Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 16 December 2008 (→Giano II: Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom). 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)

Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections.

Link to possible malware site

Disrupted links so the archive bot can bypass spam filters. Actual domain name is without dashes. Миша13 13:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Information on the site

1. www.free-web-town.com identified as malware site by Firefox: (example )
2. www.free-web-town.com identified as problem site by Google: Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.free-web-town.com
3. www.free-web-town.com identified by WOT Security Scorecard as: phishing, spyware, adware, malicious content, viruses

Two editors have been restoring it to L. Ron Hubbard 1, 2, 3. Requesting uninvolved admins to evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Including a link that directs readers to a "THIS IS MALWARE" shock page in Firefox and Safari (IE7 as well?) is not acceptable. BJ 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the entire domain is designated unsafe, is removal of the link from other articles also in order? Sleaves _talk 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Woo, /me gets to work. BJ 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in order. My guess is that one person's directory has malware and thus Google and Mozilla think everyone needs to be protected from the entire site. Many of the links probably fail WP:EL for other reasons, but we shouldn't take these "malware alerts" at face value. --NE2 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a site that leads the majority of users to a "This is malware, stop now" page is a Bad Thing. And nothing of value is lost anyways. BJ 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not just Firefox users? I went to free-web-town just fine in the latest version of IE. See also . --NE2 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Any browser or client that uses Google's data, the big three being Firefox, Safari and Chrome. I'm not aware how the IE7/8 malware system works so I can't say where they get their data. BJ 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that some of the links might contain malware is a very discouraging thing. Plus the site is a website hosting community. How can in either case could this be considered a valid EL or a reliable source? Sleaves _talk 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's the official site for something it's a valid external link. I've seen short line railroads with official sites on a free service. --NE2 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs). This site is simply not appropriate anywhere on wiki. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of what you or Google thinks. We can link to sites that meet the criteria, even if Google erroneously lists them as malware. --NE2 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The report by Google and other sites is correct. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's correct in saying that there is or has been malware hosted at that domain. Mozilla is incorrect in using that to block access to the entire domain. --NE2 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, scroll up: it appears that someone labeled Misplaced Pages as having child porn and so now all visitors from some major ISPs are being sent through a handful of IP addresses. We should avoid this sort of thing, and evaluate each link on a case-by-case basis. --NE2 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a site that contains malware (my guess is it's a false positive) is independent of the text being added. The PDF is simply a convenience link to a print source that may or may not be relevant. If the link is to be removed, that's all that should be removed unless there's consensus that the text does not belong. --NE2 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: 4. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you object to that edit, please explain why (preferably on the talk page, not here). There's no link now. --NE2 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a brief note on Misou's talk page regarding the 3RR, but since the link has been removed, I doubt it will be an issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After researching this a bit, I think this might be a false positive on Google's part. It seems malware distributors must have been abusing the free hosting free-web-town.com to spread their goods, but the host itself isn't doing it. For example, digging into the links from Bjweeks above - this list of malware found on the domain suggests that the malware was stored in individual members' accounts. I think the links should probably stay in place for now until more information can be found, as this might be a ham-handed mistake on Google's part. krimpet✽ 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 50 domains. If you read the entire report at Google Safe Browsing diagnostic, it is a bit larger than a few members' accounts. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a free hosting site like Geocities. Some of the members hosted malware, knowingly or not. --NE2 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of article with links is here: User:Bjweeks/Sandbox. I don't suspect many of the link are valid under WP:EL but that takes a closer inspection. BJ 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional or not, linking to domains hosting malware is unacceptable. This and 117 related/involved domains have been blacklisted. Of perhaps 200 domains, I removed anything remotely resembling a legitimate site unless it had malware - most were blatant spam (the most creative perhaps being incestlessons.net \o/). De-listing for legitimately useful domains will of course occur upon request provided malware is no longer present.

More information is of course welcome. I spent about an hour sorting through stuff, but I was (am) rushed, and may well have made a mistake. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard |  04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you verify that there is malware present on any of the links that are now disallowed? --NE2 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Everything I added was either pure spam (cf incestlessons.net) or had the nasty when I checked. The proportion of sites someone might want to link to which had malware was very low & as I say, they'll be removed upon request provided they're clean.  — Mike.lifeguard |  18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

free-web-town doesn't "resemble a legitimate site"? --NE2 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well don, Mike. I note it's now on the meta blacklist. Good call. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Recall, I'm not an admin here.  — Mike.lifeguard |  18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Appealing User:Apovolot

I find it ironic that the original administrator "Doug"'s MFD decision re deletion of User:Apovolot because Doug's decision was done without regarding the fact that "no consensus" was achieved during the MFD discussion. So I appealed that MFD decison by raising WP:DRV issue re that. But in closing that WP:DRV, the administrator Aervanat used "no consensus" reason to stay that wrong ("no consensus" based) MFD deletion decision? So I am now appealing both:

a)The original (administrator "Doug"'s) MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot (because Doug disregarded the fact that there was no consensus to delete)

b)The DRV discussion decision (by administrator Aervanat) to "stay" MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot

I am requesting to restore User:Apovolot because its original deletion decision was done in violation of WP consensus rule. Apovolot (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is only one part of the equation. The closing administrator took into account the discussion and the policy implications of your page. His close was based on policy. The DRV was likeiwse based on a review of that application of policy. You are not prohibited from having a user page, just not that one. JodyB _talk 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the MfD is here and the DRV here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A DRV is a call to impel or compel an action. That requires consensus. We require consensus to delete article and user pages because we have some preference for content rather than against it. A DRV is explicitly not a content discussion but a discussion of the merits of the deletion. The conclusion of a DRV requires consensus to overturn that deletion. Absent that consensus we cannot say to the closing admin "We think you screwed up, so we are going to reverse a decision of your which you refuse to reverse on your own". The notion that "consensus defaults to keep" carries over to DRV is false and misleading. Further, absent some misconduct in the DRV, an appeal here might be construed as forum shopping. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Protonk's assessment here. No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existance of the article. If a DRV is discussing a currently deleted article, the status quo is a deleted article, so a no-consensus DRV would keep the article deleted. There is no expectation that "no consensus = keep" in all situations. Its "no consensus = take no direct action to change the current situation"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

you've missed my point. Your user page violated policies. Consensus never trumps the policy. JodyB _talk 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentTo clarify two points, 1) What I believe JodyB is saying is that if consensus appears to call for a result contrary to policy it is not the true consensus, consensus is the consensus of the community, not the consensus of the five who show up to an MfD - a result contrary to policy would normally require a change to policy which can't be done by five editors at an MfD (IAR results excepted); 2) The closer of the DRV suggested this as further appeal here, so this should not be considered forum shopping by the User:Apovolot, even if it is a bit excessive. (note I'm the one who closed the original MfD and deleted the userpage) --Doug. 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  Five was an arbitrary number, there were actually 11 who showed up to this particular MfD I believe.--Doug. 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

JodyB recently said in this discussion: "Consensus never trumps the policy". This statement contradicts with the FIFTH PILLAR of WIKIPEDIA, which says: "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules". Also - please note as Doug mentioned - there were 11 participants in Mfd discussion. Take out the submitter of Mfd (Nsk92) and myself (due to being possibly subjective) - this still leaves the number of independent opinions to be large - 9. Those 9 were roughly split in half between KEEP and DELETE. Such 50/50 split tells me that the policy is not clear on this subject and therefore due to no consensus, the KEEP decision should off been chosen. Apovolot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the fifth pillar interpreted completely wrong. The fifth pillar, WP:IAR, says rules can be bent "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages" (emphasis mine). There has to be a good reason fulfilling the above conditions to suspend the rule in question. It does not mean suspending rules because you want to. —kurykh 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized already, simply reading WP:5P doesn't help with understanding the nuances inherent in those pillars. It only serves to depict a general picture or scheme of things. You might want to read the policies themselves rather than just rely on 5P. —kurykh 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin of the DRV - The reason I told Apolovot to come here is that I wasn't quite sure where one went to appeal a bad DRV decision. I guess you could file a DRV to review the result of the first DRV, but I wasn't sure if something recursive like that would fly. I figured he could come here and get some other admins to take a look, as I am open to the possibility that I made a mistake and mis-read the consensus (or lack thereof) existing in the DRV discussion. I don't really want to say "Well, DRV is the end of the line and that's it", because I feel that there should be a recourse if a DRV is closed incorrectly. If that outlet is DRV itself, I guess that's fine, since DRV is for reviewing the results of deletion discussions, and DRV is technically a kind of deletion discussion. I'd appreciate some other editors' input on where you should appeal a DRV decision.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have actually had DRVs for DRVs (most notably for Encyclopedia Dramatica and shock sites like that). The recursion makes for a chuckle but most reasonable discussions are given some attention. But after a while new DRVs opened with no change in the underlying article/image/page get snow closed quickly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly appealing the Mfd decision due to the reason that there was no consensus between large number of respondents (9) and the opinions splitted as 5 -to KEEP in one form or another and 4 to DELETE. That contradictory split tells me that the policy is not quite clear on that case (otherwise why half of the people interpreted policy in ONE way and other half - interpreted policy in OPPOSITE way  ?????!!!!!). Now given that the policy is not quite clear on that case and no consensus - why Mfd closing admin desided to go with DELETE ? I understand that in Afd discussion the leaning towards DELETE is reasonable but in the Mfd discussion regarding innocent user page (as most of Mfd responders pointed out) - the tilt should go towards KEEP. Apovolot (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth are you still arguing this? By continuing to argue to have your userpage undeleted, you continue to look more and more like someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. So far, all of your contributions to articles have been either deleted or reverted. After the articles you created were deleted, you moved the content onto your userpage, and that was deleted. If you want to look like a serious contributor, I suggest you stop arguing and rules-lawyering (at least you dropped the "free speech" argument) and actually contribute. Mr.Z-man 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

@Apovolot: I guess I wasn't clear. You can't appeal the Mfd decision again. I directed you here so that other admins could review my decision on the DRV, not Doug's decision on the Mfd. You already appealed the Mfd once, to DRV. You can claim that my DRV decision was in error, which I would not take personally, and the admins and editors who watch this board would probably have a good idea what to do about that error. However, the original Mfd decision is essentially off-limits at this point. I know you disagree with Doug's reading of consensus, but that is water under the bridge as far as the community's concerned. You'll have to accept it and move on. Sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block needed for Apovolot?

I had a look at this as a completely uninvolved admin. What I see is a user with only 350 edits since signing up in April--only 25 of which (counting deleted edits) were to article space. The great majority of them were to project space and talk space. Is it just me, or is this someone who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia? I was about to summarily indef this user as someone who isn't here to help the project, but wanted to seek other opinions. Blueboy96 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached that point quite yet. He's been quite careful about following proper channels to challenge the results of the Misplaced Pages deletion processes. The fact that the majority of his edits have not been in article space is due to the simple fact that the articles he was first working on were all deleted, and he has been spending all the subsequent time trying to get them undeleted. This is not somebody who's wasted the community's patience yet, this is somebody that needs to spend some quality time at WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and then start poking around some WikiProjects or CAT:BACKLOG, looking for something to help out on that won't get deleted. He is not a vandal, nor does he some to be a troublemaker. He's a somewhat confused newbie, that's all. Let's not WP:BITE him quite yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool to the prospect of blocking a user indefinitely due to a lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. As arevanth says above, he isn't actively exhausting peoples' patience and he isn't being a troublemaker. We should just let this progress along normally. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - No block necessary, user just needs to WP:CHILL and read a few policy pages as suggested above. --Doug. 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone counsel User:Mooretwin?

This is similar to the "end of my rope" topic here. We have a user (the one above) who's gotten five blocks for editwarring (one later overturned when it was found out that he was editwarring with a banned user), who has a thing about changing articles that use uppercase as an official designation (for example, Special Protection Area) and trying to switch them to lower case. He's been quite persistent on it, even in some cases breaking category names by switching out the uppercase letters for lowercase. He's not gone over the line in any one thing to require a block at the moment, just persistent infringement in various ways. The latest is proposing a series of Requested Moves to lower case titles, and then a canvassing violation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitals.

So requesting moves - having been advised to do so as the proper course of action by another editor - is now an "infringement"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above, combined with an almost aggressive clueless-ness at times (I had to point him at the right area three or four times (an ongoing ArbCom case) for his accusations of tag team editing by some of the people opposing him in these battles).. it's become quite vexing for myself, and User:Ddstretch, and due to Mooretwin's contention that he or I have a "vendetta" against him now (see his talk page, my talk page and Mooretwin's talk page for the gory details), I want to see if a previously uninvolved administrator could look at this and try to break through in discussion. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this summary and the reasons for this request, which I could equally well have made and which I therefore support.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I was directed by both of the above editors to , and then accused of being obstructive because I couldn't read the comments, which were actually . DDStretch has also been following me around and hassling me and made unfounded accusations against me , and didn't have the courtesy to explain them. Mooretwin (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both SirFozzie and User:ddstretch. The issue of civility and personal attacks will also have to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Misplaced Pages's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My attention was brought here by this misleading edit, certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Misplaced Pages. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Misplaced Pages. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I perceive we have great difficulties with communication with some editors here, and I remember User:hopiakuta appearing here multiple times, and hasn't been around for some months. However, with regard to User:Smith Jones, he is capable of cogent editing (in written language terms) and claims no disability; if he did, perhaps the rest of us would be able to adapt to that. However, the question is how we should enforce standards when perhaps overall the balance is that he is a well-intentioned contributor. Has anyone suggested some kind of editing partnership? (I won't suggest mentoring because that would be patronising) He is clearly strong-willed, but on balance, unless he is supremely disruptive, I don't want to lose him as an editor here. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a mentorship would be patronising, but apparently something needs to be done. I find interaction with him in Misplaced Pages space and talk pages to be extremely irritating, but that's hardly blockable. I see several troubling examples above, but even those put together don't seem actionable. If there is some persistent POV pushing or ongoing disruption, I think some diffs would be helpful. As it stands, it appears we have an enthusiastic, well intentioned, strongly opinionated user who doesn't understand what the "show preview" button does. Unless there are diffs that show otherwise, I don't think this is actionable, and he's really not so active that undoing his problematic edits is too much of a hassle. AniMate 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply remind everyone of my favorite essay, WP:Competence is required, and move on.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Smith Jones isn't just his refusal to push the correct keys on his keyboard, but his repeated "mistakes", as noted above, with regards to deleting other comments, altering discussions at AN, and things like that. The refusal to attempt to spell words correctly is merely annoying. His frequent, non-sequitur comments and the fact that he frequently screws up talk pages (apparently innocently, but it still happens too much for my taste) is a problem going back months, probably years, and borders on disruption... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But is there anything that we can do about it? I've seen him constantly insert himself into situations where he just does more harm than good, yet it's all done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The essay cited by KWW above is particularly enlightening, and also remember that good faith is not a suicide pact. Where granting good faith to other users results in a net negative for the project, over many months and years then something needs to be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32. As for what can be done about it, I'll be the devil's advocate. It has been said that mentoring might be patronizing. Why? I've seen editors with less problematic behavior be asked (sometimes insistently) to seek adoption. If he truly doesn't get it, the only way to help him get it is to have some individual coaching and guidance. I believe it has been argued that this might not fit well with his personality. My devil's advocate response to that is, which is more important: Misplaced Pages, or going along with his personality quirks? Let's face it. He knows about this discussion. He is capable of seeing what we have to say about him. So why not talk directly to him? Having said all that, I truly don't want to alienate him needlessly, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock affecting logged in Wikipedians who have BT as their ISP

User:Elonka put an autoblock on an IP address that BT use. It has affected a number of Wikipedians that have BT as their ISP, including myself, User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:Snowded. Can this autoblock be lifted immediately as I'm having to use the secure server atm with all the problems that brings. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the same as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other. --NE2 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper block of Giano

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Giano was also affected by the above autoblock on half of London. He was venting on his talk page, and Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) came along and gave him an unauthorized civility block. If you check the recent ArbCom ruling, she's not allowed to do that. I recommend removing the block immediately. Jehochman 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally this also caused "half of London" - or at least myself - to then be caught up in a new autoblock. Guest9999 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It was a klutzy move all around. Jehochman 13:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly stupid of me to cause the autoblock as I was certainly aware of it, and I apologise for not thinking to uncheck it. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to go through Category:Requests for unblock-auto, update the template, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Giano II now unblocked, drama ensues... in other news... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, we are going to make this the last tupid trolled block of me, with a proper investigation of why this Admin blocked me, and make it a lesson to all who think like her. What I want to know is, why I was editing quite OK for some time before Elonka's actions suddenly block me, then why did the page telling me I was suddenly blocked transform itself into WJScribes election page, and then most importantly why some Admin arrived on my talk page (who has never posted there before) and start shrieking at me to stop being uncivil, and then when I told her to take her complaints to Elonka - blocked me! I want this thoroughly investigated - why was TKnott watching this page - what sent her here and why. If she had been watching this page for some time is impossible she she did not know of the Arbcom ruling, so if she was not watching she was sent! Either way she is in the shot! So lets have some questions directed at her. You can do them or I will, but asked and answered they will be! This morning I was quietly and happily editing a page then along come Misplaced Pages's admins - WHY? The Arbcom are quick enough to sanction me - now lets see TKnott sanctioned. I am sick of all these problems from incompetent Admins - this time I am going to have some action taken against them. This was ridiculous block with no justification or reason, what's more it was against an Arbcom ruling and the blocking Admin knew it. Now de-sysop her!Giano (talk) 14

• She could have had Elonka's page watched, and saw your interactions there and then come to your page... It really could be as simple as that. Oh, and personally, I would be very grateful if you would not insist on having admins desysopped for acting on behalf of editors for whom they have some prior relationship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, it was not a "stupid trolled" block. Using these labels is making you the troll, not them. --Matt57 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed a personal attack by you from my page . I suugets you leave these matters to those that understand them before you to are blocked. Giano (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please dont personally attack admins by calling them stupids and trolls. And dont threaten me. --Matt57 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, enough is enough. Regardless of the legality of the block, your actions (calling people stupid and idiots) are getting so annoying. Get a moment and ask yourself why none of the autoblock victims used such a language and see if you merit a long-term block. You are not alone in the project and you must respect people who are sensitive to your usual words "stupid" and "idiot". -- FayssalF - 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

when an Admin mis-uses her tools to block half of one of the World's largest cities and its inhabitants are still being blocked four hours after she was told to desist - you tell me who is imcopmpetent and stupid? Instead of chasing me, the Admins should have been sorting it, but that is too much to ask!Giano (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please tell me how Elonka knew she was blocking half of London? How was she aware of the IP address of that user when she blocked it? How, also, did she then restore the autoblock again if she hadn't edited since five hours before those second autoblocks occurred? either way (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this block is against an express Arbcom ruling, I propose it be brought to Arbcom Enforcement. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not a civility _parole_ block, so the limitation of the parole is not relevant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apoc2400 is correct. The Arbcom motion specifically states that Giano shall not be blocked citing the RFAR as justification. This was simple, garden-variety incivility. Giano doesn't get a pass on incivility because the Arbcom revoked a previous restriction. Horologium (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... the Civility Parole was superceded by the ArbCom requirement that such proposed blocks be directed to them for agreement; that is exactly the purpose for that wording - to diminish the disruption that is the frequent result of Giano being blocked for perceived incivility that the parole had failed to address. The civility parole was originally produced to deal with "general incivility" concerns regarding Giano's conduct, which I suggest TK's block fell under. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Do I got this right? An Administrator has to check with Arbcom, before blocking Giano II for civility breaching GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a magical possibility we should concern ourselves with: some admins will run into Giano, block him, and not have any idea that Giano has an Arbcom restriction against him, nor that ArbCom has limited the restriction in that way. To many admins, not out of any philosophical issue, but simply a perspective issue, see Giano as a normal everyday editor and will act accordingly.--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Understand folks, this could be seen as a 'double standard' treatment. Rightly or wrongly, the question will be asked Why is Giano, so difficult to block, when he's been un-civil? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the wisdom of the block, the people involved, or especially the ArbCom ruling itself: I agree that, because the ArbCom ruling prohibits only "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole", a block for incivility (as opposed to a block to enforce the civility parole) does not violate the ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, we would have to believe that the ruling was intended to allow one specific user to violate the civility policy, of which I see no indication. Given that the block seems to have been lifted, I don't think that further discussion or admin action is needed here.  Sandstein  17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't block Giano! Only arbcom can authorize that, and they won't. Good trick. Chillum 18:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems they just did. - auburnpilot's sock 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. I'll get the popcorn. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to arbcom, I was mistaken. Chillum 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Do shut up, Chillum. Must you seize every opportunity to post mean, spiteful, petty, trite comments about Giano? What's so irresistible? Do you suppose they amuse? You don't edit a lot these days, do you? But if it's Giano it seems to be always worth logging on. Here's a suggestion for you to behave with more self-respect on Misplaced Pages. How to comment with more beauty. With less blah. Here it comes: practise seeing something about a Giano block and saying nothing. Nuff-fing. Try it once. Sit on your hands. Walk away from the keyboard. Leave Giano alone. And when you've infused the beauty, the next step is the generosity. Right now would be a good time to start these exercises. Blatherskite! Bishonen | talk 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

• The block that is the subject of this discussion was lifted, and like Sandstein, I don't see any further admin action that can be taken either. This discussion has clearly reached its close - the snide remarks and attacks need to stop; regardless of whom they are towards/against. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Developer needed

Any chance we can get a developer to add a feature that the autoblock is turned off by default, and a warning message displayed, for sensitive IP addresses? When a clueless ISP implements proxies without XFF, we should have the ability to turn off autoblocking on those IPs to avoid causing excessive collateral damage. I can understand how an administrator may not know or notice that an IP is listed as sensitive. Jehochman 14:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that ISPs using XFF is not enough. XFF usage on Misplaced Pages needs to be whitelisted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very sensible move. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of {{sofixit}}, I recommend the filing of a bugzilla request; adjustments or additions to the MediaWiki software are almost-never made without one. AGK 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who's heard of the Autoblock whitelist? — Werdna • talk 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I'll go add that IP to the list as soon as I find it. Jehochman 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a checkuser please figure out the IP address of that proxy and whitelist it please? Jehochman 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RE: Block of Ashley someone or other says 194.72.9.25 (talk · contribs). --NE2 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP's contributions look like the represent half of London. I'll check it and see if the IP is currently softblocked and then consider what to do. Jehochman 15:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've whitelisted that IP so there will be no further autoblocks generated there if one of the many named accounts on that IP happens to get blocked. The IP itself is softblocked for excessive vandalism. Users there will need to create an account, at least until BT boards the cluetrain. Jehochman 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Best practice

Ok, something for admins to take away from this and apply to general situations is to improve the clarity of communications when discussing autoblocks. Many users aren't familiar with them, even though many users at some point will be hit by one. Autoblocks can be confusing for the blockee as they themselves have not done anything wrong. So when responding to a situation where a user has obviously been autoblocked (ie, they are reporting as blocked but there is no entry in their block log) make sure to clearly explain to them what an autoblock is, and what they need to do to help you fix it.

The other thing would be making MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext more clear. Suggestions would be welcome. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A damn good start would be to stop hiding the instructions on how to request that the block be lifted. Thoroughly confused me when I was caught in an autoblock recently. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at improving the documentation. The instructions are now unhidden and the explanation is more precise. Jehochman 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've suggested another improvement at the talkpage. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IP Block exemption

I'm sure the question is probably being asked somewhere about this, but should we start being a little more liberal giving out IP block exemptions as a result of this? If a well-established regular user is affected by a London autoblock, why not just go ahead and give them an IP block exemption for the duration of the issue? --B (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if an IP address is shared by a small number of users, then we should help the innocent users individually with IP block exemptions; if it's an address shared by many users, then exempt the IP address from autoblocks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas and OTRS

There has been considerable debate about her date of birth, leading to my protecting the page. As you can see from the talk page and from a comment on my talk page here , a change was made through protection on the basis of something via OTRS, which no one has since been able to verify and which is still being challenged. In order to avoid further edit warring, I'd like to know what to advise editors such as the one who posted on my talk page how to best proceed. And I'd like to get to the bottom of whether this edit through the block was actually justified by incontrovertible evidence. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned. If it can't be verified through the location of the respective ticket at OTRS, the information should be removed. Caulde 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

otrs:2164024. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't access that, so it's of no use to me. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just tried to have a look, but it's not in one of my queues so I can't see it either. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that the ticket says "1974" and that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. John Reaves 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how it can be verified that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. And also, even if that can be verified, do we then simply take their word for it when it is not completely impossible that an actor/actress might have an interest in claiming to be younger than they are. The Los Angeles Times seems to disagree (maybe the solution is to put in two dates?), there is a claim that it is actually a cousin with the same name that is supposed to be born in 1968 according to friends, but then if there are two people with the same name...(apologies, forgot to sign this) dougweller (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the issue, besides how one would know it is from the actress Sofia Shinas. A Windsor Star (Canada) article lists biography information on the actress in an article they wrote about her, which included an interview. In the article (from May 28, 1994) she was listed as 26 years old. The article also report that "Toronto-Born Shinas grew up in Windsor, where the rest of her family - parents James and Lela, and brothers Gus, Chris and John - still live. She attended Roseland elementary schoool and spent part of her high school years at Kennedy Secondary School before finishing up at Sandwich Secondary School." She graduated high school. Another article from the Los Angeles Times, the abstract of which is here, stated Shinas went to college for a little less than a semester, worked on a Detroit TV show, was in New York working, before moving to Los Angeles about two years ago (from the date of the article in 1992). So let's see, two years in LA, plus a semester in college plus time in Detroit and New York. Even if the college semester and Detroit and New York time only totalled a year, then she started college when she was 15? And left and went on to work when? Late 15 years old, early 16 years old? Moved to Los Angeles at age 16?? It seems much more likely that OTRS was given misleading information and the 1968 birthdate is much more likely and 1974 would be next to impossible. If Sofia Shinas had been some sort of prodigy, it would seem likely that the interview would mention that. Oh wait. The interview says she's 25 in 1992. Oops. Wouldn't one think had the Los Angeles Times overstated the age of an 18 year old prodigy by seven years, it would have been corrected? Since there seems to be other women named Sofia Shinas in Canada, perhaps information from that person is what was submitted. In any case, this still seems dubious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't verify anything without a copy of a birth certificate. Speaking of which, I understand the lengths people will go through to hide their age because I've actually handled a case where someone sent in an obviously forged birth certificate. In regard to the article issue however, I suggest simply not putting a birth date at all. Without a definite source, it is better to have nothing than to have all of this kerfuffle. John Reaves 07:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vacation day

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

If you're like me, you spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages. If you're reading this post, you probably spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages in the places that make people miserable, or at least see a lot of people being miserable over Misplaced Pages. Admins especially, deal with a lot of dispute resolution issues, arguing with people over page deletion, and arguing with each other over this or that piece of Misplaced Pages trivialities.

I say we take a break, together, for at least one day. There are at last count about a thousand active administrators. Misplaced Pages doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me, at least for one twenty four hour period.

So, my suggestion? Friday the 19th of December, turn off Misplaced Pages. Go call a friend, spend time with your kids. Read a book. Concentrate on your job, start your own wiki. Enjoy meatspace or the other parts of the internet or both. Spend time doing something that makes you happy that isn't Misplaced Pages. This project is important to all of us - but it isn't everything.

--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your basically opening both arms to vandals all across the world by giving admins a day off. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless, we get more bots! Caulde 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But what better time of year is there to show the vandals some love? -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that all 1000+ administrators heed my advice we have an army of normal every day editors who will watch over Misplaced Pages fine on their own.--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I dread to think what state Misplaced Pages would be in when we came back, for starters the CSD backlog would be in the thousands. It would be like a day of anarchy. So yeah sure, lets go for it. Why not make it December 25th?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacation is for those who are under occupation. Would you consider yourself under occupation? Sleaves _talk 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe not all admins taking the same day off, but how about admins randomly being selected to be de-sysopped for a week - just as a reminder of what it's like for the proles? DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not take vacations on different days instead of all at once? Chillum 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages with a massive drop off in administrator population (if that is what happens) will function about the same as Misplaced Pages on any other day. Maybe a little better - maybe a little worse, but it'll be fine. Remember, this is just one 24 hour period. --Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out if you're just messing around here, but if you're being serious I will point out that so far today, since about 7.30am (my time, I make it 7.30pm now, so you know) there have been about 2000 deletions and about 120 blocks and unblocks. Thats 12 hours. Imagine the immense backlog if there were no deletions or blocks for 24 hours. Not to mention the fact that it would be like an open buffet for every grawp/WOW/Zodiac wannabe in existence. Grawp accounts probably move about 20odd pages per account before we catch and block them, thats in the space of about a minute. Imagine what he could do in 1440.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that if every person who frequents AN and AN/I took a simultaneous 24 hour break, Misplaced Pages will be absolutely fine.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OMGZ Teh Wiki will collapse!!!111!! New policy to be enforced starting yesterday(Cabal decree# 35478B): Administrators must never go more than 3 hours without an edit or admin action! Mr.Z-man 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So just write a bot that runs every 2.5 hours which edits the sandbox. Xclamation point 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an incredibly silly idea. Why not instead of having everyone take the day off, we work to make this place more enjoyable for everyone? You can start by eliminating the troll-fest that is AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One simple thing that I think would help reduce the admin workload, would be if "create new pages" was only available to accounts that had been around for 24 hours. Far too often, I see people create a new account, and then within minutes they're creating absolute garbage pages which fill up CSD. If we could put a speed-brake on page creation, I think it would free up admins to work on other things. --Elonka 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not close Misplaced Pages for editing by non-admins for one 24-hour period? That way, if you want to take a day off, you can be sure no vandalism will occur. If you don't, you can engage in a lot of quiet backlog addressing. I think we should do that one day a month. bd2412 T 20:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I fully endorse Elonka's suggestion that new accounts should have to wait 24 hours before creating a new page. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, but it got shot down at the village pump recently, will put off too many new users apparently--Jac16888 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A ton of our new pages come from new editors sure a bunch of them are bands i've never heard of, but a lot of the remainder is Misplaced Pages's growth. Slowing down new page creation rates through time limits would make more sense.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this thread... –Juliancolton 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of blocking all non admins from editing for a day is the worst I have heard in my years here, it violates our w"wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ethos, divides wikipedia editors into admins and non-admions and postulates that admins are the superior editors. That sucks. Admins as a group do not need a day off anyway as individuals can take days off whenever they choose. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am suggesting that admins should voluntarily take a break and that nothing should be done to make it easier or harder for them to do so. The whole point is to disengage and realize that the wiki will survive, not to change the wiki around admin desires.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, our ethos is a means to an end, that end being the creation of an encyclopedia. If locking it up but for non-admins for a day (or even a few hours) out of every month were to aid in that process by giving the admins a chance to (a) catch up with the vandals and/or (b) cool off and get their heads together, it would trump the idea that "anyone can edit" should apply all day every day. That's exactly the reason why we do have restrictions on "anyone can edit", such as page protection, protections against page moves by newbies, and most recently requiring an account to start a new page. bd2412 T 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just give people credit for being self-responsible enough to manage their own time to take breaks when they need it for the durations that they need it. If you really wanted to enforce vacations, make it for everyone and put the server in view-only mode for 24 hours - or better yet, unplug the servers. Both of which make almost as much sense to me as an admin vacation day. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't at all intending to "enforce" a vacation day - this is entirely voluntary. The very real problem here is that Wikipedians in general, but administrators especially tend to end up with blinders - we spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages dealing with disputes and cleaning the backlog. The wiki will not collapse without any one of us, even any hundred of us for a day.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just shut down editing for a day! No vandals can attack Misplaced Pages if they can't edit...let's all just take a day off, put the thing on read-only and sit back and relax :-D SoWhy 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Go on, have a holiday. I'll keep an eye on the shop. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm working on writing a little booklet, it's great fun and it will be in real-book form (although self published) which is a nice thought. Of course I can't resist commenting on the wiki's dramas though:( Sticky Parkin 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Count me in. Friday 19th? Christmas shopping and Gogol Bordello at the Carling Academy here I come.… AGK 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that when all of the admins get back from this vacation they will find every single page on the English Misplaced Pages redirected or moved to a page entitled Grawp Rules the World or something along those lines :-D MarnetteD | Talk 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Christmas Day be a better day for you to take off? Surely thats the time to spend away from the wiki. Monster Under Your Bed 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting response

We are sort of...piling on this poor guy for just suggesting that people get outside and see the wonderful outdoors/their children/wives/husbands/etc. :) Protonk (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seemed to me that the only piling on is for suggesting we all do it on the same day. Looks like everyone agreed that individual wikibreaks (and especially drama breaks) are a good thing. (And not just for admins, either).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, drama breaks! It is Pantomime season in the UK (...Oh, yes it is!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't(sorry folks, I had to). Instead of an Admin Holiday day, why not have an Admin Appreciation day where we all get free cookies and tea--Jac16888 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwiboo

Can someone with more patience than me keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kwiboo? I declined an A7 request on this based on an extremely tenuous assertion of notability, and am now beginning to wish I hadn't, as the National Association of Single Purpose Accounts appear to have chosen the AFD discussion as the venue of their annual general meeting. – iridescent 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Those single purpose accounts are probably all employees of the company trying their best to make sure it stays on the pedia. The boss will probably give them a payrise :) Monster Under Your Bed 12:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Payrise? Ha! There's a bribe of free mints going for anyone cunning enough to seize it. --fvw* 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Added notavote templates to this and also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Marshall (kwiboo), and added spa templates to the latter. Black Kite 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l help needed

We could use some fresh blood on the unblock mailing list. Any admins that would like to help can sign up at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l. John Reaves 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help (though I'm not around that much), but is there any way to prevent duplicate responses and make sure all emails are handled? Is there an unblock-en-l manual somewhere? Making people use the unblock request template seems a lot easier, for us anyway. --fvw* 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the confirm-i-am-a-wikipedia-admin special:emailuser link on the signup page doesn't work for me (the </a> and </div> are in the wrong order, which causes opera to not link). Probably not the source of the lack of volunteers, but it can't be helping either. --fvw* 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Link fixed. Prodego 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that wasn't actually the cause of the problem (I thought it awfully picky of opera), there's a stray " in the <a> tag, just in front of the href. --fvw* 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There isn't a way to prevent duplicate responses, but they aren't too common because you are supposed to cc the list on every reply. I've alerted the site admins to the problem you described. John Reaves 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed again. Prodego 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fvw, there's not really a manual as such, but the closest thing would be this - m:User:Isotope23/Sandbox. Sarah 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a link I just added at the bottom of that page to a Google documents page User:Crazycomputers wrote which contains some email templates people can use when replying to emails. Sarah 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Must be more Kentucky dialogue: "I would like to subscribe to the Unblock-en-l mailing list, and am an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. I have applied on the main page, and am sending this email to identify my username." :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

213.197.27.252

I see that 213.197.27.252 (talk block log) is blocked for a month because the SixXS's IPv6Gate automatically appends ".sixxs.org" to all URLs, breaking pages. Couldn’t we instead blacklist sixxs.org or remove it from edits with a bot? That would protect the project without the collateral damage. (If the bot solution is used, the bot should give a special edit summary so that it doesn’t look it was correcting vandalism.) —teb728 t c 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's an open proxy if I've read their description correctly. On the one hand I'm all for encouraging ipv6 adoption by making vandals get it so they can vandalise, but on the other hand I do kind of like our block open proxies indef policy. Your suggestion would be the very least yes. --fvw* 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocks on IP addresses are not policy but an ongoing cleanup task. I think I read a different description for this service, and the IP's admin seem to take abuse seriously. The real solution here is for the IP's admin to fix the problem, and I have been in contact with them to that effect. -- zzuuzz 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the ultimate solution is for SixXS to fix the problem at their end. But unless that solution is immanent, why not make a more targeted fix at our end than to block all SixXS users? —teb728 t c 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They have only recently been made aware of the problem, and their response seems promising. The quickest and most effective way to get the problem fixed, with the least collateral, in my view, is to block the IP and ask them to fix it. The majority of its edits would not stick if it was allowed to continue. Your proposals are definitely interesting though. -- zzuuzz 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Underage User, uploaded self image

User:Ricky_Oliver (Currently a SSP), claims to be 14 years of age and has uploaded an image of himself which can be located here. I don't know what to tag it as. Requesting immediate delete of the image. I have blanked the userpage and stated why I did it in a way the user could see. Rgoodermote  02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm... Why? He's been vandalising yes, but I'm sure we have plenty of wikipedia users who are under 18 and have pictures of themselves on wikipedia. In fact, quite a few of our articles have pictures of under 18s on them too. --fvw* 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly just do not trust this particular account. I myself had one from when I was 16. But that isn't the case. Because it is suspected to be a sock I am leery as to whether this is truly the person in question. You guys can decide that one. I just want to get back to being a gnome. Rgoodermote  02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is at Commons, here, so you'll have to request deletion there. We generally delete personal information related to minors on Misplaced Pages, but I'm unaware of Commons' guidelines on this matter. Cenarium (Talk) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there even a guidelines here for this? I know of an essay. Rgoodermote  04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Misread your comment. I went to commons and brought it to their attention. Rgoodermote  05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and indef'ed the user. Clearly, his pattern of edits (after running a comparison tool) indicates that he's Nimbley6. seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, should I tell the editors at commons this? Because I really do not like the image name and I do not trust that that is the editor. Rgoodermote  06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a very swift google suggests that the editor is who he claims to be. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the previous socks made it appear that the person was another child of similar age with the surname Nimbley. All we know is that the i.d. we have here (rickyoliver) seems apparently consistent with a person who can be found on google with similar characteristics, just as it was for Nimbley, who had a very different name of a child (the surname was "Nimbley" in that case, not "Oliver" as this person claims). However, we don't know whether the person behind the i.d. here (rickyoliver) is really the same as the person behind the person uncovered in this latest google search, let alone "Nimbley", whoever that person is. Given the similarity between editing behaviour that others have pointed out, and the apparent age of the persons involved, I think we need to err on the side of not wanting an image name of the sort that Rgoodermote is drawing our attention to: this isn't some kind of social-networking site, and so any description of oneself that includes "sexy" as a descriptor in the name needs some attention, particularly with the age of the person involved.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD automatic dropdown broken

The script in Sysop.js that automatically selects the correct CSD reason appears to have been broken by a revision to the MediaWiki software. It appears that the wpReason field is no longer automatically filled out with a clip of the article to be deleted, so the automatic detection doesn't work. Can somebody more familiar with the MediaWiki releases confirm that something changed? And then perhaps fix it/file a bug report? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to comment on this - there was a discussion earlier about changing the field to default to "blank" when deleting an article to avoid article text such as copyvio or BLP violations ending up in the deletion log. Perhaps that change has inadvertently overridden the CSD script? --Philosopher  09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have the automatic summary back. After getting used to it I find it time consuming to choose the correct option each time. --Tone 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look up the discussion later when I have some time (or if someone knows where it is....). The immediate question is what was changed to allow for the "blank" - was it something requiring the filing of a bug or merely a change in something in the Mediawiki: namespace? --Philosopher  13:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I too would prefer to keep the default deletion reason. There are quite a few previous discussions, the main ones being Misplaced Pages:VPR#Remove_default_.27content_was:....27_and_.27only_contributor_was:....27_from_deletion_summary and MediaWiki_talk:Sysop.js/Admin_opinion. The relevant pages are MediaWiki:Excontent and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor. Any current bugs are likely to be in MediaWiki:Sysop.js. -- zzuuzz 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not supposed to prevent the automatic csd selection, only the 'content was' and 'only contributor was'. We had to request a bug to allow a message to be blanked with '-'. Cenarium (Talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You know that if you click on "deletion" from the line "check links, history and logs before deletion" you get a prefilled deletion summary and always have? Perhaps we should make that link more prominent. Or someone could rewrite the sysop.js code to look for that link on a page and replace the link in the "delete" tab with it if it exists? Happy‑melon 18:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much liked having the automatic reason filled in (U1, A7, G9, etc.), and would like to see it back as well. --Elonka 18:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been using that link so much these days I didn't notice the prefill broke. But anyways, I much prefer Happymelon's suggestion of changing Sysop.js instead of simply readding in the prefilled summaries. Often the "deletion" link in the templates contains more information in the summary than the tab, especially for CSD tags which require parameters (I1, G12, etc.). Of course, standardizing the wording between the text from the link and from the dropdown menu would also be nice, but that's neither here nor there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice there was a link in the template, so obviously I've never used it. My usual method for deleting is to read the article, check the history to see if something wasn't overwritten or another CSD applies instead of the listed one, and then click the delete tab, so I miss the automatic selection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that link either. My general routine is to check the page history, then use Popups to quickly scan the contribs of the page creator to see if there's some other trail of messes to cleanup, and then I click the "Delete" tab. Also, in case it's useful to anyone, I obtain my list of articles to delete from User:Elonka/Watchlist, which shows me several candidates sorted by category, so I can choose if I want to do "hard" deletions that day, or easy ones. It also gives me a quick indication of whether there are other admin backlogs which might need more attention than CSD. I'm curious though about what kinds of systems that other admins use, to work through CSD? --Elonka 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is quite useful, I suppose. My usual sequence of clicks is something like opening several articles in question in tabs, chech each (click to history...), and then delete all that are to be deleted in a row. So the summary directly from the delete button not from the template, does come handy since it means less clicking. Besides, the prod templates do not have such link and this is really unpractical with the auto text missing now. --Tone 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{dated prod}} does have a "delete" link on the template once the five day time limit is up - it's at the end of the suggested deletion summary (following the timestamp notice) and will automatically use that summary. I agree with the others that having the deletion available from the "delete" button would be quite useful - I also usually delete the article when viewing the article history. --Philosopher  16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedia77 & User:Encyclopedia76

• Main account - Encyclopedia77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alternate account - Encyclopedia76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has become (or more likely always was) a serial pest. He first came to my attention when he attempted to bulldoze edits into Windows XP. These edits were opposed by two other editors and me. Rather than discuss the edits, as he was invited to do, by way of edit summaries and invitations on his talk page, he chose to edit war to the point where it was necessary to give him a 3RR warning. Since then, there has been no improvement in his editing style. In fact, there seems to have been a decline. He even listed me at WP:AN but it backfired, as can be seen by the comments in that entry by other editors, when his editing style, which shows a history of questionable activity including harrassment, incivility, deletion of content, creation of inappropriate articles, revenge nominations at WP:TfD, placing inappropriate warnings on user pages and so on, was questioned and criticised. Many of the edits made by this editor have been made incorrectly, resulting in the necessity to follow him around to fix up his inevitable errors but I'm not entirely convinced that these errors are accidental. His edits to various chemistry and other articles show a reasonable level of intelligence making me suspect that the "errors" that he makes are subtle vandalism rather than straight errors, which is one reason I have listed this editor here. Some notable examples of his questionable and inappropriate edits are listed in the WP:AN entry. I will not relist them here for the sake of brevity. Other notable examples are:

• 19 November 2008 - By his own admission, Encyclopedia77 was a vandal for some time and was blocked twice. Ironically, his claim to be a vandal fighter occurred 5 days before his second vandal block. This vandalism was perpetrated after his epiphany.
• 25 November 2008 - Asking an administrator to ban me for 5 hours for not allowing his edits into Windows XP. Also asked admin to delete his request, I assume so I wouldn't know who made the request. Naturally, the admin's response was in the negative.
• 4 December 2008 - Placed a warning on an anonymous IP's talk page that was not completely valid. There is no indication that North Carolina Research and Education Network ever made the request indicated in the template.
• 4 December 2008 - Incorrect addition (see {{WPAuto}}) that resulted in a minor corruption of the page that needed to be fixed. I'm not even convinced that E77 is aware of the requirements for a B-class article and I note he hasn't returned to the page to fix his error. That aside, he clearly didn't bother checking his edit after making it.
• 4 December 2008 - This warning was the first and only entry on an anonymous IP's talk page. It is "strange" because the warning was for an edit made 6 weeks prior to the warning. The reversion of that edit wasn't even made by Encyclopedia77 and that was the only edit ever made by the IP. It was a pointless edit.
• 8 December 2008 - Revenge nomination at TfD. After things started looking bad for the templates he'd created (all were eventually deleted) he nominated Template:Repeat vandal, a high use template used on over 4,000 pages, for deletion. That it was a revenge nomination wasn't lost on editors.
• 9 December 2008 - Votestacking. Using an alternate account he created Template:VandalNoticeSmall, which had questionable wording that seemed to misrepresent policy. He also created two redirects to the template, one of which ({{PlzIndef}}) was an improbable title. I listed all 3 at WP:TFD, along with another ({{ImageCopyrightVandal}}) that was redundant, as its fuctionality is already covered by existing templates. After he created {{VNS}} he actually asked the admin he'd previously contacted to protect the template so only he and admins could edit it, which was clearly against policy. When things were looking bad for his tempates he contacted the same admin and asked the admin to vote to keep his template. The admin voted to delete.
• 9 December 2008 - Creation of inappropriate page that was deleted as vandalism.
• 13 December 2008 - Blatant vandalism by alternate account. Replaced article content with "Pretty pink ponys rock"
• 13 December 2008 - Editing warning made by another editor. He has previously been warned about editing comments made by other editors.
• 14 December 2008 - As revenge for my TfD nominations of his templates he nominated {{Suburbs of Port Stephens}}, a template that I had created, for the reasons "Does not seem to be useful. I mean, c'mon! Suburbs? Every template like this i've seen has been deleted." The listing was closed as a disruptive nomination.

Encyclopedia77 has made a number of other edits that, while trivial, paint a picture of a rather peculiar editing style. A short time after he requested that I be banned for 5 hours, he made a mysterious post to another user's talk page. This appears to have been made in response to this warning for one of his deletions of Talk:Windows XP#Recent edits by User:Encyclopedia77 (). This post, made to the talk page of the admin he's been talking at apparently confused the owner of the talk page, which he thought was funny.

I'm not sure what the appropriate resolution is for this problem. I'm a big boy and can tolerate the posts on my talk page but this is a high maintenance editor with an unacceptable editing style. The creation of an inappropriate page on 9 December 2008 and the blatant vandalism by the alternate account on 13 December clearly demonstrate that he has not left his vandal days behind. It's ironic that on the same day he removed the claim from his user page about now being a vandal fighter. Something needs to be done about this editor. He's wasting a lot of other editors' time. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking out... at least one of those diffs was legit, jfyi ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Part of me thinks we shouldn't rush to judgment, so if y'all don't mind... I think 77 has zero clue, but not necessarily zero good intentions ;-)

Message to Aussie: The vandalism from Encyclopedia76 was to see how newcomers get treated for vandalism, and also to prove to a visiting friend that vandalism gets reverted quickly. I had labeled the warning as "to see how newcomer vandals get treated"() (check timing of edit). Thank you for your time. _{Aussie, please do not continue to revert any edit I make, you are lucky that I haven't created a report for you.}The Ununoctium warning was because someone forgot to warn the vandal, as it was clearly vandalism.

I used to like Misplaced Pages until the big bad wolf came along. Because of the windows XP thing, she/he has been stalking everything I do. Misplaced Pages has a NPOV? I wonder why other editors think she is acceptable and I am not. It was not a disrupted nomination, nor was meant to be (TfD). And, please ask Aussie to STOP STALKING ME. Anything I do is undone by her. D***it! I'm just trying to have a fun time writing an encyclopedia! I ask Aussie to stop, but no. For some reason, he/she has to follow everything I do.

All I see in your reply are excuses for unacceptable behaviour and unsupported accusations. Vandalism is not acceptable under any circumstances. As for being lucky that you haven't reported me, perhaps you forgot that you already have, although not with the results that you'd hoped for. You were challenged then about your accusation that I reverted every edit you made but you were unable to support the claim. As I've already told you, I will continue to repair the faulty edits that you make, like this and this, as any responsible editor should. If you don't want your errors repaired, don't make errors. You really need to start accepting responsibility for your mistakes and stop blaming others. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this matter may be at an end for now. The user has conveniently requested a temporary block from one admin, who refused. However, another editor has generously granted his request. I expect we'll be back in three weeks, unless he returns using the Encyclopedia76 account. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating a page which is blacklisted

Hi. I am unable to create an article under the name Allan Everett as it appears to have been blacklisted. I wish to make an article for someone by that name who played Australia rules football with and coached the Geelong Football Club. Would it be possible for an admin to unlist it? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have we got a page name blacklist? I thought we just protected them (and the redlink you gave isn't protected). Are you sure it's not the URL blacklist you're hitting with an URL in your attempted article? If you could put the article somewhere else I'd be happy to move it to that name. --fvw* 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the following message - "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on either the local title blacklist or the Wikimedia global title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do." Jevansen (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Golly, we do have a title blacklist: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Live and learn. This seems to be what's causing the problem: ".*Everett.* # Used for harassment username and page creation - remove end Dec 2008". Could you create the article or a stub for it somewhere else, say at User:Jevansen/Allan Everett? Then I or another admin can move it into place. --fvw* 13:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't difficult enough I'm even unable to create a page under that title lol. I've created a stub under User:Jevansen/Draft, if you or someone else could move it to the correct title then that would be great. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moved. Redirect deleted. --B (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Only remaining problem is that the talk page remains unaccessible as the same message appears when I try and add a project tag. Don't know if it's possible to move talk pages but I you can then I've added the tag to User:Jevansen/Talk:Draft. Thanks again. Jevansen (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... didn't think about that ... done. --B (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexandros Grigoropoulos

Please remove the reference to the petrol bomb, it is false and defamatory. Despite being mentioned in the first reports as an 'official police statement', it was actually only a leak that later proved to be false. It was the first account of the events as told by the police guard. In his statement to the court he makes no mention to a petrol bomb and refers being attacked by "rocks, bottles, and other objects."(he wouldn't obviously forget a petrol bomb, would he? This is reported by eleftheros tipos(mainstream, conservative newspaper ). The radio conversation records released by the police also disproves this claim as mentioned in this article by elefthorotipia(again mainstream, left-wing newspaper , 3rd paragraph reads "no molotovs were thrown, there was no danger, only minor damages to the police car"). Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources in english, but you can run the articles through google's translate or ask a greek-speaking admin to verify my translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.215.60 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue and does not belong here. At any rate, the (protected) article in question, Alexandros Grigoropoulos, has now been merged to another article pursuant to an AfD discussion, so I think this request is moot.  Sandstein  17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts requested

Could a few other people look at the discussion at Template talk:POV. I would like to make the proposed change but obviously this is a widely used template and WP:BOLD doesn't allow for my fundamental cowardice. However, if no-one comes and objects, I'll likely grow a pair and change it anyway. Fair warning. CIreland (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody

Bbcody was blocked by Ryulong after only two warnings. I had talked to Bbcody about his vandalism (we had a long discussion), he had promised to me to not vandalize anymore. Since our discussion he has not vandalized again. I believe that the block was unfair and that he did not receive fair warning. Could someone please help. Mygerardromance (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's see. He's tried to get an autoblock lifted and was denied by User:FisherQueen. He then tried unblock again, saying that he had been blocked a year ago for vandalism, and was denied by User:Kevin. I'm sorry but I agree with Ryulong. Have him write an unblock request that doesn't play the "yes, I vandalized on 10 articles in 20 minutes but you only gave me two warnings" game. Two other admins have ratified Ryulong's decisions. He can try again but I would really really suggest he wait a while and try an better request. Also, the whining to you on his talk page in general, combined with your drama of "if he isn't here, I don't see the point of staying", is not helping the situation. He can appeal directly to the unblock email list if he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was going to take this down after the first appeal had been denied, but was too busy. So you can just ignore this now. Sorry Mygerardromance (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Plug and play

I moved the page Plug-and-play to Plug and play, however the talk page didn't move. I merged the content from the Talk:Plug and play into Talk:Plug-and-play and turned it into a redirect, but the move function still refuses to move the page so the talk page is now completely separate from the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --Stephen 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hi, I am having difficulty with this user and even having a conversation had proven to be a challenge. I have tried to reason with him despite his past but it seems like my attempt was futile.

In all fairness he hasn't done anything truly disruptive on my dealings with him so far but his past history is of concern. It may be time to review his contributions elsewhere. He seems to be trying to enforce MOS issues and treating MOS like the law. He is also seem to be quick to revert or semi-revert.

I am not necessarily calling for administrative action as I am not certain one is warranted. I hope this thread will determine it.

-- Cat 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Telling Andy to slow down on his editing because you had an edit conflict with him doesn't seem appropriate to me, nor does this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a single edit conflict. It was many (, , ). And the problem is not the edit conflict itself but his tone trying to dictate everything without giving the hint of compromise. I believe that was why he was banned from the site for a year but I am not sure. -- Cat 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that it's better for other people to wait on you than it is for you to use the preview button?—Kww(talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we lack the technology to review edits to templates and their effects on the transcusions. -- Cat 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't. Create a userspace version and preview it's transclusion in other articles (or even better perhaps, copy an article into your userspace for testing; but I prefer keeping two tabs open, one with a preview I can refresh, and another where I can perform my template edits). FWIW, I also don't see the problem here. Edit conflicts happen, if you'd like to avoid them consider testing your changes in userspace first, then moving them to the template when you've verified they work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an {{in use}} template, no idea if it works for other templates but it can certainly be useful. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that even relevant? Using that would probably break the template! I was making minor alterations only. You do not make edits right after the second other people make! I for example typically give people a good 5 minutes and expect others to give me that much time after I make my edits. This general courtesy of mine of course does not extend to pages like ANI which gets many edits in five minutes. Seriously, what is the rush?

SqueakBox have you actually reviewed his contribution or will I be subjected to brutal criticism yet again before someone actually reviews my complaint?

-- Cat 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very aware of Andy's contribs, indeed its because his page is on my watchlist that I picked up on this. As someone who uses my watchlist extensively to edit I would never wait even 5 seconds to edit an article that someone else has just edited, I see an article on my watchlist and I edit it, often my edit has no relation to the edit asomeone else just made. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said the request was to review his over-authoritarian tone. Not because he edit conflicted. You are missing the entire point. -- Cat 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So take it to WQA, instead of trying to get a user blocked (or whatever other administrative action required posting on ANI) over fairly minor incivility by dredging up his unrelated arbcoms. I agree that Andy overreacted a little here, but so did you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd)

// roux   03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the just-concluded ArbCom elections, Kmweber (talk · contribs) (hereafter, "Kurt" or "Kurt Weber"), set a new record for votes in opposition to an ArbCom candidate and, indeed, in opposition to any specific editor for any position of trust within the community. As the oppose votes mounted quickly, it was reported that he had been contacting his opposers on IRC, if they were there, and asking them his catch phrase question: "Why do you hate Misplaced Pages"?

Having read this, I appended to my oppose vote a suggestion that he be banned due to the continuing disruption he causes here. Two other usersSecret and Mike.lifeguard, made the same suggestion (the latter amending a previous oppose to include it, as I had), and Sceptre, Sandstein, CComMack and Angr all expressed surprise that this hadn't happened yet.

Misplaced Pages hates Kurt. Or enough of it does that I think, per my own comment, that we cannot not have this discussion (One was opened up two days after the vote began, but closed quickly on the grounds that it was not good timing to start that discussion while the vote was open and Kurt had not withdrawn). Rereading the oppose votes, I cannot help but conclude from them that the community has lost its patience with Kurt Weber.

I have not followed this long-running drama closely, but I am certainly aware of it from a distance. I have no personal stake in this: I was not a self-nommed RFA and Kurt did not vote in mine. Other than a fleeting recent exchange between us(him, me), we have no personal contact.

But I can nevertheless think of several reasons to ban Kurt:

• Chronic failure to assume good faith and personal attacks. Every single oppose vote to a self-nommed admin candidate that stated that self-nomination was prima facie evidence of power hunger was a bad-faith personal attack (if it was purely about principle, he could have just voted neutral, or not voted at all) violated both policies. Every single "Why do you hate Misplaced Pages?" to someone he disagreed with was an assumption of bad faith. And this has gone on for a very long time.

• Chronic disruption of Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. All the RfA votes, which I was told by a bureaucrat at a meetup were routinely discounted, and this recently-concluded ArbCom candidacy.

• Explicit statement of intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages in the past, and the future. The past part of this is the WR thread (I can't find the link right now) where Kurt offers to help Karmafist sock Misplaced Pages. There is absolutely no defense to this. The future is his very recent declaration that a civil war is the "only way to save Misplaced Pages at this point".

• Duplicity Admitting that "an honest answer would get me banned" means all good faith is forfeited. And to have that as your edit summary and a sole response to a set of very pointed and personal questions from a well-respected current ArbCom member when you blank those questions is the height of incivility, as well.

• Off-wiki harassment. The aforementioned IRC trolling.

Ask yourself, if you were a manager and you had an employee who had, despite progressive discipline, carried on and continued to carry on the way Kurt has, would you not fire him? How would you explain yourself to your superiors or the company's lawyers if you didn't?

Yes, I respect that Kurt has his virtues. He isn't a vandal, doesn't sockpuppet as far as I know and has respected at least the letter of past sanctions. And he has a great sense of humor. Yes, especially that, he does (But do consider this shining morsel of Weber wit, cited by no less than three oppose voters).

But I think that's the most telling symptom of the problem. Kurt has a great sense of humor because, deep down, he doesn't take Misplaced Pages seriously. Durova was spot on here, and his response on her blog suggests someone seriously out of touch with the messy but ultimately beautiful business of creating quality content (This followup isn't encouraging, either).

Kurt's disruptive effect is, ironically, best illustrated by a discussion in which he himself took a negligible part: the Plasticup RfA. Here a self-nommed candidate immediately begins with a joke relating to Kurt's oppose votes, resulting in a discussion about the propriety of such jokes and oppose votes on that basis that might not otherwise have been cast, an "It is not all that funny" essay with the shortcut "WP:KURT" and an MfD. Amidst this sideshow, the nomination fails (though partly for other reasons; see my oppose vote among others). All this in an RfA where Kurt only posted his usual oppose along with a complaint that people should lighten up.

Shortly afterwards, it was agreed mutually between Kurt and the community where he accepted a ban from project space. I would like to think that was enough, but as we now know it wasn't. Kurt's not an asset to Misplaced Pages.

This discussion should not be seen as a referendum on Kurt's views on the RfA process or the ArbCom. The place to make a statement on that basis was the vote just closed, and that's done. This discussion is about Kurt's chronically disruptive presence, and whether we will allow it to continue, particularly given his recent statement of intent to continue such disruption for his own ends. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef ban - Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to this impeccably presented evidence, Kurt's last 50 mainspace contributions as of this post go back to September 25. This is not someone we need to keep around, and this would be far overdue. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nice canvassing, Daniel. This seems to be an attempt to capitalise on Weber's lack of support in ACE 2008 to banish him, despite the fact that little has changed since the last time you tried. Skomorokh 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support--I don't like seeing people banned unless they're just straight-up vandals, but this gave me pause. If the math in that diff is solid, it's really something to think about. Furthermore, this still makes me want to vomit every time I see it. GJC 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Kurt does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. At best he's an annoyance, and at his worst he seems to be actively working to bring disruption and drama to the project, merely for its own sake. None of his actions show any desire at all to improve the encyclopedia, indeed every word he utters here shows utter contempt for the project and for all its members. As he doesn't seem that interested in working with us to build an encyclopedia, it may be time to show him the door. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Kurt's entire AC run was predicated on disrupting the entire AC process if he were elected. He also claims that references 'aren't necessary', which is more or less completely missing the point of WP. // roux   01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• support strongly. He was foolishly given a last chance. He's wasted it. For all the harassment, trolling, and disruption, lets rid Misplaced Pages of him. Sceptre 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Just a point: the harassment has been going back months. I sent ArbCom some evidence while I was blocked, as he kept continuing. Another admin affected, who I won't name unless he/she comes forward, separately forward evidence to them back in August. Sceptre 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - he clearly does not belong here and should have been shown the door some time ago. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposewikipedia is about content. I checked a few of his contributions to real articles in the last few weeks. They were all good.Mccready (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Kurt? Contributing? I'm sorry, but Misplaced Pages isn't a comedy club. Sceptre 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me a content edit of his which wasn't good?Mccready (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that his contributions are bad, it's the fact they're so sparse compared to his trolling... Sceptre 01:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - strongly. Enough is enough. ayematthew ✡ 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Propose block of Daniel Case for abusing the arbcom voting process to find people to canvass. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Strongly. Sam 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• He still makes constructive edits. He still collaborates on talk pages. However, there's a clear and persistent social incompetence that is demonstrated repeatedly and, unfortunately, to the detriment of Misplaced Pages's collaborative environment and community cohesion. It's very unfortunate - Kurt is clearly a bright man - but if he refuses to change despite enormous pressure to do so, he needs to go elsewhere. If not by choice, by community judgment. Unrelated - Duncan, puh-leeze. If you're going to do that, do it in a formal manner, not as a backhanded "fuck you" in this debate. Tan | 39 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I have asked Daniel to withdraw his proposal because of the unethical way in which he canvased it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Canvassing is not the big issue here. This issue has been discussed before so it's not something that's suprisingly new and WP:AN is a page where a lot of people have on their watchlist that canvassing won't even make much of a difference. What matters is the big picture really. Y. Ichiro (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I believe that such canvassing shews bad-faith on the part of the person making the proposal. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  but if he refuses to change despite enormous pressure to do so — I don't think that's true. For example, someone made this exact same proposal a few months ago. To settle it, a set of conditions were delineated--not all of which I was totally happy with, but which I accepted, and have abided by since. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Except, when asked for the elections whether you were bound by sanctions or the like, you said "none that I consider legitimate". Nice try. Stop bullshitting. Sceptre 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Has the user done anything productive in the past 15 days? That is the date when voting started. -- Cat 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, like I say. check his content edits. Those who oppose by saying he should have more content edits also miss the point. Can anyone show a content edit that wasn't good? Mccready (talk)

• Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You want to ban me because of my opposes on RfA, even though I was repeatedly told that they were fine, and I haven't even done it in several months anyway? That's absurd.
• Posing a single question to some people constitutes harassment? That's absurd.
• The mailing list post was over a year and a half ago, was a one-time thing, and is the one thing I've done that I truly regret and was totally out of character--something I have expressed many, many times. There's a reason nothing like that has happened since.
• I've done everything that was asked of me the last time this came up, except for one minor digression that was quickly and cleanly handled, and nothing new has come up since.
• Seriously, this is patently absurd. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• To add to that: I realize that people can change their minds on what is and is not acceptable behavior. But when I'm told what I'm doing is fine, then to say "We've decided it's not fine anymore; goodbye" is ridiculous. The proper course of action is to see if I actually stop first. Everytime a situation like that has come up in the past, that's what's happened, and with positive results. If the general consensus is that what I've been doing and have been told is not a problem, is now a problem, then fine, I'll stop. But it's absurd to hold it against me for doing it during the time I've been repeatedly told it was not a problem. Nothing new has come up since the last time this was brought up; when it comes to light that there is a consensus against what I'm doing, I always stop doing it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt, instead of going on a sort of a ranting defense, perhaps you could give diff links to show some ways in which you have significantly helped Misplaced Pages, like a good-quality, referenced, and sizable article or article expansion; or perhaps some discussion in which you actually helped the community to reach a productive consensus.--MrFish 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Because I had figured my contributions spoke for themselves. I don't typically reference articles for several reasons: I don't think it's necessary—other encyclopedias don't provide references, after all; a lot of times what I write is stuff I know off the top of my head, so I don't have references readily available; and there are others who are better at that sort of work than I, understand the system more thorougly, and seem to enjoy it—so I let them do it and I continue doing what I do; it's specialization at its best. And I don't have a lot of experience reaching consensus on controversial articles because the subjects I work on just typically aren't terribly controversial (although recent discussion on Talk:List of NCIS characters may be relevant here). But if you want significantly-sized articles, Princeton, Indiana, Head gasket, Gibson County Courthouse, Indiana Marching Band State Finals, Testor Corporation, and Russell G. Lloyd, Sr. come to mind off the top of my head. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something, but WP:BAN#Community_ban says "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned. In some cases the community may have discussed the block on a relevant noticeboard, and reached a consensus not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community" and listed on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users.". Call me a process wonk, but since Kurt isn't currently actually blocked/banned, isn't this discussion out of process? Black Kite 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  He's not banned for several reasons. For one, he's a "critic" and blocking him would be "censorship". Secondly, I've talked to several administrators, who agreed he should be banned, but they couldn't (Coren because he was an opponent in the ArbCom elections, Ryan Postlethwaite because he was involved, some because they couldn't act on the evidence as it was confidential)... as I've said, ArbCom are aware of the problem, but they haven't made any decision yet. Sceptre 01:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  There's an arbcom case? DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  ArbCom have been given the evidence and they're considering it, last I heard. Sceptre 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Has Kurt been told about this and given the opportunity to question the "evidence" and make a defence? DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I haven't heard anything other than that they're considering it. Sceptre 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Did the person or persons who presented this "evidence" to arbcom have the courtesy to inform Kurt about it? Or has the memory of a recent arbcomfubar slipped everyone's minds? DuncanHill (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I refused to deign to informing him. And I really didn't want to give AC more fuel than neccesarry. Sceptre 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well I hope you get treated with more decency than you choose to extend to those you are trying to get banned. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I only extend decency to those who deserve it. And incidentally, I didn't. Sceptre 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Overdue. Eusebeus (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this is absolute nonsense.--Gen. Bedford 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Kmweber is not here to build an encyclopedia but to cause drama and ill-feeling wherever he goes. Reyk _YO! 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ahhh....I feel like echoing BK here. Kurt isn't blocked indefinitely. He was previously and he was unblocked upon request. I understand that people are fed up w/ his BS, but I'd prefer that we not tally a vote to see if we want to see him gone. That's not a community process I want to be a part of. Also, making a stunt candidacy for Arbcom isn't a disruptive act. We don't have mechanisms to keep candidates like Kurt and RMHED (neither of whom will win) off the "ballot" but it also doesn't disrupt any other candidate (people can vote for as many or as few candidates as they like). I would much prefer we just give the message "There are loads of people who aren't pleased with you and so very few of us will stick our necks out to help you if you are blocked again. Don't get blocked again." rather than banning him in this discussion outright. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  No. He was unblocked on the proviso he kept out of trouble. He didn't. Coren regretted unblocking him after he was aware of the level of harassment and disruption he still continues to this day. Sceptre 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see why he shouldn't be banned, so make that a "support", I suppose. And since when aren't we allowed to have community ban discussions prior to the ban, anyhow? --Conti|✉ 02:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've been told that, from Misplaced Pages Review, Kurt Maxwell Weber has repeatedly teased, taunted, and mocked me with his (other) catch phrase: "You lose. I win." - This is not a man who cares about Misplaced Pages. He cares about winning his sick little battles against people he hates. He also composed a list of people he thinks should be blocked (he posted on WR, I don't care to find it). On that list are good, kind people (excluding myself, I wouldn't want to be egotistical, I'll leave that to himself) who have always looked out for Misplaced Pages. And, yet, he still wants them gone because they disagree with him and his beliefs. His comments on Durova's blog should seal the deal: You can't say those things and expect good, honest, hardworking community members to support you. It demeans the community when you say those sorts of things. You've disrupted the community for a long, long time and they have been so LENIENT with you, but you just kept on pushing your luck. You need to go, Kurt. Support complete and permanent ban. Scarian 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is a benefit to the namespace. Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Being good articlt writers didn't stop people blocking me or Giano. Sceptre 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I never had a chance to advocate for you and I would have voted the same. And I want to see Kurt's next April Fool's prank :P. Malinaccier (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. I can't speak for the community, but my own patience was exhausted some time ago. Some useful edits do not make it worth the chronic incivility. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban for the reasons already cited and his attempt to create list of every person that ever lived (which got up to 50MB before it was deleted) in his userspace even though it was obvious that such a thing is blatantly innapropriate. Kurt is either a bad faith troll or just fundamentally incompatible with Misplaced Pages. Icewedge (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Kurt's defense of himself is convincing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'd hate to see you vote in an election, if you believe bullshit so readily. Sceptre 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• So in short, nothing changed from the last series of sanctions, he's apparently respected them...the only thing that's happened is that people don't trust him for ArbCom. So if Sceptre or Betacommand were to reapply for adminship, could we ban them if they were rejected? I am sorry, this is just patently ridiculous. Oppose --Toffile (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  No. He wilfully ignored the parole. November 20 Sceptre 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sceptre, please accept the advice previously given to you and avoid commenting further in this discussion. You may take it as a given that your views are well-known and will be considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site-wide ban - Seriously, why hasn't this already happened. :/ If we don't completely ban him (topic ban will fail), he will just go back to current ways after a couple months and we will be right back to where we stand now. FunPika 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. This falls far short of outweighing the massive amounts of disruption this guy has caused. As to the idea that he has tried his best to change, I just don't buy it. He gets community banned from the project space in an attempt to make him focus on the mainspace...and he decides it would be a good opportunity to run for ArbCom? Sorry, I've had enough. AlexiusHoratius 02:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Let's see... disruptive activity, off-wiki harassment, persistent annoyances and point violations, modest contributions... we've banned people for less than Kurt's pulled over the years. Wizardman 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please do not use ArbCom election results to make your case - behavior during the elections maybe - but not the election results themselves. Under no circumstances should any user ever feel they are risking administrative wrath for participating as a candidate in an election. To be blunt: don't ever misuse election results again, it is reprehensible. I make no comment at this time to the merits of the proposed banning.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an extremely dangerous precedent. I disapprove with what Kurt says, but I will defend his right to say it within acceptable guidelines. I support a topic ban for any problematic areas, and escalating blocks for every infraction from here on out. It is legitimate to use humor and contrarian positions to communicate, whether we agree or disagree with it. First they came... Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Godwin; we're done here. Per Special:Contributions/Kmweber, user is leaving anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think it's going past Voltairian ethics. For example: marching on a Prop 8 protest is fine and dandy, but beating up Mormons on the way isn't. Sceptre 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a reply to Viriditas. Moved it upwards Sceptre 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: And good riddens. We've banned for less. Thanks for bringing this up Daniel. seicer | talk | contribs 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More limited topic ban

Perhaps a community-wide total site ban is over the top. It is clear (to me) that Kurt has exhausted community patience, but it is also clear that several people have noted that Kurt's article edits are on-the-balance beneficial. Would it be better to simply ask Kurt to continue his positive work on articles by removing his distractions? What if we make this a ban into an editing restriction, whereby:

1. Kurt is restricted to editing articles and article talk pages for the sole purpose of improving content.
2. Kurt should be proscribed from editing the Misplaced Pages namespace, except where he is directly involved, for example, where he is called to account for his actions in content editing (i.e. edit warring, etc.)

Kurt's disruption is solely tied to his interaction with the community, especially such processes as RFA and ACE and the like. Since these parts of Misplaced Pages are the sole source of Kurt's problems, and not his content work, this would allow for Kurt to have more time for content work, and us to have less time discussing his behavior. A win-win by all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We tried that exact parole three months ago. It didn't work. Sceptre 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. With enforcement this time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• If the community has a massive brainfart and doesn't ban him, support. A whiff of trouble, even one edit to the Misplaced Pages mainspace... he's gone. And for god's sake, enforce it this time. Sceptre 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, so long as it is enforced. –Juliancolton 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never interacted with this user, that I recall. From the links here he does seem to have engaged in intentionally disruptive behavior. Regarding his positive contributions, he has made only 500 article contributions in the last 12 months. At least a third of them are adding templates. A number have been the creation of unsourced stubs, like here. In short, I don't see his article contributions as sufficient to outweigh a record of disruption. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Kurt Weber

I will not take a position in this debate, and would have to recuse if this came to ArbCom again, but I would like Kurt to answer the following questions:

1. How much of what you have said both on-wiki and about Misplaced Pages elsewhere lately (e.g., that everyone who voted against you hates Misplaced Pages, that I myself hate Misplaced Pages, that I was part of a plot to rig the election against you by Oversighting your support votes, that you are the best content contributor on Misplaced Pages today, that there should be a community ban of Jimbo Wales, etc.) do you genuinely believe, and how much is just playing games and seeking reactions (intended to be a nicer wording than "trolling")?
2. To the extent it is playing games, will you stop? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think when it gets into the realm of actual harassment, it stops being a game. But I'll let Kurt answer regardless. Sceptre 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   Sceptre, may I politely suggest that you recuse yourself from further discussion? I think the reasons are obvious. Let people with less history handle this maybe? // roux   02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   The bit about "me being the best content contributor" was a joke; I do happen to believe I do better work than most, but no, I don't seriously believe I'm the best. You will also notice that that comment (as well as the bit about the election plot, you hating Misplaced Pages) were made off of Misplaced Pages. There's a reason for that. I'm serious about Misplaced Pages, and so I try to keep a lot of the less-serious stuff off Misplaced Pages where it's less likely to do any serious damage. It's mostly just blowing off steam and generally being a goofball; I do some of that on Misplaced Pages too, but in forms where it won't actually hurt anything. The sillier stuff that might actually hurt something, but I can't resist doing, I keep off Misplaced Pages. As for Jimbo...no, I don't think an actual ban is necessary. That'd just be way too acrimonious. I do think his time has come, and the community should just start ignoring him and blazing its own path. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think you realize how hurtful some of your "blowing off steam" and "goofball stuff" can be. For example, it's not particularly fun for me to have, say, put a couple of hours into writing up an ArbCom decision, and then to be confronted on IRC by you asking why I hate Misplaced Pages over and over again. And there are a lot of other people who have less resiliency than I do. I like to think I have a good sense of humor, and frankly you have made me laugh a number of times, but you have also made a lot more people upset and angry than you have made smile. People have been begging you for months to stop this kind of behavior, and you refuse to do it, and now we will see where this discussion leads to. Except that merely by having another endless discussion, we are validating precisely the same sort of behavior, so I suppose you win and we lose again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   Would bringing it up to me directly, and individually, not have been a better course of action? Near as I can tell, no such attempt was ever seriously made. My remarks about people "hating Misplaced Pages," or the AC election being rigged, etc., were so patently ludicrous that I can't possibly see how anyone would take them seriously. No one made any serious attempt to resolve them amicably; when people had a problem with it they went straight to block/ban proposals, so forgive me if I get defensive when that happens. Every time someone has had an issue with how I expressed something and tried to resolve it peacefully, it's worked. Problems have only come about when people have insisted that I renounce those ideas altogether, or have tried to resolve the situation with threats and strongarming rather than calm discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions, Kurt: 1) The bit about not citing your work: Why are you any different from the rest of us who do actually cite our stuff? What gives you the right to go and do that while the rest of us have to dig hard for sources? The Victor article you created was nearly deleted because your belief that citing is completely irrelevant. Hard working people had to cite it to save it. Have you even thanked them for it?! And why have you never explained that you think citations aren't needed because paper encyclopaedia's don't have them? Why does it take a ban proposal to get that piece of information out of you? Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encyclopaedia, so that "excuse" falls through. 2) If you're just being a "goofball" off-Wiki, then why is everything you say written in an incredibly serious fashion? You offend an awful lot of people with the things you say, do you have no empathy? Are people automatically expected to have a thick skin like you? Do you not care about the feelings of your fellow human beings? Scarian 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. For every bit of good he's done, he seems to be blatantly refusing to go with any of our policies, insisting that he doesn't have the time to learn such simple things as categorization, and thinks that such concepts as "notability" and "references" are total crocks, which completely goes against what we do here. He seems to think that he's different from everyone else, that he's invulnerable to our policies, and at times is prone to flat out trolling (see IRC, plus his run for Arbcom). Every time he trolls he seems to act as if he's "just joking" when his tone just doesn't suggest that. He was given another try and, decent article-space contribs notwithstanding, he's long since exhausted just about everyone's patience. Even if he's apparently leaving anyway, this could just be yet another stunt he's doing to attract attention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• In a rare case of good faith towards him, I'm going to offer this alternate explanation which I'm thinking of: playing Internet Psychiatrist™, I think he might have some psychiatric disorder (dare I say it, something like Aspie's) which prevents him from realising he's hurting people. It would kind of fit in; I often joke that every contributor is a "clinically depressed Canadian bisexual female-to-male transexual teenage girl". Sceptre 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as no reason whatsoever to impose ban, this is ban-madness thinking. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• On his retirement, I'll be honest: I'm convinced he's faking it to win sympathy, and he'll be back in a couple days after we forget about this thread. Maybe it's the cynic in me, or the complete exhaustion of WP:AGF.. Wizardman 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KMWeber thread post-archive discussion

Um... IS this resolved? If Kurt changes his mind next week and comes back (I know, I know... no one EVER says they're leaving and then comes back!!!! that NEVER happens, but bear with me here... ) then what? It may be better to get to some resolution here. Per Wizardman... we should come to a decision. Suggest unarchiving this and resolving it. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason for archiving is that on the face of it, Kurt seems to be gone, and therefore any further pileon--note that I am definitely in favour of a community ban--is both unnecessary in terms of any resolution it seeks to achieve as well as unnecessary from the point of view of needless haranguing of someone who has apparently chosen to leave, not to mention needless proliferation of drama and equine sadism. If Kurt changes his mind, it is trivial to unarchive this discussion and resume where it left off. If he doesn't, no purpose is served by continuing it.

My reserves of AGF are as depleted as anyone else's when it comes to Kurt, but it's not unreasonable to allow even someone so divisive as him to retain a few shreds of dignity if he has chosen to leave. The community has effectively already said "...and stay out!" to him; to continue the pileon appears to move the discussion from a reasonable--if heated--conversation on how to benefit the project into vindictiveness. Moreover, the continued discussion turns Kurt's potential return into a self-fulfilling prophecy; he's unlikely to stay away if people keep going on about it. The intent behind WP:RBI seems applicable here.

Nevertheless, if consensus is that the discussion must continue, by all means unarchive it. I just don't see the utility in continuing it when it appears as though any possible resolution this discussion could achieve would be moot either because he's gone (in the case of a ban decision), or because he's back (in the case of deadlock or consensus against ban). Should he return, and I agree it's likely, the discussion can be restarted. It's possible that he'll take time away and come back with a new perspective which would render the whole discussion moot in any case. // roux   05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a basic tradition/norm that if a user elects to leave this project, or stops editing, then whatever discussion concerning the user (whether it's a RFC/U or a community discussion like this one) ceases - the reason is because the dispute becomes resolved; an editor cannot continue to be a party to or the subject of a dispute if he is no longer editing. In any case, if a retirement turns into a temporary or long wikibreak, then on that user's return to the project, the discussion can either restart (or in certain circumstances, can continue from the point at which it was stopped). Kurt is no exception to our norms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My view here is that while it might be a tradition, it's not always a useful tradition. This is one of those cases... we have a consensus, or thereabouts, already on what to do... his leaving is just a way to duck facing the music, if you ask me (WP:AGF notwithstanding)... and his coming back later would be a way for us all to waste community time having essentially the same discussion all over again. Meh. If he comes back and returns to the same antics I'm just going to block him, refer to this thread, and post to AN/I and see if anyone says boo. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a block if Kurt does return, Lar. In fact, you'd probably have to beat me to it. GlassCobra 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a flame-out. Kurt has obviously burned out, and banning him would be vindictive at this point. We should hope that he goes away for a bit and then comes back under a new name to resume the good things he used to do before he got mired in Wikipolitics. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Guy. I actually feel this outcome is better for everyone, Kurt included. Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I third. In this thread Kurt has received very clear feedback about how his style of humour is received. Should he have understood this earlier? Probably, especially after so many took his RFA on 1 April seriously. On the other hand he is probably used to everybody realising when he isn't serious, e.g. because of nonverbal cues. I think now he has understood the problem, and intelligent as he is I am very hopeful that he will be more careful in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy, Dan and Hans. Let's all just move on. Verbal chat 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If this were the first time Kurt was nearly banned, I might agree, but it isn't. This is what? The second? Third? "Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion" - So we can have yet another drama-laden discussion about whether or not he should be sitebanned? I agree with Lar, I see no reason to waste more community time if he decides to come back, DFTT. (FWIW I support a ban) Mr.Z-man 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt kurt will return for the simple reason that he didn't leave a huge essay on his userpage about how crappy wikipedia is. Those people always return. He just wrote that he's left. Sensible if you ask me, he was a net liability. If he returns and doesn't act so political in future I say welcome back though.--Patton123 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree with Lar and Mr.Z-man, Kurt was a liability to the project since '2005. But because people have mixed feelings about this, I think it should go to WP:ARBCOM instead and let them decide. Secret 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since we evidently can’t resist the thrill of beating a dead horse, and votes for banning are still taking place even after Kurt has left and an attempt to archive the thread didn’t take, I’ll go ahead and register my objection to a site ban, to make it slightly harder (if Kurt ever does come back) for someone to point to this thread in the future and call it "overwhelming consensus for a ban". The whole Kmweber saga has been handled poorly on all sides, not least of all Kurt’s, but... I was all set to write more, but I won’t, since (a) it probably wouldn’t have been civil, (b) it sounded really holier-than-thou as I starting writing it, and (c) I think by now everyone’s opinion on Kurt is so hardened that no one is going to change anyone’s mind about anything. But for posterity, put this one down in the "don't push off a cliff quite yet" column. --barneca (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can cite mine and the supports to it as opposition to a ban - I'll not dispute what Secret says because I don't have much past interaction with Kurt (albeit that much of what I've seen is clearly vexatious) but the recent behaviour follows a familiar pattern from which some recover and some do not. Most of Kurt's problem behaviour is in project space, so there is no pressing need to banninate right now, let's just wait and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP templates nominated for deletion

This message is being made as a matter of courtesy to inform you that the shared IP templates {{ISP}}, {{MobileIP}}, {{SharedIP US military}}, {{SharedIPCERT}}, {{SharedIPEDU}}, {{SharedIPPublic}}, {{SingNet}}, and {{AberWebcacheIPAddress}} have all be nominated for deletion via TfD. Please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 14#Template:Shared IP Templates for the discussion. Please also note that I am not the nominator for deletion, and I have not weighed in on either side of the discussion; this is purely an informational message. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond and related pages

User:Ianbond has created the pages A Second Life multiple times after speedy deletion. He also creates pages for the founder of this movement, Christian Schoyen, which was also SD'd, and then Christian schoyen, which is up for speedy deletion. This user has been notified of his violation of WP:RPDA. I'm asking for a block on his account, along with page protection for Christian Schoyen, Christian schoyen, and A Second Life to stop all of this ruckus. Mononomic (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, pages have been deleted, and A Second Life has been indefinitely protected. Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not malware, but how do we handle this?

The first external link at article Kanpur Dehat district brings up a page that seems to launch a lot of popups. (I say "seems to" because I'm using a popup blocker and just get a lot of notices that popups have been blocked. I have not seen the actual popups, nor do I care to.) The second external link is to the same domain, but doesn't have this problem.

Should this link just be removed, should the external page be blacklisted, is it OK to leave it as it is, or what? The article does need other work, but I wanted to get some guidance on this first. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it should be removed. I left the link there, but removed some junk which had found its way in. Enigma 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What about warning it contains pop-ups? It seems to be the best link for the subject. Many people block pop-ups anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The link opens 162 popups to kanpurdehat.nic.in/present.htm (visit at own risk). That page contains the text; "Click to View Presentation On Kanpur Dehat" which is a link to a .exe file. Doesn't look good. --TheIntersect (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

179, actually. Look, any site that has 179 pop-ups that link to an executable file has to be either bad news, or hacked. We should remove the link immediately, blacklist it, and contact the sysadmin responsible for the site. Anyone speak Hindi? l'aquatique || talk 08:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More... I can't run a whois on the domain because the tld .nic.in isn't supported, but according to Misplaced Pages .nic.in is reserved for National Informatics Centre web addresses, ergo this is a government site. I still recommend the above course of action, it's possible they've been hacked or there's a bug. That number of popups on a browser without pop-up protection could easily crash a computer, there must be something wrong. l'aquatique || talk 08:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the page source, this actually appears to be a case of incompetence, not malice. The .exe file is in fact a short slideshow created using the ArcSoft VideoImpression tool, and the large number of (attempted) popups is probably the result of a botched edit to the site's Javascript. (The window.open call was mistakenly inserted inside a routine that is called on a timer.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp can help us here, I'll drop a note on his page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I can help. The site is the official site. It's true that several Indian government sites are poorly coded, the best example is the site where one files one's taxes online -- Google marked it as a malware page! So I suggest we leave in a link with a warning that the page opens 100+ popups. It appears safe to navigate with Firefox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As suggested by Zetawoof the problem appears to be with the code rather than the site itself. Considering that the is site hosted by Government of India, I doubt presence of a malware. The popups direct to an .exe file which contains a small video presentation. The number of popups also seem to vary with browsers for me: Firefox had 133, Chrome one, Safari zero. Not sure about IE but less than 10. Sleaves _talk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez....179 popups? That's about 180 too many for me. Could we perhaps no-wiki the link, seeing as how people don't always read warning messages BEFORE clicking? At least if we no-wiki it, the user will have to copy-paste it instead of just clicking; the extra step will slow them down enough to (I hope!) read the warning. Just a thought, anyhoo. GJC 13:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and nowiki'd it. Enigma 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just one pop-up for me (Safari on WinXP). DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

179 for me in firefox under Ubunutu.

I added a quick warning underneath the links instructing readers not to visit the sites without popup blocker enabled. I also added a commented message not to remove the nowiki tags. Think we can call this one resolved? l'aquatique || talk 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• That site sucks to a truly incredible degree, but it seems to be all there is. Since the article is a one-sentence stub and there seem to be virtually no other sources than that site why not upmerge to Kanpur? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we've got bigger problems. The article is a copyvio from here: . I'm going to have to delete it, but some of the information, paraphrased, might be able to be upmerged. l'aquatique || talk 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't nationmaster.com a crib from Misplaced Pages? And it's GFDL anyway. I suspect they copied us. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the nationmaster.com admits it's a crib from us "The Misplaced Pages article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." right down at the bottom of the page, in small-print. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And... I feel stupid. I really should get my horribly cracked monitor fixed... Also I should wear my glasses while editing! In any case, the article has been restored, but we still need to figure out whether we want to merge it. l'aquatique || talk 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog

SSP backlog is at what I think is an all time high. Several cases have been there for weeks. Any help is appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Kyoko Okazaki.jpg

This image was placed at WP:IFD on 30 November 2008 . A significant debate regarding the suitability of the image with respect to our policies of fair use images of living people in biographies has taken place. See Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_30#Image:Kyoko_Okazaki.jpg. The IfD page has been archived with all other IfDs on that page being closed, and this one remaining open.

An administrator familiar with our fair use policies needs to review and decide. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done —Angr 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete or not

I have got to go and I can not watch this page. I would like to draw attention to this userpage. I have marked it for speedy as an advertisement. The speedy template has been removed once and as I will not be here I can't ensure it stays by the time an admin takes a look. So, do what you need to. Happy editing. Rgoodermote  17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copy vio of this page---Balloonman 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've unmarked this done, per Krista's comment here. It looks as if her recording label, broken bow, might be going around creating user pages for it's recording artist in the user talk area. That way it gets around our notability requirements. I don't have time to investigate this further, but thought I'd drop a line here if anybody else wanted to look into it.---Balloonman 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I had honestly not seen that on my userpage. How odd. Hm, well I would assume that this means we have to do some hunting. I will get on that. Rgoodermote  21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in assisting. Look for artists from this website. Rgoodermote  21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I am perfectly fine with Krista continuing to edit. I have left a rather large note on her talk page informing her of the violations, what she can do to not violate them and asking her to tell everyone to stop what they are doing and made sure I was not mistaken for an admin. If anyone wants to comment what I said, please do. (I am leaving notes here just in case). Rgoodermote  22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For fear of being made a fool, can some one make sure that that website is the one? Rgoodermote  22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting others posts and revising posts after they have been responded to

An RfC is ongoing here at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Proposal_on_international_date_format. An editor User talk:2008Olympian, is changing his posts so substantially after I respond to them, that my responses are being orphaned since the original text to which I am referring is no longer there. Note these two posts (him at 02:03, 15 December 2008 and me at 02:34, 15 December 2008). Then, he changed his post to what you see here. Note how the text I was referring to Earth, Telescope, and Butterfly was deleted.

Then, another problem from another editor. This happened after I had complained about the above-mentioned violations of Misplaced Pages policy on posts, as you can see here. I had added The proposal has absolutely nothing whatsoever with trying to “determine what the predominant audience is,” which you stated here (difference) and then revised after I posted this rebuttal (in violation of Misplaced Pages policy and is exceedingly rude). Then, User:Locke Cole hand-deleted my complaint (not a wholesale reversion; a surgical deletion) difference here. Note also his edit summary: rm shortcut. His edit summary was written to hide what he had actually done. Both these editors have emotional, strident positions on this RfC so the possibility that this behavior is accidental and innocent doesn’t really pass the *grin test* here. I ask that these two editors have their behavior corrected. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove that text, that's the way it was when I edited it. Strangely it didn't edit conflict (even though I'd been getting edit conflicts all night and hand resolving them). Please assume good faith in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What you say you did and what the objective evidence based on the edit history says you did are two different things. Does this happen often to other editors on Misplaced Pages? Greg L (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. It's easy for a comment to get lost in a flurry of editing. Edit conflicts don't always get raised (which might have something to do with the database not being in perfect sync down to a resolution of seconds). --Cyde Weys 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I’m not talking about an edit comment being left off; I’m talking about someone removing text that others have posted and the database says that this edit was done by a certain someone. Very well. I will have to assume that text that someone deleted was falsely attributed to Lock Cole by an error in the database. If this passes the *grin test* because it not a rare occurrence, then that’s fine.

  That leaves the first part of my complaint against 2008Olympian as remaining quite valid. He has engaged in repeated, wholesale revisions of his posts—going back and deleting the *inconvenient* text from his original post(s) that I quoted in my rebuttal. Methinks I am right to cry “foul.” Greg L (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about edit summaries; I'm talking about comments made in a discussion (like this one). The edit conflict detection code is not perfect, and in particular, I believe it relies on the databases being in sync. It has nothing to do with a deletion being falsely attributed to someone and everything to do with two edits based on the same prior revision being committed in separate database servers before synchronization has occurred such that each database server learns from the other that a conflicting edit has been made. In other words, Locke Cole was right to tell you to assume good faith, though I know that sometimes it's hard to do so when the person telling you to do so is the one you're in a conflict with. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea. Let's block, for one month, any account that tries to solicit admin action against someone else when the parties are engaged in well-past-lame MoS wars. It seems to me that the less important the issue, the more hysterical and deeply entrenched the partisans become. I personally find date linking intrusive in some places and not in others, and the consensus looks to me to be no consensus, take it on a case by case basis (aka the good old-fashioned Misplaced Pages fudge). I have never seen an example of anyone trying to enforce a MoS guideline across all articles that did not end up being ludicrous in at least some, and leading to a shitstorm and accompanying farce. I would not mind betting that the average reader does not give a flying fuck on a rolling doughnut whether we link dates or not, and I am seriously contemplating requesting arbitration on the entire bunch of MoS warriors just because of the prodigious amount of time, bandwidth and server resources their foolish squabbling causes. Oh dear, I think that might have been one of my old-style unreconstructed rants. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, you put the entire MoS up for XfD and I'll second you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! You don't know how tempting that is. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• “Rant?” Ya think?? But this is not the place for that. The RfC is a legitimate one on an issue of perceived importance to editors. Whereas you clearly worked that “I’m a *high-road kinda person*-angle really hard in your above post, the RfC’s perceived importance is precisely why editors get so emotional about it when they post their opinions on the RfC and debate others. Further, your protestations as to what you think is or is not important doesn’t diminish the fact that RfCs are difficult enough without editors ignoring Misplaced Pages policies. Greg L (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• And you want to us "correct their behaviours"? By blocking? Lol no. And you knew that, so why start this thread? Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to chime in here and just agree with Guy, let's just address Greg's 2 complaints and slap a resolved tag on it.

1. Greg, it appears you brought 2008Olympian's conduct to ANI without trying to discuss it with him first; did I miss a discussion somewhere? In any case, while his late revision of his own post like that isn't best practice, if you notice it happening, and it's important to you, you can add your own note after your post saying something along the lines of this post was in response to the orginal post by 2008Olympian, located and since changed by 2008Olympian. Or, better yet, ignore it. Not a realistic option in an RfC. Greg L (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Despite your insinuations to the contrary, an edit conflict that isn't flagged happens all the time. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Locke's statement of what happened, and quite a bit of reason to believe it. If you'd like me to explain how that happened here, I'll be happy to explain further, but won't waste my time if you're disinterested.

Is anything still unresolved? --barneca (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very well. Nicely handled. Well, yes, of course I tried to “discuss it” by adding to my post that what he did was against policy and rude. But when I saw that my addition had seemingly been surgically removed by a like-minded compatriot, I felt this was the proper step (rather than even begin to editwar in an RfC I was trying to neutrally host). Technology conspiring to add confusion and misdirection to the mix. I’d be quite surprised if 2008Oly keeps at the violations now. Please mark as resolved. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Lightmouse that violate the rules of use of AWB; Conflict of interest involving administrator Reedy

I originally initiated discussion of this issue on the discussion page of WP:AWB. However, the administrator who summarily closed that discussion, Reedy, said he was "very tired" of the discussion there and threatened to block me if I continued being a "nuisance" and a troll by pursuing the issue there. He suggested that the discussion continue here "where greater opinion can be gauged". Given Reedy's action and despite the fact that I have serious misgivings about the appropriateness of this venue for discussing the AWB rules of use, this noticeboard appears to be the only available venue for discussing Lightmouse's flagrant and ongoing disregard of those rules.

One of the rules of use concerning AWB says, "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding." Interpreting this rule, administrator Iridescent said: "See where it says in large black letters Don't do anything controversial with it? Means what it says. If you're using AWB to make edits that there's a possibility of someone disagreeing with (aside from when you're indisputably in the right, such as correcting "jewelery" which always leads to 'but that's the correct spelling' protests from people who don't bother checking the dictionary), you don't seem to understand what it's for." Various discussions at various times have been held involving Lightmouse's use of AWB to make controversial edits, more specifically his use of the tool to delink dates and terms and make other changes. Nevertheless, he has been using AWB in full force to make these edits despite several requests from other editors to stop doing, especially until the pending Requests for Comment about date formatting and linking are closed on December 25. Also, concern has been expressed on Lightmouse's discussion page about his use of AWB to make the exact same edits in the exact same article numerous times, despite having full knowledge that these edits are erroneous. In my opinion, that constitutes "edit warring" by Lightmouse, although others disagree, in part based on the strange interpretation that the edit warring policies do not apply to "trivial" edits using AWB. Lightmouse's philosophy about using AWB for delinking activities is as follows: "Many people think Misplaced Pages is generally overlinked and so needs a broad brush approach to delinking. The consequences of the broad brush can then be examined in detail as you have done." In other words, he believes it is entirely appropriate for him to use AWB to delink a huge amount of dates and terms, leaving the post-delinking clean-up of his errors to other editors to discover and fix.

Another rule of use concerning AWB says, "Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." In flagrant violation of this rule, Lightmouse has been using AWB often at the rate of more than one article per minute. For example, he edited 75 articles in 8 minutes using AWB on December 8, which is 9.38 articles per minute or one article every 6.4 seconds. On December 9, Lightmouse edited 197 articles in 26 minutes, which is 7.58 articles per minute or one article every 7.9 seconds. On December 10, Lightmouse edited an astounding 1,777 articles in 114 minutes, which is 15.59 articles per minute or 1 article every 3.9 seconds. Earlier today, Lightmouse edited 75 articles in 19 minutes, which is 3.95 articles per minute or 1 article every 15.19 seconds.

Lightmouse erroneously believes that notwithstanding the actual wording of the AWB rules of use, neither of the preceding rules applies unless it is proven that a rule violation is "harming" articles. See this and this. In other words, he asserts that unless an editor is using AWB to vandalize articles, the editor may use AWB to make controversial edits and may use AWB as fast as he can to make edits.

All these issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive way, not only with Lightmouse but also so that other editors know the limits of AWB use, if any.

A related issue is administrator Reedy's decision to close the discussion that I initiated on the AWB discussion page. Reedy did this without disclosing that he was, in effect, protecting his own violations of the AWB rule of use concerning edit speed. For example, Reedy on September 24 used AWB to edit 162 articles in 61 minutes, which is 2.66 articles per minute or 1 article every 22.6 seconds. On August 8, Reedy used AWB to edit 193 articles in 24 minutes, which is 8.04 articles per minute or 1 article every 7.5 seconds. An administrator never should use his tools when he has a conflict of interest. Tennis expert (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside to those edits, due to the sheer nature of them (being Typo fixing), they are all manually approved, granted all may not be 100% accurate. —Reedy 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose edits? Yours? Lightmouse's? Where does the AWB "speed limit" exempt typo fixing? Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine. Around that time, the WP:TypoScan project was starting up, which i was coding for, and therefore needed testing, it didn't affect AWB's operation, and i was checking the commiting and such back to the server. —Reedy 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, i know I'm not infallible and so aren't my AWB contributions, and those of my bot - It's been blocked numerous times, for the same/similar reason when list building has gone astray. —Reedy 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And i was not "protecting my own violations" - I did not recieve any complains about the edits (before now), and they weren't even in my mind till they were brought up. —Reedy 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you had actual knowledge then is irrelevant. Much is expected of an administrator, and, therefore, you should have known about your own editing history. You shouldn't have intervened. Tennis expert (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no conflict of interest. Reedy does not seem to be abusing AWB, depending on what you are doing it is easily possible to make manually verified edits at tat speed. I doubt there is any likelihood of action unless there is evidence that Lightmouse was acting disruptively, which there does not seem to be. Your diatribe about past behaviour (and my personal tolerance for MoS wars is so close to zero as makes no difference) does not seem to include any evidence, in the form of diffs, showing present disruptive behaviour - on the other hand your wikilawyering on the basis of what constitutes "a few" and asserting that a few edits must therefore mean many fewer articles, which is tosh as most AWB runs will be one edit per article, do not inspire confidence. Last time I used AWB, typo-fixing was an optional extra in every edit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course there was a conflict of interest. The original complaint was about Lightmouse violating an AWB rule of use. Reedy then intervened and closed the complaint. Reedy himself had violated that same rule of use. Therefore, Reedy had a conflict of interest. He shouldn't have intervened in a situation in which he had a personal interest. Very simple. Tennis expert (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• And again, your stating things that really don't make much sense. —Reedy 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• That reasoning makes no sense. On that reasoning, if i drive and speed, and get caught and it went to trial, if jury members or the judge indeed themselves had sped before, they would have a COI, and therefore couldn't comment? That makes no sense whatsoever —Reedy 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your straw man argument makes no sense. There are statutes governing juries, the qualification of jurors, and how jurors are chosen. Misplaced Pages has a conflict of interest rule regarding administrators. If you don't like the rule or believe it does not make sense, perhaps you should seek to change it. Tennis expert (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am troubled that Lightmouse is mass delinking dates when the community wide RFC (which is still running!) only shows support for deprecation. And anyone looking at it longer than 15 seconds will notice that questions #3 and beyond indicate support for date links "in some situations" (which, in my mind, rules out automated removal entirely). Again, deprecation does not mean "kill with fire". People making these kinds of automated edits need to stop performing edits which only consist of this type of edit. (I would have no problem with them if they were being performed as part of some larger project which had consensus). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto. I have also stated im not so sure about the "kill with fire" attitude regarding the date links (as have numerous others). —Reedy 21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I would agree with that. So, we ask him nicely to stop. And ideally without crying to Mommy. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll do it. —Reedy 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how relevant this is, but for those who have not been very involved in these debates, please see this ANI thread on date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. I am vehemently apathetic about this. The RFC being still open is a red herring; its clearly a WP:SNOW situation in favor of deprecating the requirement to link dates; indeed all of the proposals in all of the RFCs concurrently running on this issue indicates that clearly the community does not think that linking dates is really required. Beyond that, if a user wants to spend their time delinking dates, what is the harm?. Seriously. There is absolutely no reason to request that anyone stop this. I personally think its a waste of time; but given that the requirement to link dates is deprecated (or inevitably will be in a matter of hours), is this really any different than any of the other sorts of mass corrections we see? Seriously, don't we have better things to care about than if someone delinks dates?!? Good gawd... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everything Jayron3 wrote also reflects my opinion on this matter. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deprecation does not mean "kill with fire". Moreover, it's only deprecation "for the purposes of auto formatting". Further, in this RFC, the third question and beyond indicate that the community does support date linking under certain circumstances, so clearly not all date links should be getting removed (which is what Lightmouse, etc. are doing). As the community believes date links are valuable in certain situations each article must be treated carefully, not in an automated or semi-automated fashion (and certainly not with the proponents of all-date-link-removal being the ultimate arbiters/judges of which dates stay or go). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tell me, Guy, does your personal definition of "a few edits a minute" include 15.59 articles or edits per minute, as Lightmouse has done using AWB? I doubt that it's reasonable to interpret "few" as including 15+. Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since it appears that lniked dates will be phased out, why does it matter if they are all delinked swiftly over possibly taking years to delink them all by hand. The last thing we need is for one user to see an article that has dates linked and without checking the Mos start to link dates in every article they see. That will result in inconsistencies eventually somewhere along the line as uninformed users begin to do what they think it correct unless the issue is dealt with in a prompt manner. I'd actually rather have an automated process or hard-driven user delink dates then me have to do it on every article I edit. As for the "common terms" delinking, that has issues which need to be addressed but not something one has to bring to AN to get sorted. Secondly, I don't understand Reedy's COI? He's an AWB developer, who closed a thread that he was tired of seeing continuously pop up that was taking up space where users come to ask general help questions. Part of the lure of using AWB is that edits can be made faster, using AWB to edit at an accused high edit rate doesn't really constitute a COI when closing the thread; I saw it as asserting his administrative powers to solve the issue as he saw was best fit at the time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The issue with Lightmouse is that he is violating two AWB different rules of use. It doesn't matter whether he is delinking dates or terms or making an entirely different kind of edit. If someone is going to use AWB, he or she must abide by the AWB rules. Pretty simple, IMO. Tennis expert (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Get down off the Reichstag. He's not doing anything that won't be done eventually, his timing is poor, we've asked him to hold off. Job done, now stop obsessing over trivia - especially since it seems the trivia in question is something where you will eventually have to accept that consensus is absolutely not with you. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen the Reichstag - it's quite a beautiful structure, actually. But I've never climbed it. This AWB issue is recurring by multiple editors, as I have already demonstrated, and needs clarification. Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK the AWB rules are not under the WP:POLICY structure, they are rules of use made by the people who code and maintain AWB. That Reedy, MaxSem, and Martinp23, three of those people who code and maintain AWB have reviewed this situation and find nothing to intervene seems to indicate it is permissible. MBisanz 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's why Reedy said to take this issue here.... Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) See also this advice from Reedy about violations of the AWB rules of use and this advice from Reedy. Tennis expert (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Linked dates solely for the purpose of auto formatting are being phased out. If you look at the RFC, specifically questions #3 and beyond, you'll note the community does support linked dates under certain circumstances. For this reason it's impossible to remove them in a purely automated fashion (and I would argue even semi-automated removal would be troublesome; who decides what date links meet the criteria?). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am concurring with Guy here; I'm not seeing the big issue, given that this is a task that will eventually need to be done. Poor timing? Perhaps, and it's been requested that the bot be stopped in the meantime. A polite, simple response was all that was needed, not further endless drama. You seem to have a habit of doing just that, in fact. Edit warring over dozens of articles hundreds of times, filing multiple frivolous AN3 reports in a few days, posting a frivolous report at WQA, accusing others of bad faith at the RFC, and now this. That's a lot of work for someone who is 'retired'. I see no administrator action required here, and I see no consensus either way to conduct any action. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Two apparent SPAs starting an edit war

Please could an admin or two have a look at the last few edits to Duchy of Cornwall, and the contributions of the two editors involved. They appear to me to be two SPAs here to have an argument. I have already interacted with one of them, and would be happy to be tolds if I could have done better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Help please, one of the editors has been inserting material which is not supported by the reference he gives, and has managed to get me into an edit-war with him. It is a blatant spa editing to promote a POV position. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Sprogeeet is a blatant POV-pushing single purpose account, and is currently inserting speculation, unjustified synthesis and undue weight into articles. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though User:Jenks77 is pushing the POV, repeatedly adding a WP:FRINGE external link. // roux   00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the other editor too? DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll choose to ignore that little tidbit of incivility. I looked at the article you mentioned, and the edits of the people involved. User:Jenks77 is trying to insert material that is WP:FRINGE at best, and User:Sprogeeet is removing it, which is entirely appropriate. If there are other problems with that user, then by all means bring them up. But the problem you brought here is not a problem, or if it is a problem, it's a problem with a different user. Yes, the edit summaries are problematic, but the actual removal of such fringe/crank information is--or should be--non-controversial. // roux   00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the more active of the two has now been blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I need an answer

I need an answer as to why, within a couple days of posting my first article, does my user name seem to have been disabled? My article was placed on a copyright infringement notice and while attempting to rectify this situation my user name has been disabled. I want to contribute to this encyclopedia but it is becoming very frustrating and need an answer please. Thank you. - ConcreteCuring 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I checked your logs and it doesn't seem you are under and form of block or have been ever. Plus, you posted the above under your unsername. Perhaps a little more information on how your username was "disabled" would be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 16, 2008 @ 00:10

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards