to do so. This is the same concept as {{refimprove}}, {{wikify}} or a host of similar templates which are also added to the article mainspace and not the talk page. I appreciate that readers are looking for information and not templates, but if these other tags in article mainspace don't distract people I'm not sure why an {{ACOTF}} tag on a grand total of one article at a time is a disruption. It should be noted you do not need to be a WP:AUS member or an Australian to edit an ACOTF, so I don't understand why it is considered more "inward facing" than any other improvement tag.

On top of this, the ACOTF template is usually successful in getting editors to make major improvements to articles. If templates are in article space are a problem then surely the place to start is with the backlog of wikification, copyediting, merging or referencing tags that sit untouched on tens of thousands of articles for up to a year.

I hope this does not seem overly aggressive - I just think it's tilting at windmills a little. There are surely more important issues with article appearance and tagging than this. I also think this is a better conversation for the ACOTF talk page or village pump as suggested by Dihydrogen Monoxide above.Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between this kind of template and a wikify one. The latter has a specific problem that it seeks to fix. This template is general, non-specific and focussed entirely around the users who are to be editing it, not around the problem that needs to be fixed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that there is often substantial improvement to an article after it is identified as the Australian Collaboration of the Week. The addition of the template probably has negligible, if any, effect.

Yes, there are more important issues. However, that does not mean we have to ignore this one. Sam Korn 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this has divided opinion, and so I'll try and appeal to both sides here - just to be complicated. :P

I think that SK makes a good point above - this isn't the venue for discussion about this template, and I'd pretty much rather see it at the project talk page or something of the like (even though this has already been attempted, I think...) and admins don't really need to be the only group open to this discussion, as DHMO points out above. Yes, it's ugly, but then that's probably it's purpose - to catch attention and make people click the "edit this page" button - it is after all the only reason we're here for. I would however prefer to see better interaction between the users, Ral and Ryan say above they have contacted others about this before, now whether or not the outcome of that conversation was to place on the talk page or not, shouldn't those they contacted at least respect that decision and talk back to them instead of just reverting it immediately? Of course, it's starting to sound like I'm in some sort of fantasy world here, I pretty much promote Utopia but as we know, that'll never happen, ever. With that in mind, I think it's best for the template to be redesigned, removed or deleted and a better form introduced, something like a little icon box in the see also or external links sections or maybe even just a little text in the top right hand corner of the page. Whether this is implemented or not is another question, but at least we are having a go at debating this now before it leads to something else. Rudget. 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If SK is me, I didn't make that point, though I do endorse it. Sam Korn 11:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've converted it from the ugly and unprofessional bright yellow to an {{ambox}} notice in blue. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a wider audience is now aware of the debate (which is appropriate) and given there seems no immediate need for admin tools in resolving it, could I suggest this discussion continue at the ACOTF talk page? Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to get sorted on the talk page - it's clear you simply ignore concerns when they're raised as "they've been discussed before". A sifnificant group of non collaberation members have seen this and dissagree that it should be on the article page. It's completely out of norms of how we tag articles and should be on the talk page. I suggest the whole collaberation finally listens to this point. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Not sure who you mean by "you" - Australian editors are not a Borg collective and I've personally never said this should be ignored because "it's been discussed before". I don't think any concern raised by a longstanding and reputable editor should be ignored, and I don't think I've ever done so. My point was I don't think a genuine consensus has been reached on the location of these templates and it might be worthwhile to continue the pursuit of consensus at somewhere like the talk page, Misplaced Pages:Collaborations or the village pump where even more people can have a say. I still think this is a minor issue and I doubt I or anyone else will die in a ditch if there's a decison to relocate the templates elsewhere. Euryalus (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The general point also is that this is only one of many collaboration templates. Whether collaboration templates should be on articles or talk pages should be decided at a unified Misplaced Pages-wide level, not by individual wikiprojects. Specifically, those who read Misplaced Pages should get some say. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted the removal of the template from the article page (Gundagai) because the issue has been discussed before at Misplaced Pages talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight and the consensus reached there is that the template is placed on the article page. The template was removed without discussion by someone who has never contributed to the Gundagai article (or to any similar article) and as far as I am concerned was disrupting[REDACTED] to make a WP:POINT. Did User:Redvers discuss the removal with anyone, eg on the article talk page, at WP:AWNB, on the template talk page (or even check that page) - no. Australian wikipedians collaborate overtly. I fail to see any evidence of the assertion by User:Ryan Postlethwaite that a sifnificant group of non collaberation members have seen this and dissagree that it should be on the article page. User:Ryan Postlethwaite contributed to the discussion on the template talk page but there weren't many others there sharing his view. --Matilda 06:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that nobody thought it necessary to contact me directly by email or my talk page about this discussion, but I'm probably the person who has added this template to articles most often. I like the {{ambox}} style, thankyou to Redvers for that - I had wondered why there didn't seem to have been a change to the collaboration template when most other maintenance tags went to a new style, but I hadn't spotted what it should be when I had looked. The template is part invitation to improve the article, in a similar way to other maintenance tags, but it is also partly a warning to readers that the article may be changing more often than usual, so they might want to check back again if they're using it as a reference for anything else. For the record, I support the long-standing convention that the template is displayed on the article itself. --Scott Davis 14:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have again reverted the move of the template to the talk page. I still see no evidence here in favour of the move against the preference of Australian collaborators (sounds worse than a cabal). Perhaps somebody can arrange some discussion in a usefuul place to gain a consensus view or otherwise. Please note I do not like the threat above of if they revert, block them since nothing else seems to get their attention. You have our attention. We are discussing here and will go elsewhere with our discussion if invited to do so. --Matilda 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The point is, you've now made it clear that you aren't willing to listen - I think I'n right in saying that every non collaboration member here has said the template should be on the talk page, yet you go and revert? It's obvious you guys are going to want to keep the template on the article page - it's your collaboration. You should listen to what the uninvolved users say, what the guidline says and attempt to get a consensus yourselves that this is ok. "You have our attention. We are discussing here and will go elsewhere with our discussion if invited to do so." - we clearly don't have your attention. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Where is this being discussed project-wide? This appears to be Ryan trying to enforce his own view on a group of active editors seeking to improve the encyclopaedia. Ryan has dropped in a few times and removed the ACOTF template, with help from Ral315 and this time also Redvers and WAS 4.250. Every time, it has started by unilateral removal of the template, followed by reversion and a discussion leading to overwhelming support to leave it on the article - one article for about two weeks. Much of the support comes from well-respected Australian editors and admins. This time, the discussion seems to be here, presumably in an attempt to get a majority of non-Australian support. I don't see the same issue in the history of The Betrothed or in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration. Was the real concern about the colours, not the placement? This has now been altered. Beryl Anthony, Jr. and List of United States Representatives from California have had an equivalent notice (collaboration of the week) on the top of tthem for over a year, with no comment or attempt to move it to a talk page. Ral315 used this as an example of an accepted exception to the "rule" in January, while arguing that the ACOTF template should be moved. The longest the ACOTF template has been in one place over that time is 26 days, and it's only supposed to move every second week. Is it any wonder we feel a little picked on? --Scott Davis 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME much? Does it really matter if an article has a banner on the front encouraging improvement for a fortnight? Is it really that big a deal? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide announcement

There's a 99.99% chance that this is a sick joke, but it's better to be safe than sorry. 69.84.98.179 (talk · contribs) has announced his/her suicide here. Aecis 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_note a number of sections above. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So this note has also been posted from another IP. Aecis 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's suspected that this a 4chan thing... WjBscribe 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this is just a troll - he keeps announcing this stuff to cause a reaction - best to just RBI. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 4)This guy has been trolling this for a couple of days now. If he were serious, he'd have done it by now. WP:DENY & WP:RBI apply. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)While I strongly agree with WP:SUICIDE, I have to agree with what is said above, just WP:RBI. Tiptoety

Well, its being coordinated by a forum, which is why the messages come from non-proxy but geographically unconnected IPs (multiple people, all posting the same message). WjBscribe 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And it is getting quite out of control, look how many times User talk:J Milburn has been protected because of it. Tiptoety 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's been what I think is good work recently over at Misplaced Pages:Threats Of Violence which may be tangentially (or directly) related to this issue. It'd be great for anyone to take a look and see if there's anything they disagree with... I've suggested a variation on WP:RBI which may or may not be appropriate here, but might be a good rule of thumb, which is Report, Revert, Ignore. thoughts most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

65.186.81.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if anyone still cares. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And now this from 66.91.141.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tiptoety 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very clear this is simple trolling. Even I am inclined to ignore it. Bstone (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 68.33.135.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.91.141.219‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for same issue, 12 hours each. MBisanz 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To end it you need to; collect times and IPs. Work out locations. Call the tech number you got by running the IP. Have the server name abnd info ready! Next, find this forum and record where it is. Call the FBI and lay out the situation. Tell them you have what appears to be a felony suicide hoax as well as a conspiracy to commit. Get a case number and post it back here. If you need any further help, email me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly relevant here, but what, precisely, is a "felony suicide hoax" (there are some state or federal statutes under which I suppose charges might be brought—although I'd have serious doubts about their tenability and would wager a great deal of money that no submission that the underlying conduct is criminal might be sustained—but I can conceive of no theory under which the post(s) at issue could be seriously prosecuted as felonies, at least with respect to the "suicide" content; whether some action relative to mere disruption of the operations of a site might be leveled is, of course, a separate question, although one I'd also resolve in the negative)? Joe 07:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a felony hoax because police will have to be called and time will have to be wasted. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB CheckPage needs attention

There are very, very old requests at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd Posts

DrunkenDialer (talk · contribs) The recent posts are vague comments followed by a URL. I'm not sure what if any action is approp. Someone please take a look. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of the offending posts were removed. I have left a friendly note on their talk page, per WP:AGF. It looks like the editor has made some good faith edits to articles, it's just talk page comments that cause the problem. I'll keep an eye on this one. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky talk page spamming.

• slangmarket.com Iframe's a Technorati Profile
• johnnypromo.biz Iframe's a myspace page.

Accounts

DrunkenDialer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
76.109.174.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

slangmarket.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

johnnypromo.biz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Add LinkSummaries .. added (manually) to monitoring list of User:COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User Mhsb

• Mhsb (talk · contribs)

OK, in regards to the previous discussion, this user nominated ATI - Aero Transporti Italiani for speedy deletion under section A1 which I find highly disputable considering the article and the users record. They have now gone on a Speedy deletion spree and nominated dozens of articles in a few minutes with the same tag and same reason "It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.". For example the article Blåbärskullen transmitter was nominated by them for Speedy deletion under A1 but this tag is incorrect as the page needs to be translated and the appropiate tag should be "notenglish". I could be wrong but I think this is absolutely bizarre behaviour. I'm not happy. --James Bond (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the many inappropriate speedy tags, deleted the few articles that were suitable for speedy deletion, and left some advice for the editor. I hope this resolves the matter.DGG (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

Just a heads up, but a couple of science blogs are canvassing their readers to come to this article and fight a battle:

• Wikipedians, "Check This Out" - "Edit wars against cultists are hard to win decisively."
• P.Z. Myers, "Wiki Warriors wanted" - "Martin is in a protracted Misplaced Pages battle with a cult, Falun Gong...so you might want to help him out."

Ohconfucius (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

looks like one WP:SPA has already begun Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), perhaps some protection of Falun Gong is waranted?--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

err ok, looks as if its still semi-p from last year--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the result of this canvassing has been the attraction of myself and one other established Wikipedian to the article. I don't intend to blindly support Martin's viewpoint or efforts, but rather to work to get the article in line with Misplaced Pages's standards, and to try to stop a battle, rather than prolong it. Some of the problems there lately have been due to Martin's inexperience with Misplaced Pages, and that shouldn't be too hard to correct. --Infophile 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently requested my userpage to be deleted. I've edited[REDACTED] for a while. Is anything going to be done about this canvassing?--Asdfg12345 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, what, exactly, do you expect "to be done"? It's merely an alert for a possible intake of well-intentioned newbies/edit warriors, so editors can keep an eye on things. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan

I'd like to change the 1RR restriction placed on this user, following this discussion and confirmed above, to a topic ban. In my opinion his disruptive behaviour has not changed and has simply moved venue from the article to the talk page. The talk page is a cesspit, and I'd invite all those commenting to read it, as well as the RfC on DemolitionMan, but choice comments in the last couple of days include:

• some impressive bad faith
• attacking the admin trying to resolve the dispute
• and again (on another user's talk page)
• more bad faith
• and still more.

I suggest a topic ban for DemolitionMan would do a lot to get that talk page back to some kind of order. It'd also force him to edit outside what is obviously an emotional subject for him. As things stand he seems to be headed straight for a ban. Leithp 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, it is difficult to find evidence to use to defend DM's behavior. I note that his outright racial animus has subsided. But I am beginning to suspect that he sees himself as the modern-day equivalent of the rebellious Sepoy seeking (150 years after the fact) to overthrow imperialist rule with Indian Rebellion of 1857 as his mutinous assembly ground (he will no doubt take my use of the terms mutinous and Sepoy as evidence of my imperialist tendencies). However, I note that he describes himself as "holding the fort" until re-enforcements arrive. I am losing whatever hope I had left of seeing him reform. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I get banned for 3 months. I serve that ban. I am restricted to a 1RR rule. I abide by that too. I have not indulged in edits on that page; merely voiced my views. Comparing Ronnotel to a God in the Indian pantheon is attacking him? Warning a user about violating the 3RR is attacking him? And this has nothing to do with bad faith. It is an observation. I think Assuming Good Faith works both ways. Admittedly, exchanges on the page have been heated.

Shouldn't this qualify as attacking too?

"I feel that this page is being held hostage by user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione, who are insisting on edits that go counter to anything that is considered remotely reasonable in the current historiography of India. First they had insisted on adding the Hindi script; now, finding they can't push that, they're wasting everyone's time with ludicrous claims about the "First War of Independence." - Fowler&Fowler

"How cute.
Anyway, as said by Fowler its actual sources that count. But if you really want to play this game still; 60 million in the UK, 20 million in Oz, 30 million in Canada, 5 million in Eire, 5 million in NZ, 250 million in the US, 70 million in Nigeria, 45 million in the Phillipines, 13 million in South Africa....
And this is with the inflated numbers of English speaking Indians, the assumption that they are all Hindu nationalists and completely ignoring the well educated Dutch, Germans, etc....--Him and a dog 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)" - Josuquis

]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs)

Making the comment "beware of Ronnotel - he will do everything in his power to get you banned" is attacking him, as is "how could I possibly take over this page with Ronnotel hovering over my head like Shiva doing his Tandav" . You may think that you have "merely voiced views", but what I see is a series of ad hominem attacks. Leithp 17:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounded more like a joke rather than an attack to me Desione (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did not read like a joke to me, more like a rather bitter whine. ]

The 3RR rule had slipped out of my mind and personally I am glad that user DemolitionMan gave me a friendly reminder about it. The discussion is "heated" and words have been flying out from all sides. In this case user DemolitionMan can hardly be singled out. As best as I can see it this is purely an attempt to get DemolitionMan banned in order to sway the opinion towards a perticular point of view. 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs)

Also, for those of you who haven't noticed, please note that user DemolitionMan has awarded an "IndiaStar" to user Fowler&Fowler very recently despite the fact that they have been having heated arguments. This clearly shows DemolitionMan "sportyness" and "good will" beyond the apparent differences in the discussion on FWoI. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He may have awarded me the "India Star," but that doesn't take away from the fact that his contributions to the Indian Rebellion page have been extremely divisive and his talk page discussion full of venom. Looking at his contributions (DemolitionMan (talk · contribs)), what worries me is that there is precious little other than "Indian Rebellion of 1857," and, there, his edits—during the last month that I have had occasion to observe them—have been entirely focused on whether the rebellion should be called the "First Indian War of Independence" and with what qualification. Even so, had he shown any grace, any respect for scholarship, any ability to distinguish between what helps build an encyclopedia and what doesn't, I would have had more sympathy for him; unfortunately, he didn't. He needs to cool off. He needs to realize that in the world of modern scholarship on the 1857 rebellion, the rebellion itself is not being re-enacted—with the scholars lining up under "British" and "Indian." Finally, he needs to be less arrogant about his own expertise, especially since the quality of edits he has made both on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 page or the Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857 page, rise to nowhere near the level of discourse presented, for example, in the high-school book chapter Rebels and the Raj: The Revolt of 1857 and its representations used widely in Indian schools today. In my opinion, a topic ban is in order. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, stop treating[REDACTED] as your personal blog. Solicit views from others (specially Indian editors whose views you seem to be allergic to) while contributing to articles on Indian History. Most people are usually too busy fighting off your bias wasting time which would be better spend improving articles such as British Raj and Company rule in India. Not to mention the fact that anyone who attempts to write in these articles is quickly reverted by either you or one of the members of your fan following (who usually come from the same island as you do). Again, this is not your personal blog and I really hope that this is not your full time job because it certainly appears to be so. Seek out and encourage contributions from other members and specially Indian editors (who are clearly in a great minority in[REDACTED] articles on Indian history) whose views are naturally inseparable from articles related to Indian history. If there was such a thing as a negative India Star, I would have definitely given four or five of them to you by now. Good luck. Desione (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it (DemolitionMan (talk · contribs)) personnel blog, were he may post, unchallenged, any opinion or accusation he feels fit without let or hindrance. The Indian POV is not automatically considered suspect, what is considered suspect are sources that appear to have little or no academic credentials, and yet user DM sees fit the question those sources which have, demonstrably, academic respectability (and when this is pointed out resorts to blatant racial slander). It is not his POV that is being challenged; it is his attitude and tactics. Moreover, yet again, we see the wining about being outnumberd, this is patent rubbish, as a lok at the posts will show.]

Have you seen ]'s edits on British Raj and Company rule in India. A blatant and highly offensive attempt to portray British Raj in a benign positive manner while excluding, threatening, and belittling any sane attempt to correct such biases. What do you expect will happen when such users are treating[REDACTED] as their personal blog. Obviously you will get sharp reactions. The only reason his edits are going through is because Indian POV is in minority as compared to those people who for some strange reason tend to think that British Raj was god's gift to this world. If User:DemolitionMan is banned Fowler is going to have a free run. At least there is some control right now. Desione (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discusing the Indian mutiny page, you do not carry personel vendetas from page to page. Two wrongs do not make a right. Because another user behaves in a poor manner does not give any one else the right to. If you have issues with user ] then report him, and stop making accusations that you do not back up with action. It dos not matter how others behave; the issue here is DM, not anyone else.

You make a claim that the Indian viewpoint is in the minority; whilst in the talk page for the Indian mutiny you claim it’s the majority. Most of ] recent edits on Company rule in India appar to be adding pictures, please provide some links to blantent and hightly offencsice claims he is making. Nor can I find any overtly (and diliberatly) offensve comment on British Raj, nor is he alone in these edits. Again pleae provide some examples, rather then making vaugue accusations.

If DM was the only Indian editing the page you might have a point (though it’s debatable how much of a problem this would be). He is not, and I suspect that Regentpark will keep a close eye on things. Please stop trying to pretend that DM is a lone voice of reason in a ranging cacophony of ignorance; he is not (you yourself are proof of that, and the fact that at least one other editor has chosen to stop editing is not anyone else’s fault but his own). ]

To user:Desione. You say: "At least there is some control right now." I don't understand. user:DemolitionMan, who has been on Misplaced Pages a lot longer than I have, has never edited either British Raj or Company rule in India, whereas I have been editing them both, especially the former, for over a year. My style of editing has remained the same throughout. Why would he suddenly exercise control when he didn't earlier? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:DemolitionMan is trying to contribute to the topic in a meaningful way and that he definitely brings a perspective to the article that it is currently lacking. It is important to understand that the reason he is singled out as disruptive is because, and these are not my words, he brings an 'Indian POV' to the article. I'm not sure why an Indian POV, whatever that might be, is automatically considered suspect, especially considering that the event in question is Indian. It is also useful to understand that scholarship in this field was based mostly on non-Indian sources during the first fifty to hundred years after the rebellion and it is only now that Indian sources are coming to light. Misplaced Pages is better when it behaves as an inclusive encyclopedia and worse when it tries to exclude one or more point of views - and attempting to incorporate some of the sources he points to would make this a better article.
However, I also feel that User:DemolitionMan has a serious problem with the discussions on the talk page. His behavior is often aggressive beyond what should be considered acceptable in[REDACTED] (or elsewhere) and is not conducive to finding a consensus. He doesn't seem to understand that bringing newly released material into an article requires a level of diplomacy and tact that may not be essential when adding material from established sources (diplomatic and tactful are clearly not DM!). Therefore, I support a short term topic ban and encourage him to consider working on a few neutral articles during the period of the ban. Some perspective on what[REDACTED] is and what it isn't will certainly be useful for him.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

but exclusion of one point of view goes both ways. Much of User:DemolitionMan has either involved unrealted topics (such as the Mau Mau rebelion), attacking sources based on nationality, or (as I precive) decite. Any and every tactic has been used by User:DemolitionMan to attepmt to force a particular POV onto the artical, and to crowd out any facts that do not fit into that POV. He has attempted to intimidate and I belive, provoke other editors.]

It's not attacking the guy though I can see why the first part can be construed as attacking. However, why did you only post half the post? The entire post said that I am not convinced about his intentions. And the Shiva/Tandav bit was a stab at humor. Anyone who knows about Shiva and the Tandav would consider it funny. DemolitionMan (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate user:RegentsPark's empathy for user:DemolitionMan, however, it is inaccurate to say that user:DemolitionMan is being singled out because he brings an "Indian POV" to the discussion. There has been plenty of superb scholarship on the 1857 rebellion and early colonial India by Indians in the last 30 years. Gautam Bhadra, Tapti Roy, Rudr. Mukherjee, Seema Alavi, Ranajit Guha, T. Khaldun, and Rajat Kanta Ray are a few examples. There is nothing in the contributions that user:DemolitionMan has made to the Indian Rebellion page, that is worthy of being called an "Indian POV," if by it we mean the POV of Indian scholarship and not the POV of DemolitionMan as an Indian. Misplaced Pages doesn't care about the latter POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan for 'Indian POV' allegations. The larger point is that he is trying to bring less established sources into the article and some of the material, IMHO, enhances the article. We should be discussing how to appropriately address that material in the article but instead, and I completely blame DMs style for this, the discussion quickly devolves into personal attacks and edit wars. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I have never had a problem with an Indian POV and have stated so publicly and in private emails. What I have a problem with is a hostile Indian POV, and the disruptive acts that DemolitionMan has used to pursue it. I agree that all points of view should be represented in the article, but that does not mean that we can ignore inappropriate and disruptive behavior when a particular POV fails to garner WP:UNDUE weight. Ronnotel (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel, I would agree that you have been pushed inappropriately a little bit by User:DemolitionMan although I think he sees that. In my opinion such issues can be resolved without going for a ban. The main source of the problem here, in my opinion, is the POV pushing by pro British Raj enthusiasts. Desione (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you base that on, given that even after 3 month a Desi edit ban and then a 1 edit limit he continues to engage in the kinds of actions that have led to this (and the previous) complaint. It seems to me that he does not view his actions as wrong, and indeed views himself as the victim (as it seems do you). ]

Ronnotel, I don't mean to imply that you're picking on DM. As far as I'm concerned, you've been a very fair admin and have, in fact, often gone the extra mile in trying to keep User:DemolitionMan contributing within the system. I have no doubt of the Misplaced Pages:Good faith that underlie your actions and those of several others (including User:Fowler&fowler). However, I do also tend to think that User:DemolitionMan's contributions are often dismissed as being on the fringe, or outside the fringe, because of an assumed Indian POV, mainly because much of what he brings here is not in the mainstream. I'll try to explain this on the article's talk page but let me categorically state that, IMHO, your actions have been exemplary. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a place for such less accepted, less established sources in the article however they should be a minor point and it should be clearly said that they are a minority viewpoint and where people do believe them, etc... The way demolitionman is trying to have things is saying that these sources are absolute fact and that what the world's scholars widely hold to be the facts about the events in question are not worthy of even being included.--Him and a dog 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps you would like to state your views on V.D. Savarkar here - an Indian freedom fighter, whom you derided on the talk page. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? And a lot of people aren't particularly fond of the chap who killed Gandhi, freedom fighter or no, so its hardly beyond the pale to express a negative opinion on him. Relata refero (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi was killed by Nathuram Godse. Savarkar was implicated but exonerated. His bust was unveiled in Indian Parliament a few years ago. Generally, he is well respected in India. His legacy is kind of like Bose - anti-British but violent unlike that of Gandhi and Nehru who were anti-British and non-violent. 125.99.102.80 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed that talkpage, to which I am an occasional contributor, and am afraid that I can't find evidence supporting the belief that DM's worth the trouble he puts us through. I still can't get over "The British Military? The guys who are yet to apologize for murdering women and children in Amritsar? As stated, degrees acquired in the UK hold no merit in this discussion." It's not the cheerful link between current conditions in the British military and the Amritsar massacre - which was in 1919 - but the cheerful dismissal of anyone who has published in, has ever had a teaching appointment in, or obtained an advanced degree from Britain. There are many more such instances on that talkpage. ("It is utter nonsense to state that ALL historians agree that "WoI" is a not a correct term. Unless ALL means those who stand up to "God Save the Queen.") The user's done nothing since his return but agitate about the name of the page and the relative placement of various such terms; he has publicly announced that his only interest is in maintaining some level of control till enough Indians get online and come and support him; he hasn't made a single useful edit. Not one. Why are we keeping him around? Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  Because, as a community, we tend to fall into the trap of confusing "Assume good faith" with "Ignore bad faith". — Coren  16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have given DM a huge amount of 'assumption of good faith' even when he has used tactics that boarder (and crosover) on decite. ]

The final effect of any ban on User:DemolitionMan is going to lead to a free run propagate pro British Raj (and related issues) bias. And that fact is the key to understanding this. Good luck Desione (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

DM is not the only Indian editing the page, nor does he appear to be the only person pushing his POV. I suspect that Regentpark will keep a close eye on things. So it is not a fact, it is a POV assumption, like so much of DM’s ‘facts’. If you believe that an Admin is acting I bad faith report him, please stop making veiled accusations.]

Try not to put words into peoples mouth, either mine, or administrators, or Regentpark. Rest later (because i am putting more time into[REDACTED] than i am comfortable with). Thank you Desione (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations

I guess this page is not as watched as it used to be, but there's a huge (I'd say 60 items) backlog here. If you can spend a few minutes on a couple articles to see whether they (still) meet WP:CSD#G12, or need to be {{copyvio}} tagged, that would be great (non admins can tag too, of course!). A bot will remove the red links automatically, but you need to remove non copyvios by hand. Thanks! -- lucasbfr 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll help! Rudget. 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but can only tag and note as such.--Doug. 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried, and when I when I finished I can swear there was more than when I started....*sigh* Tiptoety 04:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:External links

I've just protected this page due to edit-warring. Looks like some more opinions are needed to establish which side consensus favours. It all looks very silly to me, but I'm sure a few people will find this of sufficient importance to comment :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At least three of the participants are administrators. I hope they notice the protection... —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

zee top of page notice is not exactly suptle.Geni 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A case of merge and delete and the GFDL

Bryan Derksen's Summary

I've just got into a bit of a dispute with another administrator so I'm taking it here to get wider participation. A long time back I wrote a little article at Tucker's kobolds about some fictional monsters from Dungeons and Dragons. It just went through AfD and got merged into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), which I'm fine with. The problem is that Tucker's kobolds was then deleted, which removed my authorship attribution from the database. As far as I can tell this is a violation of the GFDL, and it means that the material at Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is now a copyright violation. User:Nandesuka is insisting otherwise, though, and re-deleted Tucker's kobolds when I restored it as a redirect. Opinions? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should be restored and then redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(aec) We are not infrequently too strict in our construction of the "attribution" requirements of the GFDL, but it would seem that your text constitutes a significant portion of the new article, such that attribution is appropriate (for a discussion of the relevant issues, one may see, e.g., WP:MAD); I cannot, further, in view of the potential usefulness of Tucker's kobolds as a plausible search/redirect from an alternative name, imagine why one would delete the redirect (contrary, it should be probably noted, to the outcome of the AfD) or, having deleted the redirect and been apprised of the reasons for its restoration, would delete again. Nandesuka's explanation evidences a misunderstanding of practice, if not policy, that is, by virtue of its breadth, a bit disquieting, but we probably need go no further here than simply to restore the redirect (and its history), which restoration should be entirely uncontroversial. Joe 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's Summary

I recently closed an AfD as delete. During the AfD, someone merged the content into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). After the article was deleted, the original author of the article, Bryan Derksen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted the article and left a note on my talk page claiming that to not leave the article history in place was a copyright violation. When I queried him about this -- this theory is certainly novel to me -- he responded in detail on his talk page, saying in part:

"That text, which I hold the copyright to but have licenced to Misplaced Pages under the GFDL, is now in the Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) article. However, if you look at that article's history, you won't see my attribution under it. Misplaced Pages "gets away" with this by considering itself to be a unitary work, so the fact that my attribution remains under the old article's history means it's still compliant. However, the moment you deleted Tucker's kobolds my contribution was no longer attributed to me anywhere in Misplaced Pages. That meant that Misplaced Pages was violating my license terms, making the article Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) into a copyright violation."

In response, I have re-deleted the page under CSD G4, removed the allegedly copyvio text from the Kobold article, and left a request on Danny's talk page, asking if this novel interpretation of the GFDL is one that the Office supports. I'm putting my actions up for review here, and asking for admin input on this issue. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez, there is really no need for any of that, this is what merging histories is for.

• Delete Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Undelete Tucker's kobolds
• Move Tucker's kobolds to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)
• Delete Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) again
• Undelete all the revisions on Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

Problem solved with all contributions attributed. — Κaiba 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that quite right, although generally we need not merge histories where the page from which content is merged can reasonably/sensibly be redirected to the page to which a merge is undertaken (to be most careful, one ought generally to note the origin of text in an edit summary when he/she merges a non-trivial amount of information in order to incorporate the history by reference). In any case, since Danny no longer works for the Foundation and, um, probably isn't the WMF's favorite person about now, he's almost certainly not the one to ask. You (Nan) might try, for instance, User:Mike Godwin, but there really is no "novel interpretation" with which to quibble here; the practice that Bryan details has, AFAIK, been common here for years. Joe 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright policy very clearly states that Misplaced Pages content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Misplaced Pages article used when copying content to another website. I can't even imagine a logical argument that this can be ignored when copying content to another Misplaced Pages article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Merging the histories does seem like the best solution here. It's an interesting question because, as Bryan says, when material is merged, it means that something editor A has written is no longer attributed to him. What is worse, I feel, is when editors copy and paste material into other articles without attribution (i.e. not in a deletion situation), because then it appears they have written it. I've had editors lift almost whole pages I've written, writing that took me hours if not days, and just copy and paste it onto another page, with their name in the edit summary as though they're the authors. I have to not mind, because this is Misplaced Pages, but I always wince when I see it.

Having said that, we do agree when we join up that our writing effectively ceases to belong to us. When other websites use our material, they credit Misplaced Pages, not the individual authors. If Bryan's interpretation of the GFDL is correct, they're all in violation of it, so I don't see how that interpretation can be correct. SlimVirgin 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no practical objection to the merge, but the GFDL claim underlying it has to be addressed. If Bryan is right, the deletion policy needs to be updated. We have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles with text from deleted articles that are in violation of copyright if he's correct. That's why I'm making it an issue (my personal interest in kobolds is, to be frank, pretty minimal). Nandesuka (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would certainly agree to that. I've occasionally gone digging through old deletions looking for merge-and-deletes to fix, but it's a bit big of a task (and rather unrewarding) so I'd welcome all the help I could get. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have thousands of articles withe text from deleted articles in violation of copywright, which further suggests that in such instances, the deleded articles should indeed be restored and redirected. If the articles existed in the first place and material from them was mergeable, then the deleted articles must have been a legimatime search term and there's no real reason why they shouldn't be restored and redirected. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely my thinking, and, moreover, what I always understood to be the thinking of the community. Joe 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One might very reasonably make the case that websites that credit Misplaced Pages but do not link to our article and the history associated therewith and to the GFDL do violate the copyrights of the authors of the material. As to us, although I, for one, have suggested that we finesse an argument that Misplaced Pages exists as a single encyclopedic entity, such that we might need credit only five principal contributors, I think the community has long recognized that there are prudential concerns (most prominently, those related to the lifting of one's contributions about which you write) that counsel against our wholly disassociating contributors of substantial material from that material. I may be entirely crazy, but isn't it our usual practice to redirect an article after text from it has been merged, whether per an AfD or not, to another article? I thought this to be a settled issue, but I may well, I suppose, especially if Nandesuka's supposition that we have many articles that incorporate significant text from deleted articles is correct, be wrong. Joe 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I recall in previous discussions I've read about this sort of thing, when people just attribute "Misplaced Pages" and include a link to the article they're technically in violation but it's let side because one can click the link and get a list of contributors. If they were to host that list of contributors directly on their own site they'd be fully compliant and since clicking a link is transparent to the end user it's effectively the same thing. Having the list of contributions hidden in the deleted article database is rather more problematic.

In this case, I would think that a history merge would be unnecessarily messy; I generally only do such things when the revision histories don't overlap with each other (for example correcting an old "cut and paste" page move). Leaving a redirect would keep the histories tidy and furthermore actually improve peoples' ability to find the content that used to be there, so why not? Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryan's interpretation is correct; incidentally to SV's point- the only justification that can be made for those others just attributing to Misplaced Pages is that people can then go to the original Misplaced Pages article to get the author data. JoshuaZ (talk)

(ec) Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks says that other websites must at least acknowledge the main authors, and notes the theory that a link back to[REDACTED] suffices. If we send notices to WP mirrors about copyright violations, we do so as an individual with a copyright on certain contributions to a page. I think Nandesuka has a point here. In my experience, it is pretty standard practice at AfD not to delete articles which are merged, but to redirect them if any significant text is merged elsewhere, although it's not done every time. Gimmetrow 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryan is correct. See Help:Merging and moving pages: "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from." In practice, such merging can happen before the AfD (in which case the AfD isn't really needed), during the AfD (frowned upon) or after the AfD. If the AfD closed as merge (or keep), there are no problems. If the AfD closed as delete, things are a bit more problematic. Technically, the material that is or was merged should not have been merged. It can be removed from the article, but once the original addition has taken place the attribution needs to be there somehow, usually by undeleting the original page and having the history in the form of a redirect. If the page name is problematic, the edit history can be shuffled around to a neutral title and handled as before. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your input. I've restored the article history and replaced the material. Nandesuka (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for restoring it. I haven't looked around in the deletion guidelines for a long time, is there a good spot in them to mention this GFDL caveat? Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Merging seems the place, perhaps with a prominent link to Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. —Cryptic 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I've added a note. I had no idea there was an essay on this subject, fantastic. I wonder if it'd be a good idea to get Godwin to look it over for legal correctness and maybe make it a guideline. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High Admiral (Honorverse)

Black Kite closed this discussion as delete, but because the article has been merged, the deleted article should be restored and redirected to the article to which the information was merged. I have notified him of my post here on his talk page and her replied on mine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if people would conduct mergers according to the procedure set out at Help:Merge, which might help prevent source articles being deleted improperly. I will notify the editor who merged the material how to proceed next time. Meanwhile, if you encounter situations where people are merging out of process, please make sure they know that they are to note the merger with a wikilink to the source article in the edit summary of the destination and to note the merger in an edit summary at the source article as well? :) --Moonriddengirl 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. I've notified the merging editor & noted the merger in the edit summary. The question is whether it's better to restore the deleted article, since nearly the entire body was copied & pasted into the destination article and we must maintain history for GFDL compliance or do a history merge and delete the remaining redirect. Alternatively, of course, we could selectively delete the merge, but we'd have to delete subsequent edits as well in order to ensure that the text doesn't pop up in later edits. Given that one is a dummy edit to note the merge (mine) and the other the placement of some tags, that might not be undoable. I suppose we'll wait and see how the closing admin wants to handle it. --Moonriddengirl 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems from the above discussion, that if we are in fact keeping the merged material in, we should restore the old article, but redirect it. I indicated that to Black Kite here, but have not yet received a reply. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him at his talk page how he'd like to handle it. He has not been on recently, and I'm sure that he'll weigh in when he is. --Moonriddengirl 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-ana and pro-mia

Hello. I'm involved in an edit war at pro-ana. It basically concerns these edits by user Castillan, which link repeatedly to the commercial pro-ana site .

I thought it was a straightforward example of linkspam, and quickly reverted it. My revert was undone shortly afterward. I reverted again, and made additional changes on top of that, and ended up in an edit war. Shortly afterward, I asked for assistance on IRC and was then warned by administator Cyrius that I had violated 3RR (having had 4 reversions in a 24 hour period).

(Castillan has since copy-and-pasted the same text over to the related article pro-mia. The pasted text appears to have "" where the links were because they've mistakenly copied the rendered text and not the article source.)

What I'd like to know is: does reverting linkspam count towards 3RR?

Thanks for your time. —80.237.187.34 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but it depends on the circumstances (see Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions) could be counted as vandalism if they keep adding the "spam" despite warnings to not do so. NanohaA'sYuri 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those edits look to be pretty clearly spam, so I think 3RR would not apply to you in this case, 80.237.187.34. Have you warned Castillan and, if so, did they respond? Natalie (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't warned them. Generally, a warning needs to have been given before an admin will block, because unless the user disregards warnings we generally consider them to be acting in good faith. In this case, it doesn't look like anyone has engaged this user in conversation about why their edits are unacceptable, so I'll drop a warning on their talk page. Natalie (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Swatjester has just semiprotected the page. I suppose that settles the edit war. :P

Sorry about all the fuss, and thanks again for your time. —80.237.187.34 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Kaktus999 and their contributions

Most of this user's contributions are newly created unreferenced Geo and BLP stubs. I've reviewed some of them (mostly last day edits), and tagged them as unreferenced. In some of the edits, I've also noticed that the user would rename "External links" section, which usually contains links in a foreign language, into a "References" section for the sake of getting rid of the unreferenced tag.

Someone who has the time should further review this user's contributions and take prompt action according to the rules of Misplaced Pages. Gooddays (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for using the file Mamintb.png in anarticle for french version of Natsume's.

How can I do? Many thanks for help.

Can you specify the article (I assume it's one of these; your reference is a little vague) and explain how that image needs to be used in place of words? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Has BhaiSaab exhausted community patience?

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) was banned by ArbCom for one year, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Since then, he has had his ban reset 12 times, and has now been reset across two calendar years.

Frankly, from my perspective as an uninvolved administrator, I believe it is ridiculous to reset a ban timer this often. If that is necessary, this user obviously has no intention of honoring it. Accordingly, I have grabbed this bull by the horns and extended his block indefinitely. I now ask that this be endorsed as an indefinite ban. Blueboy96 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a clear-cut case indeed. — Coren  15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a reason not to ban this user, and I'll oppose. Otherwise, support ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur; indefinite does not mean infinite - although of course it becomes de facto a ban if no admin proposes(that is what it says in WP:BAN) an unblock. The onus is on the account to then determine what the block becomes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions about improvements to Misplaced Pages software

• Please where can I send suggestions about improvements to Misplaced Pages software? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the technical section of the Village pump, or the MediaWiki Wiki, or post something on Bugzilla. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Katja Kassin problem

I've been contacted third-hand by an editor I trust (Vinh1313) about a problem with the German language edition of Misplaced Pages. They've printed the real name of Katja Kassin and have used the German language edition of IMDB as the reference source. Katja's complaining to Vinh (from Vinh's comment on my talk page) that "her parents having to deal with harassment from zealous people." The folks in the WikiProject Pornography have decided that IMDB's bio pages don't meet the WP:RS requirements since they're reliant on user-contributed info, so I can't see how the German version of the same pages can be considered any more reliable. As well the German edition has a privacy policy which would apply to this problem as well. Who should I point Katja to over at the German edition in order to have her real name redacted? Tabercil (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't know who over there you should talk to. I'm certain de:User:DerHexer would know. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... heading to him now.  :) Tabercil (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seekinkg Community ban of Dot Com Infoway company Adsense marketing and Spamming

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#Tamil_celebrity_spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1#Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_related_marketing_Spamming

See also - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Webgeek

Adsense pub-9515873777130697 .info's
pub-4598819753511212 some .com's related to Dot Com Infoway & Galatta.com

• dotcominfoway.com part of Dot Com Infoway Company
• dotcominfoway.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• galatta.com

• galatta.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• shriyaonline.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• malavika.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• nayantaraonline.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bhavanaonline.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• nishakothari.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sandya.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• asinonline.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• snehaonline.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• renukamenon.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kanihaa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jyotikaonline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• vellitheraithemovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jithanramesh.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sherin-online.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jothika-online.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kettavanthemovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kettavanthefilm.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• 2checkout.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• dashaavtaram.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• vaaranamaayiram.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bheema.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bheemaa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sultan-the-film.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• dashaavtaram.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kuruvi.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• billathemovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• graphwise.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• pazhani.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• paruthiveeranthemovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ilayathalapathyvijay.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• simbuonline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• aaryamovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sivaji-the-film.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• atmthefilm.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• azhakiyathamizhmagan.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• zerust.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kireedom.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sulekha.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• madurai4u.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• iltsource.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• xyleme.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jothikaonline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• priyamudansneha.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• my-bharath.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• galatta.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• paruthiveeranthemovie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• orampo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• billa2007.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• kaalai.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• debtfin.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• americandreamwine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• azhakiyathamizhmagan.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

Template:MultiCol Johndci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.145.90.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.145.89.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Dotcom Infoway Pvt. Ltd
59.145.90.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
DespoinaC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nm.praveen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
202.56.193.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
203.199.195.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Spinks wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamilfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.44.1.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Hariharan wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Avulpakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.145.90.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

| class="col-break " | Stephenlewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Praveen100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
61.95.184.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.154.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
128.230.233.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.145.90.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Fchristo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.92.120.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.155.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.103.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.103.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.145.90.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Template:EndMultiCol

Dot Com Infoway is a marketing strategy and content developer, spamming Misplaced Pages on an incredibly large scale for several years. Both link and reference spamming. Also engages in link vandalism and article vandalism. sites without adsense are "This site has been conceptualized, designed and created by Dot Com Infoway & Galatta.com " --Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blacklisting time, I suspect. I added to the en blacklist, but there is a lot of cleanup required, including several articles with no independent sources that could do with a {{prod}} with a sharp stick. We might need to whitelist some links (e.g. http://www.orampo.com/home.html) but equally we might want to nuke some articles as spam. Either way, a lot of work is needed to get this crap off the pedia. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed ... apparently Stephenlewis is the parent account based on the logs. Blueboy96 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• A question ... it's not normally advisable to hard-indef IPs, but since one of those IPs is confirmed to be part of this spamhaus, shall I hard-indef it? Blueboy96 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, that Whois report is enough to ignore a rule. Two years worth of linkspamming is way too much disruption. Blueboy96 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban with flamethrowers, wikitrouts, and whatever we've got that we can throw. Seriously, though, that list is way too long. Support a ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oowww!! My eyes! I agree, just make it go away! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated disruption and policy violations - what to do?

I found a user who uses, during edit wars with other editors, several sock puppet accounts to make highly opinionated edits and to agree with her own arguments in discussion pages.

She has been blocked previously temporarily for violating (in separate incidents) 3RR and sock puppet.

Through her main account, sock puppets, and anonymous IPs, she has been disrupting articles on Misplaced Pages since she joined: her edits correlate directly to edit wars and controversies on the pages she edits. Is this something I should just report on the sock puppet page, or should patterns of abuse be reported elsewhere? Thanks! 75.45.104.255 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we suppose to guess what this is about? El_C 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

People don't always ask questions the same way you would. To me, this item looks to be a pretty straightforward request for information about how and where to report the behaviour mentioned. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

it's an anonymous account. Ignore it. NO information.OrangeMarlin 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I logged out specifically because I think this girl knows I'm going to report her. I provided no information for the same reason.

Where do I report patterns of abuse?

Also, is it possible to submit the information so it doesn't show up here at first? I'm afraid she's going to try to "cover her tracks," so I would like the evidence to be observed by someone before she deletes it. At that point I'm fine with it becoming public.

75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Report it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (no ones going to delete it), and make sure to give details , accounts, links ect, guessing wastes everyones time. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that to prove the sock puppeting I have to quote the person's personal website. I'm afraid she'll change it as soon as she's outed.

Maybe I could add my report of the behavior to some (generous) admin's talk page, they can look at the site and say, "Yes, this information appears there," then it can be moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?

Sorry for being a pain. It's just that this user is very disruptive, so I want to get this right. Thanks, 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Find an admin you trust and email them the evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. 75.45.104.255 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

'Permanent protection' for China

On a trawl through CAT:EP I came across China, an unlikely candidate to be fully-protected to say the least, but I was quite disturbed to see the tag at the top of the talk page (permanent link to wording). User:Nat fully-protected China on 15/01/08, expiry indefinite, and every indication is that the protection was indeed intended to be indefinite. The protection was subsequently commuted to six months, which still seems extremely long. Nat claimed in the protection log that this action had support, and notes that it was brought up "many times" on ANI. I've dug a bit and found the most recent ANI report, which makes no reference to an indef protection.

I know that I don't know the situation, or how bad the vandalism has been, but I do know that regardless of prior discussion, this protection is not only unjustified by WP:PPOL, but also a violation of our fundamental ethos, not to mention WP:DENY etc. To my mind, this is the only way the vandals/puppeteers/trolls can actually win - they've prevented editors from working constructively on the article. I would advocate lifting this full protection immediately, probably converting to semi-protection, and letting those who do want to contribute constructively do so, even if every fifth edit is vandalism. That's what we have rollback for :D. Happy‑melon 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually set to expire on July 17th. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Protection is a short-term response to an ongoing problem. Semi-protection can last longer. But other remedies are available for problems that range beyond that. Article should be immediately unprotected. Ronnotel (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we a wiki or aren't we? Long time semi-protection is objectionable enough, but full protection? Undo it immediately.--Doc 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call - such lengthy full protection is totally out of order in dealing with vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I seriously recommend you look through the entire history of the reason why we had to place a long term full protection. I would suggest starting with this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou and this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/JackyAustine. This problem is, or at least was, that this particular individual has been building a supply of sleeper socks since 2006. The checkuser may have dug up 30 to 40 of them, but we believe that we only discovered the tip of the iceberg. Several sysops, including myself, have attempted many options before I locked down the article. A few of them being, indef blocking the socks, using checkuser to find the socks, etc. and this had been going on for months and months and months upon months. It was frustrating. So we came down to two options, lock down the page until the individual is no longer interested in Misplaced Pages and trying to push his POV with his socks, or range block several IP ranges. As option 2 would take out half a city, the full protection option was our only option. Granted, it was indef. but this was done so that we can make sure that the individual gets the message that his actions will not be tolerated and that we do not provide the individual an avenue to continue his disruption. As there has been no sign of the individual and his socks, I will unprotect the article. But understand that there was a very valid reason why I took those actions. Regards, nat.utoronto 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Most recent suicide threat

Many of you will be familiar with the IP abuse of me linked to an unnamed site, but more suicide threats have come through, this time worded differently. The threat was made, I deleted my talk page to get it out of the history, and it was posted again before I restored, see diff. I have blocked the user for disruption and harrassment, and I am posting it here so that if someone feels the need to follow this up, you can. Please note that this is not the stock threat that has been posted many, many times before, but a newly worded one. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bog standard troll.--Doc 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just know some people advocate taking these all seriously. The police have been contacted regarding several previous threats citing my cleaning of D&D articles, so I just thought I would mention it here. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do NOT ever mention these things here. Contact the authorities if you must, but all that reporting them here does is encourage more of these trolls. They read this page you know. Revert, block, ignore.--Doc 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I normally would support authorities, etc. being called if these were unnormal, but for your pages, this troll has been at it for days. They are very obviously the same person. Just revert, block and ignore this one. — Κaiba 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

(Yawn). Here we go again. Indef protection for the time being. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards