Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 12 March 2009 (→Requesting wider block for block evading sock puppet: userlinks). 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)

CSD Backlog

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28

User:Amolz

Amolz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the same page over and over again, almost compulsively, even when consensus is clearly against him. He began to move it for no good reason without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. Multiple attempts by different users to contact him have shown he's unwilling to engage in any discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see discussion, and the sign of consensus is discussion. LPML, you (and Amolz) have been reverting without discussion, and that is essentially edit warring, though it hasn't reached 3RR levels. I see an uncivil edit summary from you, when you reverted the single move: you want to save time? start behaving like everyone else. There is an attempt at discussion on User talk:Amolz, to be sure, by Ricky81682, but Ricky seems to make the assumption that Amolz is reading his Talk page. Some new editors have no clue what to do with the new messages message.

I don't see "multiple attempts by different users to contact him," only Ricky81682.

However, Amolz is, in effect and whether it's realized or not, disruptive, making many and massive edits without discussion. The editor seems to be a continuation of prior IP. Edit summaries are generally not being used.

Ricky81682 is an administrator, and doesn't seem to have a long-term involvement with the article. Is there any reason why Ricky81682 can't handle this? He's already somewhat familiar with what is going on. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find the discussions I mentioned because he signed up just days ago, but before that he edited as an anonymous user for months, showing exactly the same kind of disruptive behaviour. I did try then, as Ricky is trying now, to discuss the question, but when someone doesn't even bother to answer you back it's hard to assume good faith.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page about it and told him basically that if he doesn't respond, it's going to be vandalism. I even blocked him shortly but the issue became my involvement (since I disagree with him on content), so someone else should be involved. Since then, he's move onto a page move "to save time" and a fork at Indian Satellite Television Channels that he's vehement about. I've even asked at the relevant Wikiproject but no response. Can an outside admin warn him or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of data and citation

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation and data on Misplaced Pages on several occasions.

Case 1

Article: Coloman_of_Hungary; The article describes the reign of King Coloman of Hungary from 1095-1116.

Edit:

Sentence manipulated: Coloman I the Book-lover, also spelled Koloman (c. 1070 – 3 February 1116), King of Hungary (1095-1116)<ref1><ref2><ref3> and king of Croatia.<ref4><ref5> (1102-1116)

Citations used to support statement: <ref4> = Kingdom of Croatia (910-1091), <ref5> = Karacsonyi, Janos: The historical right of the Hungarian nation

Quotes from the sources:

<ref4> "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

<ref5> "It is untrue furthermore that Coloman has been crowned Croatian king in Tenger-Belgrad in 1102."

Case 2

Article: Croats; The article describes the Croatian people in the world.

Edit:

Data and citations manipulated:

Note: Two users attempted to correct part of the false information but both of them got reverted by user Rjecina. --Bizso (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After Bizso informed me, I demanded an explanation here but following the last chaos, I wonder if we've reached enough. Falsification of sources, especially in this area, should not be a joking matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina's edits, at least in the population statistics case, seem to have been reverts to an earlier version. They probably fall into the pattern of his tendency for reflex blanket reverts of new users he suspects of being sockpuppets (often rightly, independently of the actual quality of the edits). Judging the issue of falsification would require investigating who actually introduced the faulty state in the first place. Do we have information on this?

The other question is why Bizso is bringing this up now, at the "incidents" noticeboard, when most of the edits in question were weeks or even months ago. Didn't we tell both of these guys they are not to bring further complaints against each other to the noticeboards? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if something happened 3 weeks ago, we don't even remember it now... it has been blissfully forgotten. Man, I wish the world would function this way.--Bizso (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Perf. I asked Rjecina about it and suggest we want until explanation. Close this as inappropriate at this point, and we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly not a revert. I asked Ricky81682 about this. Please check all the sources and edits.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself manually checked everything, I didn't include the current numbers for the sources column, but the numbers cited by the sources used by Rjecina at the time.--Bizso (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a revert, it's from these edits which were correcting some numbers, but breaking the total population number that Rijcena calculated himself on the talk page here (checked as correct by myself). Rijcena was blindly reverting to the wrong version thinking that it was correct. The numbers were originally falsified by an annoying IP that has been changing Balcan numbers for months, seeUser_talk:78.157.9.88#1_month_block. Rijcena has in the past tried to correct the numbers. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this be a revert? He introduced brand new numbers.

Enric Naval, please explicitly show me which edit was reverted by user:Rjecina.

Also, that IP only made circa 2 edits on that article and all were trying to reduce the inflated numbers, which Rjecina reverted each time.--Bizso (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this edit from User:Rococoko, Rijcena even reverted the sources that the new numbers had. Rijcena left the countries in a different order so it's a bit difficult to see what numbers were changed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further verification has indicated that it was this edit by User:Toroko at Coloman of Hungary that introduced the false information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How was that edit? He removed the king of Croatia title, not added it with false references? He didn't even use the sources used by Rjecina?!--Bizso (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And edits by Mrubcic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introducted the false information in the Croats article. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Coloman edit (back in December, by the way) was reinstating a passage of text ("... and king of Croatia") that was previously removed by somebody else . The addition of unsuitable footnotes is of course a sign of very sloppy editing; I wouldn't necessarily impute it to malice. The population statistics edit was an exact blanket revert to an earlier version . The falsified figures were inserted previously by a different user, in an act of vandalism that apparently slipped through unnoticed by all the regular editors on that page . Other parts of the incrimiated figures were inserted by yet somebody else, for instance the Chile figures here . Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the references the Rjecina added to King of Croatia? Was that also a revert to some other vandal's edit? Also, could please give me link to Misplaced Pages's policy on sloppy edits? I couldn't find one under WP:Sloppy--Bizso (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read, I commented on that in my previous post. Now, will you stop stirring the shit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Will am I stop stirring the shit? Is that an answer from an admin? really?--Bizso (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that 12 edit reversion at the Croat article. But the Coloman article is still unexplained. The reference that was given by user:Toroko refers to King of Hungary. The other two references inserted by Rjecina were not there. I find it unacceptable that Future Perfect Sunrise refer to this thread as "stirring the shit". I do not accept this kind of presonal attack against me. If you have a problem with me, then block me, it's in your power.--Bizso (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"?

Next, why was Rjecina reverting "vandalism" when false data was, in fact, being corrected by the "vandals"? Why did he cite two sources for the King of Croatia, when both references cited the exact opposite of what he was saying? Or is this sloppy editing of an "unexperienced new user", too?
For the croat article how could he say this ("I really do not agree with this data (inflated ?), but they are confirmed by sources)" ? Apparently, he knew that the data was inflated, but stated that the sources confirmed them.--Bizso (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edit has 3 sources, Rejcina kept one of the sources and replaced the oher two (Britannica and nationmaster) with other source that looks like found searching at google. It looks like sloppy work, he searched "king of croatia" and found that source without reading.... I don't know this them well, is there some nationalistic reason for Rejcina to falsify that information deliberately? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The original edit had 3 sources for king of hungary and Rjecina added another 2 for king of coratia. Please see the thread above. There was an ongoing dispute whether Coloman was crowned separately as king of Croatia in 1102. In addition, he knew the content of the sources as they had been talked about in other articles before in which he had participated. Furthermore, why was he not reverting the edits at the Croat article that were unreasonably promoting the falsified data, and why did he revert those that attempted to correct it?--Bizso (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute here, but we should avoid using Nationmaster as a source - they use Misplaced Pages as a source, and that circular referencing can cause problems with actually verifying information. Most of their other sources are acceptable in and of themselves and can be referenced directly. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but Nationmaster was used in an earlier edit. That's not the disputed edit here.--Bizso (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People, please only make a new post here if you have a better explanation for said user's falsification of sources and data than "sloppy editing" and "he thought he was reverting to the good numbers".--Bizso (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, you know what. You were warned specifically about this a few days ago. Either you stop this right now or I'm blocking you. Rjecina was not the one falsifying information and that's clear now. Copying over falsified information is sloppy and lazy editing, but not disruptive. However, if you refuse to accept that, you are not going to be welcome here any longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. You've make your point. Others however do not feel that sloppy editing from months ago is relevant. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me?

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.

Fourth, I wonder why the admins are defending the user concerned, and not the user himself comes here and explain his edits.--Bizso (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I have a tendency of defending Rjecina: because he's been the victim of a relentless harassment campaign from a multiple-sockpuppeting banned user. And you, with your decision to revert-war extensively for the reinsertion of that banned user's edits as well as other activities of yours, have created at least some basis for the impression that you may be part of the same pattern. Now, I don't deny for a moment that Rjecina's edits are often quite problematic. I wish banned harassers in such cases had the sense of realising that through their continued hounding they are actually protecting their victims. After having seen a million complaints against Rjecina, and finding that 95% of them originate from banned socks, admins just stop responding. No matter how seriously problematic his activity may be, we will just react with the reflex of "oh, it's the socks again". If the banned user in question really has the aim of getting his nemesis banned, then if he had any sense at all, he would realise that the best and only way of achieving his goal would be to finally leave this project alone and do absolutely nothing. Once the user in question could edit without the interference of the banned socks for a while, we would easily see what in his editing actually is disruptive and what isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You totally lack an objective viewpoint. This sux. I instead laugh at this. You should not have posted this utter nonsense at all. --Bizso (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bizso block

Probably the worst admin to do it but I've given Bizso a 48 hour block. The amount of disruption here at ANI (what 5 sections in a week), continued arguing here, plain ignoring everyone else, and Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjecina_(1st) was enough for me. Both of them are getting equally bad but I think Rjecina has at least learned to assume some good faith with others. Asking for review and hoping for some sanity when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Forum-shopping is certainly unacceptable behaviour. I saw this at ANI yesterday and the fact that it's continued over and over is simply disruptive; repeatedly filing frivolous complaints will not be tolerated. This combined with the general conduct issues found in the above sections (and other related discussions) is problematic enough to warrant a block. However, unlike what may be implied from the block message, roux's proposal was not enacted by the community - there was no obligation to comply with it at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Concur I find Rjecina a very prickly customer to deal with (not that I have any real dealings), who advocates a POV that is not neutral and has a tendency to revert other POV's as the edits of a banned sockpuppeteer without adequate review of the legitimacy of the cited content... However, Biszo has conducted themselves with less good faith and more bias than they accuse Rjecina of - anyone who does not agree that Rjecina should be blocked is immediately cast as being an apologist or collaborator or pro/anti whichever POV is applicable. Biszo needs to understand that there are ways of arriving at NPOV articles/subjects and holding other editors to the proper standards, and that antagonising the sysop community (and others) who patrol the noticeboards is exactly the wrong way of going about it. I would suggest that, should this sanction not be effective, there may need to be a discussion on the topic banning of Bizso, simply to lessen the disruption like that which has occurred over the last week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Good call. I trust Ricky is aware he needs to step carefully in this field, since he has also taken part in content debates on the same articles, but I am satisfied he has acted with utmost impartiality in this episode. – Note that Bizso has announced retirement in response to the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Bizso needs to learn to be civil. He should stop running around noticeboards if his wishes are not listened to and ask himself why does it happen. However, this is hardly the right way. Admiral Norton 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• The biggest problem of Wikiedia are just its administrators - the above is yet another proof that Misplaced Pages is ruled by their how-do-you-dare-to-contradict-to-me. A huge cleanup is necessary just here. Reviewing Rjecina's and comp. (she + administrators shielding her) 'contributions' - the sock-puppets are everywhere . Thanks to it - a huge number of contributors is chased away, Ustashe are a revolutionary organization who fought for Croatian independence, medieval history of Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Hungary is actually Croatian history, etc. --138.88.212.182 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal but I don't tend to take advice from people who's best arguments consist of "my American lawyer friend's theory of copyright law". If you would like to discuss something, try doing it once without an insult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this redirect by registered editor User:A Man In Black

User:A Man In Black redirected the article Johnny Bravo (character) to Johnny Bravo and it was against consensus (I personally have no opinion). Both the AfD and DRV pointed to keep. I am a huge fan of policy. I reverted his edit and reverted back saying he is allowed to redirect at will regardless of consensus. Keep in him he actually engaged in the AfD and was well aware of the consensus. I'm not sure if this warrents a warning. In the past he is leaned heavily on deletionism including nominating article where he was the only one who argued for delete. Just wondering who is right in this situation. Valoem 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AMIB is correct that "AFD doesn't prevent redirects or merges." Discuss the appropriate status of the article/redirect on the article or redirect's talk page and reach consensus. Do not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Until there's any edit warring, there's no need for administrative intervention. See bold, revert, discuss for an idealisation of how these things should go. AFD/DRV should have binary keep/delete outcomes, other editorial actions may be discussed whenever. WilyD 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No i personally agree with his redirect. It was done in good faith. I do feel however that if someone does disgree with that redirect they do have priority to revert the redirect as it was against general consensus. Valoem 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, if someone disagreed with the redirect we could move from there. However, I don't see anyone disagreeing except you, and you just said you don't disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was merely basing my request on policy. I doubt he remembers but we had a inclusionist deletionist dispute 2 years which is way I notice him. Regardless that was a harmless statement. I have no further questions regarding this. Valoem 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" votes in AfD are functionally equivalent to "Keep" votes - they're only suggestions for how the article might be cleaned up in the event that it is kept. After the debate is over regular editors of the article can take any action they like, and form consensus among themselves. User:DHowell in fact explicitly said "Keep without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided ." Dcoetzee 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. It was a bold redirect. AfD is primarily concerned with deletion, not merges or redirects. If anybody disagrees with it they can revert and discussion can begin. Themfromspace (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is quibbling, and we've tolerated it too long. we're talking about a redirect. A redirect-- or a merge with nothing merged-- is functionally the equivalent of a delete. it removes the content of the article. The only difference is that it does not remove the history. Considering it otherwise is putting the Misplaced Pages deletion process at the mercy of those deletionists who want to remove content and are willing to do so against consensus, because if they do the redirect and get away with it, no keep decision will stand. There is however a solution without changing the wording of the rule or resorting to IAR--which is to simply revert, and then there must be consensus gotten for the redirect. unfortunately, this was already tried--Valoem reverted AMAB. The next step, as pointed out by BRD, was to discuss. But AMAB did not disciss--he reverted right back again. I've dealt with it for the moment by re-reverting. To follow BRD one must if reverted discuss. If not, in a situation like this, it is either editwarring or attempting to pervert process. There is a conceivable argument for his redirecting --there is none for his continuing to do so without discussion. I have notified him of this discussion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your entire statement would be relevent if there was someone who was engaging in the "R" part of BRD for anything other than their own personal unawareness of process. Specifically, the user who reverted wrote on AMIB's talk page before AMIB reverted back to the redirect - "I personally have no opinion." It's not BRD if there's no one to "D" with. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that the article is completely redundant to the section on the character in the main article; thus a merge is reasonable except there's nothing useful to merge and hence a redirect is effectively a merge. As AMIB said in the original AfD - "Nobody's saying that this isn't notable; the argument is that it is not in any way a separate subject." Black Kite 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this is not the place for your view on this. the place is the discussion of the redirect, as it would have been equally appropriate t the AfD, where this view was rejected. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, the less said about that Article Rescue Squad hitjob AfD the better. My point was in reply to your comment that "A redirect - or a merge with nothing merged - is functionally the equivalent of a delete" - but what if there's nothing further to merge? (I don't actually disagree with your revert, by the way, since it wasn't discussed after the first revert). Black Kite 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a rescue effort a "hitjob" is a bit much. If you do not think it was adequate enough, okay, but please avoid needlessly condescending language. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this isn't the place for Black Kite's opinion on whether the redirect was appropriate, why is it the place for your opinion on the redirect? I discussed it with Valoem, realized he thought there was some sort of technical point here and he didn't have any opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I do have an opinion, as I said in the first place at the AfD, and so my reversion just made should stand until consensus is obtained otherwise. I have started the discussion at the character talk page. I've modified my statement above, but I continue my view that do subvert a public decision by a less public move is a misuse of process. The real way of preventing it is a frank admission that redirect does what redirect does--or at least an actual requirement for public announcements of such proposed redirects. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced about the preferability of the redirect, but the way to overthrow an afd result s Deletion review or afd2 after an interval. alternate exchanges at ANB aren't a good way to discuss the merits of edits, redirects, or deletions. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not in any way a subversion of the AFD. You can't merge potential, and this isn't a separate subject.

And who the heck is AMAB?- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Me. --NE2 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that, AMIB, its the graphic confusion from the triangle in your sig :). DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you're contradicting yourself from the numerous times you have said in AFD discussions keep and then consider whether to merge or redirect by saying that we should be discussing mergers or redirections at AFD. Maybe I'm confused. (Not that I don't think that maybe there should be a talk page discussion first before doing any merge or redirection, as doing stuff like that without facilitating discussion is IMO asking for trouble.) MuZemike 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno. One could argue that the AfD outcome suggested that several editors felt the article shouldn't be a redirect. But we certainly can't take the AfD as proof of compulsion to maintain the article. We especially can't do that if we hold the opinion that mergers and redirects are outside the purview of an AfD. We run into a causality problem when we have folks who argue that an AfD is the wrong venue for articles which may be merged then argue that the outcome of that AfD suggests a consensus against merger. In practice this happens a great deal and it is frustrating as hell. But I would just suggest that this edit solves the issue temporarily. Now we can have discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on PJHaseldine

Over at Misplaced Pages:COIN#Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine there is a discussion of banning this editor from any articles related to the Lockerbie disaster. This is a long-running issue regarding Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and until recently, there was a sort of voluntary agreement in place by which Patrick would refrain from editing articles that referred to his own real-life activities. The voluntary agreement seems to be no longer working, so I have proposed a formal restriction, which would be added to the list at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Please comment in the COIN thread if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a further edit to this saga. It relates to THF, who is an avid supporter of the topic ban that EdJohnston has proposed against me, and has made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of the COI discussion nugatory.

Earlier today, I received the following email from a Misplaced Pages editor: "Can I tell you something privately? I am not too happy with THF. He has nominated ten articles I started for deletion yesterday, and it gives the appearance of an act of retaliation. Privately, I will share my doubts that THF is really committed to all the wikipedia's policies. THF really didn't seem to take the trouble to actually read the articles. I am saying this privately because, strategically, I think it is best to continue to give the outward appearance that one is still capable of assuming good faith -- even when one's good faith is exhausted -- because assuming good faith is the policy. Sometimes your correspondent loses their cool, and you 'win' because you kept yours. Sometimes, by continuing to give the appearance you still assume good faith you can force bad faith correspondents to also act in good faith, and you can reach an acceptable compromise. I don't know if I need to say this, but the other people are correct, the redirection from user space to[REDACTED] space was counter policy. I am sure that was an innocent lapse. I think we we will be able to get the Yvonne Bradley article restored. But I can't work on it until these ten {afd} have run to completion. Cheers!"---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's "retaliatory" is attempting to distract attention from your wrongdoing by bringing a frivolous complaint against a third party--likely in response to my deleting the self-promotional violation of WP:OR you added to two articles. For those that are interested, the eleven nominations are all listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law: one has already resulted in a speedy delete, and it appears that at least eight of the others will succeed, and possibly all ten, so it's hard to argue that these are bad-faith nominations. I have for weeks complained about the creation of dozens of non-notable Guantanamo-related articles, so it is hardly a surprise that I am now acting on that complaint after my first foray into a deletion nomination, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley, was judged by consensus to be correct. THF (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need I say more?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First you quote a private email, now you Plaxico yourself. What next? Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Change Information about Local TV

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

Dear Administrator,

http://en.wikipedia.org/Local_TV

Please review the above link. That is Channel Related.. But not about Local TV (Telugu channels like Gemini, ETV, Maa tvs) Above Link doesent have relevent information about local tv, Hyderabad, A.P, India.

local TV is Telugu Channel for telugu people in Hyderabad, A.P, India.

Website link : www.local.in

For more infomation about Local Tv, kindly visit www.local.in

Thanks&Regards E.Rangaraju Local TV Web Development, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.241.170 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• (non-admin response): This question was also asked over at the Help Desk; I've responded there. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Continued discussion regarding the utility of these pages belongs elsewhere, like at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#.22Please expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in the Xish Misplaced Pages.22. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld keeps creating spam pages that end with "was a swiss painter" and may hint vandalism and I was wondering if you could look into this. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To verify this just look at his contributions and you will notice. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is normal. He is one of our mass stub creators. Synergy 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh.Sorry then lol.AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)They are pretty useless unsourced stubs where all the work to create/translate an actual decent article is left to other editors, but they are not spam or vandalism. Fram (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not unsourced stubs, they strongly indicate they are articles to be translated from German wikipedia. They are articles which need to be transwikied and the direct links are there for any, yourself included to do so. Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First of, even if the Spanish (or German or whatever) Misplaced Pages article were sourced, our article is still unsourced (well, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source at all, youcould argue that it technically is a source, but we are not supposed to use wiki's as source). It is obviously a stub, the length of the source is irrelevant for this. But worse, much worse, is that you create in the case of e.g. Carlos Solórzano an unsourced stub for a WP:BLP, based on another unsourced Wiki article. In the case of Lía Bermúdez, you add (copy) an incorrect interwikilink in this again unsourced BLP stub. The same interwikilink, actually, as in Pablo Atchugarry. There is no actual control that you don't import the rubbish (hoaxes, spam, and so on) from another Misplaced Pages, it is just straight import without even checking that the few things in the article even work (like the interwikilinks). We aim to have at least one decent source for every new article, certainly for WP:BLPs, but one of our most prolific editors is ignoring this basic aspect, preferring quantity over quality completely in these edits (not in all his edits, but in these massive article creation sprees). A bot doing this kind of work would never get approval if it didn't add at least one source per article, so why should we accept it from you? Fram (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been historically unreceptive to suggestions that he do anything other than create as many pages as possible. Generally the stubs are (arguably) not very harmful, so it's probably not worth trying to do anything about this. Friday (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the stubs, so long as the subject is notable, are fine. It gives folks looking for a subject a starting point, and timid folks the opportunity add to an article rather than fear the famous speedy delete tags. Rklawton (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed him when he was creating a bunch of articles just like Mexican Federal Highway 134. I pointed out that we already have List of Mexican Federal Highways which had the exact same content, only put together in a more useful list. His response was to just stomp his foot and say "I'll do whatever I want." Since then I've written him off as an unreasonable editor who's more interested in his whims than in improving the project, because I can't see how making an essential empty and completely redundant page improves the encyclopedia. Stubs like that, in my opinion, do more harm than good. But, your mileage may vary. Friday (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that article has one kick-ass infobox. :-) --Conti|✉ 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it's pretty poor form to be taking shots at an editor on ANI when he's never been informed people are talking about him.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notified. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was resolved? The initial complaint is well over. Time to move along I'd say. Synergy 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stubs like that do more harm than good Friday"? What ones which make the preliminary steps twoards getting content like this into English x200? Does Friday realise that several thousand stubs I've created on[REDACTED] are now full flourishing articles?????????????????? Does he realise that I am responsible for around 1/65th of all our articles? Yes I started the missing articles from German[REDACTED] with little content, the articles can be expanded within minutes which is what will happen given time, I have thousands of articles to transwiki and am doing the necessary steps towards building this encyclopedia up in terms of a fuller coverage. Some of the articles are gems on other wikipedias and it seems sometimes I and tow or three others are the only ones who cares about getting articles on other wikipedias into English. I notice our friend didn't choose to link any fuller Mexican road articles like Mexican Federal Highway 10 which I added things to despite a heavy workload. Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for those who pass me off as an "unreasonable editor":Some articles I have transwikied in the last few months from other wikipedias, given time I expect all of the "spam" articles to branch out in exactly the same way by collaboration:

Tunis, Tenerife, Chinandega, La Guerra Gaucha, La Palma, Chalatenango, University of El Salvador Apastepeque, Altamirano, Chiapas, Culture of El Salvador, Andrés de Santa María, 1811 Independence Movement, Santiago José Celis and David Joaquín Guzmán, Martín Cárdenas (botanist), Battle of Acajutla, Diego de Holgiun‎, Coffee production in Ecuador‎ , Caracas Aerial Tramway‎, Tioda, Iglesia de la Matriz ‎ , Juvencio Valle,Buenaventura Abarzuza Ferrer, Fernando Abril Martorell, Alberto Aguilera, Manuel Aguirre de Tejada, Elías Ahúja y Andría, Santiago Alba Bonifaz, Víctor Alba, José Luis Albareda y Sezde, Juan Manuel Albendea Pabón, Cristina Alberdi, Vicente Albero, José María Albiñana, Gil Álvarez de Albornoz, Felipe Alcaraz, Alberto Alcocer y Ribacoba, Jesús Alique, Luis Almarcha Hernández, Gabriel Alomar, Alonso III Fonseca, Juan Alvarado y del Saz, Pedro Álvarez de Toledo y Colonna, Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León, Isaac Felipe Azofeifa,Andrés Amado Reygondaud, Pascual Amat, Iñaki Anasagasti, Francisco Aparicio y Ruiz, Pere Ardiaca, Luis Armiñán Pérez, Jordi Arquer, Juvencio Valle, Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, Fuerzas Populares de Liberación Farabundo Martí, Rafael Menjívar Larín, Giovanni Buscaglione, Hernán Ergueta, Jesús Elías, Oruro Symphony Orchestra, Rionegro, Antioquia, Catedral de San Nicolás el Magno, Cristóbal Rojas, Xalapa, Sport in Tenerife etc.

In all honesty guys like Friday need to seriously reconsider what[REDACTED] is about. It is a "wiki" meaning any article on a notable subject can be expanded within minutes by anybody in the world. Who creates articles like Xinjiang Medical University as stubs and soon blossom into fuller articles by traffic? Planting seeds is mostly what I do on here as it is the way I can be as productive as possible in the long term in regards to the content of this site. I want to see every article full with content as anybody but we have to begin building and branching out into obvious notable topics which should and "will" eventually have full information. If you can't see how the creation of the actual page with a link to information that can immediately provide knoweldge is not a step in the right direction to building content then I'm very sorry you don't see what the result is the long run. Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Amen. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Praise the Lord, or Jimbo. Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's , as he stated , just his opinion. Carry on... –xeno (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see harm to the project when someone uses bot-like processes to create unsourced articles, then brags about what a prolific article creator he is. Blofeld has in the past Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 50#User:Dr. Blofeld requested that anyone proposing one of his stubs for deletion be banned unless they contacted him first. In general his bot (or his agile typing) can create several articles a minute, and a legion of editors would have trouble keeping up by checking them for reliable sources and nominating them for deletion if no significant coverage in reliable sources. Does he use a bot and is it approved, or does an article-creation bot require approval? This bot-like robostub creation just makes Misplaced Pages a mirror of databases, rather than an encyclopedia. His time would be better spent creating one good article an hour than creating in the same time hundreds of totally unsourced stubs saying "X is a Y" or "X is a Y in Z" which import information of unknown accuracy from some database he has found. Even when they are tagged as not having sources and not meeting notability guidelines, such as ] , he has not generally added any unless they are put up for AFD. He did not even link many of the robostubs to the database which was the source. Nor has anyone else added anything to many (most?) of the stubs in the months since they were created. Edison (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON

Can a CheckUser do research on this user because I know its got to be a sock but when I last saw,it had only one disruptive edit. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations would be the place for this, but without more solid information they'll probably decline it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. No fishing please. Synergy 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AltecLansing12 (talk · contribs) appears to me to be a agitation-only account. See contribs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And now he's been blocked as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Single Purpose account/sock puppetry

Could someone please check the history of this article? I was about to delete it, when I noticed that someone else had removed the csd tag. On checking the contributions, the edits of User:Albertwslice seem to scream out either a single purpose account or sock puppetry. Not being very experienced in either fields, I was wondering if someone else could take a look? Thanks! Stephen! 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The user has no live contributions and two edits on the article you linked to which was subsequently deleted. Admiral Norton 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser Noticeboard?

I was browsing around Misplaced Pages and I found this noticeboard only for Checkusers but its empty. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Checkuser_noticeboard AltecLansing12 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just incase this is a planned noticeboard, I added something to start it off. AltecLansing12 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Misplaced Pages:An#BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... It appears that this noticeboard was created by a sockpuppet of User:Pickbothmanlol, and that AltecLansing12 is just the latest member of the farm to come along and engage in silly tricks, and has been duly blocked as such. The fake noticeboard is up for G3 if any admin would care to oblige. Mayalld (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup it's Pickbothmanlol. No sleepers around this time. -- lucasbfr 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyi on per-article edit notices

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Fyi on per-article edit notices. This is not an administrator issue. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Turbochannel1.jpg

- Peripitus (Talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get File:Turbochannel1.jpg undeleted? It was a lack of source and now the uploader is back and says that he made it, so I need it undelted so I can tag it properly and move it to Commons so it can be deleted here again.... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User talk:Jennavecia

Last month I noticed that after her departure, she fully protected her talk page. While I understood it at the time, I feel it needs to be removed. Not just because she continues to edit, but because there is no reason to leave it fully protected. I considered a standard request, but decided it would not give this issue the attention it deserves (a conversation as opposed to a single admin). Synergy 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If one keeps editing, one surely needs an open talk page... Majorly talk 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This request probably should have been done via email as I know Jennavecia is a reasonable person. That said, I do agree that the talk page needs to be unprotected. Just the other day I needed to post to her talk page regarding a edit she had made and found it to be locked (yes, I could have edited through it, but I didn't). Synergy, maybe you can send her a email? Tiptoety 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt she wants to hear from me, but I can try. Synergy 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the e-mail, so we can only wait to hear her opinion. Although, since she is no longer an admin, she possibly won't be the one to unprotect (just a reminder). Synergy 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would have to agree here, full protection of the page is not appropriate. Users may be looking for information about her admin actions long after her retirement, and I'm sure there's helpful folks watching who can respond. –xeno (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Retirement and page protection don't go together, we just pretend they do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with Synergy. I'm not a fan of protecting retired users' talk pages in general, but an active editor should be easily-contactable. –Juliancolton 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• For reference, Jennavecia was occasionally a little too keen on fully protecting her pages. I concur with the reasons given above to unprotect. -- Earle Martin 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boo hoo, you couldn't edit my subpage. Tragic. Maybe my next edit, whenever I decide to make it, can be to one of your subpages, because it's so necessary.

Anyway, for the record, one edit in several weeks is not "continued editing", it's an edit. So go ahead and follow the policy to the letter, but any edits to my talk page will go straight from ignored to archived. If you have a question about a past admin action of mine, use your imagination or email me. I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap. The only message that needs to be there is the one that's there now. لennavecia 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a subpage, its a talk page... And as for your edits: Any editing after retirement is continued editing. I wont hold a semantic debate on how many edits constitute as "continued editing" since you should either stay retired, or come back and help out again. Synergy 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Jennavecia... If you are editing, any user may wish to discuss things with you. They might not wish to give you their email address, or don't have one. You are free to remove their messages, but good faith editors should be able to contact each other whenever possible (eg. when the page is not currently being abused). -- lucasbfr 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the wider issue of fully protected user talk pages

Does anyone want to search for User talk pages that have {{retired}} (or a variant) and are fully protected? Skomorokh 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

eh, a project for a bored admin to poke thru: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AProtectedPages&namespace=3&type=edit&level=sysop&indefonly=1&sizetype=min&size=&limit=5000 some of these are indef blocked users so they pages can be deleted per CAT:TEMP. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB limits the list it downloads of protected user talk pages to 25000. But for grins I'll look at the intersection of those 25K with retired, semiretired, and unretired.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, AWB is picking up all users, not just ones with protected talk pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any policy or common sense reason that many of these pages are protected - perhaps I'm missing something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't really get it either. –xeno (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, until a few months ago when the block option was added, there was no way to prevent a blocked registered user from editing their talk page except protecting it. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but wouldn't that normally be set with an expiry? And if not, because the user is indef'd, shouldn't their page be in CAT:TEMP and thus eventually deleted? Inconsistent admin work, this! Someone isn't doing their job. Cancel the Christmas Winter holiday bonuses! –xeno (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy has come to my rescue, and AWB is working like a champ now. {{retired}} has just 32 matches. I've posted that list here. I'll look at variants in a moment -- real life may slow that down a bit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are only semi'd and in the case of certain users, warranted. Can you drill down to just full-prot? –xeno (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy offered to set that up for me, and I thought with just 32 we could look at each of them without putting him to that trouble. On the other hand, I'm wondering if we should be thinking about reviewing all of the user talk pages that are fully edit protected (no idea how many there are -- there are 7286 with some form of protection (semi/full, edit/move)). If we think that's worthwhile, I'll drop a note to Reedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Xeno, Reedy is already on it. I told him no emergency here, but he thinks it's very doable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding/deleting those pages is rather pointless work, it's not like we need room or anything. John Reaves 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For me the bigger concern are the talk pages that are indefinitely fully edit protected without an urgent need to be protected. Especially if the editor involved still edits (or could, if they so chose) once in a while.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point John. @Fabric, perhaps a query to find if any of the full protected talk pages have active editors. –xeno (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest update. Once again, Reedy has come through. (Xeno was hoping candy would be involved, but that's a different story). The bad news, besides the lack of candy, is that there are 5480 fully protected user talk pages. Picking one at random to check that the list was generated correctly led me to Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users. If we aren't worried about reviewing these pages, we could eliminate 1200 from the list, bringing it down to 4280. I'm currently looking at weeding out anyone in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets, and will report back when I get that number. Also, any thoughts on subcategories of Category:Misplaced Pages blocking that could be excluded?

I've run the list excluding most of the categories at Category:Misplaced Pages blocking (and am truly stunned that we have 63,284 suspected sockpuppets). The list is down to 2934, but I see that a number of items on the list are archives. I'll see what I can do to efficiently remove those pages from the list. As to Xeno's suggestion of looking only at active editors, I haven't found a way to get that info efficiently yet. I was hoping that Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Inactive would be inspiring, but it looks like the edit dates are picked up by a bot.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is down to 1621 now that the protected subpages are gone. Several users I checked at random are blocked users who aren't in Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users. I'm not sure how to eliminate which ones are blocked users who aren't listed at Category:Misplaced Pages protected talk pages of blocked users -- that might be a job for a bot. Also, I'm not feeling like we have a consensus on which non-blocked talk pages should be unblocked. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy isn't as clear as I'd like, but my gut interpretation is that unless there's been a problem with vandalism, the page should be unprotected. However, it might be wise to watch list any pages we unprotect, especially if the editor only edits sporadically.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Paid editor?

Special:Contributions/Anna_Lost_Hers - Seems like a paid editor. Is there a procedure when you notice something like this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with paying someone to edit Misplaced Pages - unless it creates a conflict of interest. If you sense that there is a conflict of interest, you should present the editor with a {{subst:uw-coi}} notice, or something like that in your own words. Kingturtle (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course there is Misplaced Pages:Paid editing. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very likely related to User:Esprit Segue. "Segue Esprit" just happens to be the name of the company that publishes Divorce Magazine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Side question: what do you suppose Anna lost? --A. B. 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm doing a speedy nonadmin closure of several AfD nominations made by Troyster87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now indef'd sock account of Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Qrc2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc. Please no policy drama, this falls under IAR. Boomgaylove's particular mode of trolling involved nominating articles, mostly notable, for deletion. Any help undoing Troyster87's damage and finding any other sock accounts is most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirkwood

I just marked this article for CSD since it only contained the word 'shit.' But then something seemed off, and I searched around. Turns out there was a whole article on the page which seems to have disappeared. It seems the article was moved by vandals, but it was never restored. Can someone go back and dig up the old article and replace it with what's there? I suppose I could copy over the text from the Google cache, but.. — HelloAnnyong 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was accidentally deleted when cleaning up some move vandalism. Fix't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUS weirdness - rendered content not matching source

Something really weird is going on in the Thomas J. Olmsted. In the article source, the second reference is a {{cite}} to http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bolmsted.html but when rendered, the link is to http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/content/article_4057.shtml (which appears nowhere in the source of the article). I have no particular clue, but suspect either a hack of some shared javascript or of the backend. Studerby (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another editor hit this first, it's not just me, and I've tried minor edits to force a re-rendering... I'm using Monobook, if it matters. Studerby (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a typo - {{Cite new}} instead of the intended {{Cite news}}. Maralia (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh that's evil!!! Studerby (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's cleaned up; {{Cite new}} is now a redirect to {{Cite news}} and references to "new" are fixed appropriately. Studerby (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the previous content was obviously either a test edit or misunderstanding of the citation templates - which are certainly easy enough to misunderstand. Meanwhile, it's a now a redirect to a high visibility template that is itself permanently protected, so it could use protection itself (I haven't got the bits). — Gavia immer (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The "cite new" form ought never to be used, and the redirect is only there to guard against typos, but it's not impossible that somebody might want to create an actual "cite new" template at some point. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting wider block for block evading sock puppet

• EmilEikS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A report was entered here regarding the outcome of the sock case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS/Archive. A rangeblock was placed as a result. Today, other versions from the same IP range returned to protest the issue, using the same arguments and rationales as was entered o the AN/I page above, on Talk:Mae West here. Durova removed the posting and requested semi-protection for the page. The IP then returned again, reverting it to this, which included an accusation of slander against Durova. Could the rangeblock be further extended, please, to pick up the other incarnations of this IP, and also to block User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be the sockmaster. I thought that account was blocked in December, but the only account blocked then was User:Fiandonca as a result of a check done during Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the request. Unless anyone here thinks it constitutes slander to call someone a disruptive sockpuppeteer after two separate positive checkuser results, months apart, plus a conduct RFC. Durova 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The last rangeblock was 217.209.96.0/25, and did not hit the high end of the range, from which the latest edits are coming. It could be upgraded to a /24. It would inconvenience possibly a dozen bona-fide IP users who are working in that range. The other option is to do a semi-protect on all the articles and Talk pages that this guy has been messing with, for the same amount of time. Which is worse: shut down good-faith IP editors in the whole range from doing anything, or semi-protect two articles and article Talks for the same length of time? This guy is editing freely on the Swedish Misplaced Pages. Does anyone want to create a report on him at WP:Long term abuse, and post a link to it at the Swedish version of AN? The probable sockmaster User:EmilEikS has not edited here since December, and well-trained admins hate to block an account which is not doing anything. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This goes back to before I took an interest in the matter, but what actually happened was that the disruptive editor was already socking last fall, and when CU caught him and conduct RFC opened he abandoned the main account for a roving range of IP socks and a couple of new accounts. Basically kept right on going. Wouldn't have been a problem if the edits were neutral, but the individual had a definite agenda: diminish any professional accomplishment by Mae West, overtag the article with demands for additional sourcing, and try to get rid of any positive statement that wasn't individually referenced. When I stumbled upon this in the course of normal watchlist patrol, the whole article was tagged for lack of sources even though it had over 100 inline citations.

So yesterday I requested semiprotection, which seemed like the least intrusive way to deal with the problem and perhaps discourage the disruption. Overnight Wildhartlivie also decided to post here and I don't really object. For now let's leave this be and mark it resolved. If the disruption and block evasion resume yet again I'll request another formal checkuser to confirm matters, then follow up with a request to either article ban or siteban this person. Heaven knows why someone from Sweden would zero in on an American movie star who's been dead for 20 years, but we've seen stranger things--haven't we? Best, Durova 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the reluctance on the IP range. I'm not positive I believe that any of the IPs that fall into the 217.209.96.* range aren't from that particular location, but that's beside the point. I used to know how to run a search for edits from a wider range, but seem to have forgotten how to do that. However, not every edit that EmilEikS and his incarnations made were disruptive, although it was the large amount of disruptiveness and socking that led to the RfC/U and the confirmation of the sock activity that led to the blocking of the registered User:Fiandonca sock account and Emil's hasty departure to avoid scrutiny. The repetition of subtle and not-so-subtle attacks that have been recently made on Talk:Mae West, accusations of cabalism (like Durova and I have had much of any contact prior to this) and the repeated assertions that whatever IP of the day makes that "everything has been read and reviewed" in order to bolster a comment made by another version of the IP confirms to me that they are all the same person. My good faith regarding this person has long been exhausted and I will state for the record that he'll be back when the IP rangeblock expires. I really would urge you to reconsider blocking the User:EmilEikS account, however, since it has been determined to be the sock master account tied to the IPs. It makes it a bit more difficult to assemble data for AN reports and requests while having to say "well, no, the sock master was never blocked." That account would surely have been blocked after the confirmation of the sock User:Fiandonca account had the RfC/U not been active at the time. Since he refused to participate and quit using the account shouldn't take away from the fact that it should have been blocked then and has been actively editing without using the account. The checkuser does confirm he's active, even if he didn't log in to do it. He's interested in Mae West because his friend/business associate/entertainment boss (Lars Jacob) was an ardent Mae West fan and did a minor cabaret show using her as one of the characters. Apparently that became proprietary and the drive to coatrack him into the West article became a goal. That's my take on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to check for good-faith IP editors working in the range, go into the Gadgets tab of Special:Preferences and turn on the CIDR gadget. An indef block of User:EmilEikS might be justified if you are willing to open up a new WP:SPI request. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd turned that off, thanks. However, I'm not sure why a new WP:SPI would be needed. We have the checkuser results first listed as part of WP:Requests for comment/EmilEikS, wherein the first sock used by EmilEikS was blocked, but the main account wasn't because as Jehochman clearly said "I would normally block the main account for one to two weeks, but have decided not to this time so they can participate here" - which he chose not to do. Then there was this WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS/Archive, which checked the IPs being discussed with the same User:EmilEikS account. It was just done on March 3. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems fair to give this sockpuppeteer one more chance before contemplating any ban. The disruption the other day was minor, and this is the first lengthy block this person has gotten. He or she was successful for several months at sidestepping policy and getting benefit of the doubt from lenient administrators. That shouldn't earn a disruptive person a license to inflict more disruption, yet it's also fair to give this block a chance to succeed. Let's hope this person recognizes that there are limits to acceptable behavior, and settles down to become more constructive. Durova 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like EmilEikS has been playing us for fools. Their block is now going to be upgraded to indefinite. They previously earned a one to two week block, which I suspended so that they could participate in an RFC against them. I already gave them a second chance, and they blew it. They shouldn't get another second chance. If they show up to disrupt using IPs, contact a checkuser for help. If the person wants to edit again, they can request unblock and make a case for rehabilitation. Jehochman 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: our ongoing Universe Daily spam problem

For several years, there's been an ongoing problem with a prolific Australian spammer. Among other things, this is the same guy that notoriously set up the fake Bindi Irwin web site within hours of her father's death. To date, he's used approximately 100 IPs and sockpuppet accounts to add hundreds of links to 105 domains across this and several dozen other Wikimedia projects (other Wikipedias in other languages, Wikiquote, Commons, etc.)

90+% of his links are added to Australia-related topics, especially politics and celebrities. Frequently this takes the form of "official sites" such as kevinmichaelrudd.com -- it was listed as the Prime Minister's personal site in our Prime Minister of Australia article since it was added by The other 10% have included fake sites such as jimbowales.net and jimbowales.org as well as sites relating to space travel, nuclear power and Dr. Who.

His other patterns and quirks are listed at:

• Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Universe Daily#Modus operandi

He supposedly has dozens more domains registered that we don't know of and there will be plenty more links added. Please keep an eye out for new problems and report them as you think you see them at:

• Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Universe Daily

Thanks,
--A. B. 05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What has prompted this reminder; is he unusually active at the moment, or something along those lines? Lankiveil 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I was looking at users with recent level 4 spam warnings to see which had domains that might have needed blacklisting. Once I started investigating Wikiwarriorwayne's contributions this month, I saw the Universe Daily connection. As I started doing a detailed spam analysis, I just kept finding more accounts and more domains involved. In a nutshell, he'd been much more active over the last 18 months in spamming us than we had been in watching out for him. One of his fake sites, kevinmichaelrudd.com, was listed for nine months as the Prime Minister's personal website in our high profile Prime Minister of Australia article. It wasn't just us -- kevinmichaelrudd.com also even used in a couple of other Misplaced Pages's featured articles, no less.

Besides all the spam we got, I also saw there had been a ton of cross-wiki spam, even to our Welsh, Latin and Volapük Wikipedias. I'm not sure editors looked for cross-wiki spam in the past; we have much better tools for that than we did a year or two ago.

After about 8 hours of digging, our list of known Universe Daily domains had doubled from 50 to 100 domains, and known IPs had gone from 14 to 38. (There were only a handful of new sockpuppets -- perhaps he's shifting to more anonymous editing.) Also, I got a lot of links cleaned up on other projects.

The Universe Daily spammer's just been slipping these new sites in one at a time here and there and seldom getting caught. So this wasn't a sudden crisis -- just the detection of an ongoing problem.

--A. B. 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you gotten his hate mail yet? You will.

Thank you for your work on this. It's an unpleasant task but very worthwhile. Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD Closures

Requesting clarification on AFD closures and the timeframe. I was under the assumption that articles must undergo discussion for a minimum of five days, per Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, barring any extreme situations. I recall closing a discussion early at 4.5 days, and having much ruckus come as a result; but does this board sanction closure after just two hours? seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone nominated today's FA for AfD, 2 minutes might be enough, do you think? dougweller (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea when Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy was made so specific. Five days is a typical time, but let's not pretend there's something magical about that exact amount of time. AFDs should be closed whenever the right answer is apparent. Friday (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it meets any of the CSD criteria, there's no need to wait 5 days, to illustrate the other side of this. --Tone 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What AfD is being discussed? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect seicer is referring to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Magnus_Aarbakke Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is more of a broad question. It was brought up when I closed an AFD after 4.5 days, which caused a big ruckus. I claimed that Deletion policy mandates a five day minimum, whereas another guideline states that it can be around five days. There wasn't a real clear consensus on how long an AFD needs to be kept active, but after the incident, I curbed my closures to a minimum of five days out of courtesy and respect. I'd like to request clarification and possible amendment of the policy and/or guidelines to require that all AFD's, with the exception of extreme cases, be open for five days. seicer | talk | contribs 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AfDs should generally run for 5 days, but I see nothing wrong with WP:SNOW closures if there's a clear consensus. –Juliancolton 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've just speedy closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eero Aarnio. My arguments are there. --Tone 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of AfD if one person's opinion can close it in 2 hours? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When an AfD is brought maliciously or with a clear misunderstanding of the policy/guidelines applicable, there is no reason or need to keep it open 5 days and the AfD template on the article might be seen as misleading. dougweller (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I often object to SNOW closes after maybe 2 hours and 4 KEEP or DELETE ≠votes, since this disenfranchises those Misplaced Pages editors in time zones where it is the middle of the night. I have sometimes found reliable sources or had arguments which might have led to the opposite outcome if I had been given the opportunity to present them. It is very rare that an article should be SPEEDIED in less than 24 hours, unless there is a flood of KEEP votes for a clearly notable and well verified subject with a pointy nomination, or the subject meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If there are policy and guideline based good-faith arguments on both sides of the question, I see no reason to stop the process before 5 days. Edison (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, am I correct to assume that I can now go through AFD, close out deletions for keep/delete in a matter of hours, and not let the process run through per policy? seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that you can go through and speedy keep close any other national supreme court justices you find have been nominated.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're asking if you should disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Magnus Aarbakke looks awfully pointy too. Why would you do such a thing? Friday (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

After doing a quick peek through AFD, and noting that administrators were once again closing discussions (prior to mine) within hours with no ranting or foaming at the mouth from other editors and administrators, I felt that the attention focused on the lack of coherent policies and guidelines needed to be brought back up. If I had editors foaming at the mouth for closing an AFD 4.5 days into it, or for foaming at the mouth for my snowball closures, and those editors were endorsed, then why is it that this situation still occurs?

After the last incident, several administrators asked for clarification on the policies and guidelines, but that went nowhere. As usual. Either we have a set time limit, that is duplicated across the board, or we selectively enforce what we do have. seicer | talk | contribs 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer seems to be on a campaign to make a point. Over the past hour, he closed three AfDs, two of them within 4 hours of being nominated. Two as "delete" (not "speedy delete", neither qualifies under CSD: #1, #2), and one as a "speedy no consensus"--a new one for me. This is getting very disruptive. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You could just parse through ANI to find WP:ANI#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein. I'm sorry you don't endorse the closure of a BLP cluster@#$^. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Two hours. And with consensus at DRV leaning towards the statement that the AFD was closed far too early (although endorsing the keep rationale). seicer | talk | contribs 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of those three mentioned, one was a copyvio (of this), one was clearly a hoax, and the other was a major BLP issue. Don't see any problems there. Black Kite 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the copyvio nor the hoax were deleted as such. The copyvio was speedy deleted as OR and SYNTH. Hoax is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, and has never been such; see WP:HOAX: "Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be speedy deleted as vandalism." Since my last comment, Seicer has speedy deleted 15 more articles, all as a hoax. Does this sound like a "thorough investigation" to you? Owen× ☎ 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, will you be stalking my edits? Check my talk page for the discussion about the hoaxes that were just removed. Your haunts is verging on bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made your intentions clear on your Talk page: "as I found out today, there is apparently no set standard on deletion policies or guidelines, so administrators are free to delete/keep whenever and whatever (...) If they can do that, so can I (and it's a bit pointy, but I don't really care that much anymore.". You are out to make a point by closing as delete anything you can lay your hands on, preferably as soon as they are nominated. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is now a deletionist versus inclusionist thread? seicer | talk | contribs 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked to see if this is happening, but a hypothetical question one might want to ask, is whether admins of a particular frame of mind or general view on a topic are seeking to forestall those of another frame of mind or general view on a topic by trying to monopolize the closing of afds by doing them just a little early. If so, this sort of process leads to continued regression to a situation where people close after 2 or 3 days, which does not give people a chance to participate. There might therefore be a reason to main a strict rule for everything that is not explicitly a SNOW or speedy. Even if all admins were absolutely fairminded and never injected their own views of whether or not an article should be kept into a closing, and never closed articles in their own special topics, there would still be unconscious biasses of this sort. So there might be a good reason to enforce the rule. But it is not a good idea to call attention to a potential problem by carrying it to being absurd lengths--that's the very definition of POINT. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that Seicer stop immediately. He certainly appears to be on a point making campaign. There are cases where early closure is a viable option, but "speedy no consensus" seems to be stretching the bounds of good faith here. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and early closures should be possible in some cases, but rapidly clearing through all AFDs and closing them early nearly randomly is quite disruptive. Please stop and take a tea break and just let it go. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped already. His only closure in the last few hours was a good one. If he starts again, something will need to be done, but for now I suggest we assume he has come to his senses and we all move on. --Tango (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped, only working now to amend the guidelines to conform to our policies. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog use in EN Misplaced Pages

Secaundis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ramz Trinidad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are exchanging Tagalog communications on their talkpages, especially in articles related to Sta. Maria, Bulacan.

Per the "Good practice" section in WP:TALK, in particular I gave Secaundis a uw-english tag and he responded on my talk page with an excuse that basically said he is not fluent in English, despite the fact that he has simple4 and EN-3 boxes on his userpage. I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia.

I suggested he take his Tagalog to the TL Misplaced Pages, but he responded to me in Tagalog, which like any other foreign languages, is not allowed here-unless there's translations (which he did not give). Both their talkpages are essentially chatboxes. I'm simply following WP:TALK protocols, any admin who cares to help, please reprimand them, especially Secaundis for his apparent defiance. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia. Have you ever edited a Misplaced Pages in a language you aren't fluent in? In most of them, there are people who are happy to help you out, happy to answer questions in English. Like WP:TALK, WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline. You shouldn't lecture people about not abiding by one guideline, while you disregard another. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both users have been warned with std template. Will keep an eye and see what they do/answer afterwards. -- Alexf 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that talking in English is a good practice, and a courtesy. However this is not mandatory (especially in user talks). -- lucasbfr 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. If they have insufficient grasp of English, then they're not going to be useful here - and their userboxes are inconsistent with that claim, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. WTF? Let them? Honestly, that sounds awfully xenophobic. Mind you, that's a talk page guideline...not even a user talk page-specific guideline, but a general one. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not xenophobic, some of my best friends are Tagalogs ;-) Sorry, all I'm saying is that non-transparent communication is not a good idea, but moreover, if they can't communicate in English, then what are they involved in an English encyclopedia-writing project for? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right- we're the English Misplaced Pages; it's not xenophobic for us to request conversations take place in English, any more than it would be for the Tagalog Misplaced Pages to prefer communicating in Tagalog. I can't see a polite but firm request (which {{uw-english}} is, despite the name) being out of bounds. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I don't think this is the first time someone has been rapped for fully speaking other tongues in the EN site....(and now back to your regular wikiediting) --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also ask for help at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines (the Philippines Wikiproject). Someone there could tell you what the exchange is all about. --A. B. 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User RFCs

There are a couple of user RFCs that are a month or more old, and should be closed. As these have a tendency to become cesspools of nastiness when they go past their time limits (or usefulness), could someone please close them? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs vandalizing with similar edit summaries

Special:Contributions/80.199.63.18. Just recently there were other IPs doing similar vandalism (exact same edit summary). Can anyone help me locate this? Is there a way to search for edit summary strings? Enigma 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also we currently have a backlog at AIV as well as an edit war there (3-4 reversions by both parties). Enigma 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And can someone skilled in range blocks see if one can be safely applied in this case? I would help Enigmaman, but am poor with the ranges. I'll zip over to AIV in the meantime. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the /24 there is only that one. I'm looking at the /16 range now, and I'll see if it can be more localized. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the entire /16 range, the IP listed above is the only one with those edit summaries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=80.199.0.0%2F16&namespace=&year=&month=-1. What was the other IP? -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the /24 range for a month. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys. :) Enigma 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I will check further to see if I can find the other examples. I have it somewhere. Enigma 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverse an overly bold page move, please

In an attempt to help a new user rescue an article from a contentious AfD that was moving inevitably towards deletion, I moved Kriss Perras Running Waters to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters to userfy for her. In discussion with #wikipedia, I was told to put it back until after the AfD was concluded. I do not have the tools necessary to do this properly. Please assist. DarkAudit (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem closure, additional opinions sought

There's a copyright problem ripe for admin closure for which I'd be grateful for feedback. I placed my question at Misplaced Pages talk:C#Charts, Creativity, Sweat of the Brow, Feist on March 9th, but so far it's crickets there. :) Please, if you can offer input, do. It's the only open ticket for today, and resolution of the question is holding up an AfD. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice please re: Suleman octuplets

Remember the "Octomom"? Well Suleman octuplets has each baby's name and gender and I think this might violate BLP about printing minors' information. I want to ensure I'm on target with that, and if so I wonder if one of those handy messages that pop-up above the editing window might make sense "don't print the babies' names it's evil, etc." as it would seem this information would be routinely re-added. -- Banjeboi 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• The information is reprinted in 3 different sources so I think it can be considered public information. Also, printing something like the home address of a minor could pose a security risk. Mere biographical information about their names (when they're already notable) wouldn't pose any such risk and is therefore safe (at least in my own opinion. - Mgm| 12:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy of names suggests that we should err on removing them as it really adds nothing to the article and their only notability is being one of eight. -- Banjeboi 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I have to note that similar information is also present in Chukwu octuplets, McCaughey septuplets and Dionne quintuplets. This seems to be standard for such articles, and any decisions made that result in the removal of this information here should be consistently applied. --Moonriddengirl 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So should we just ignore it and move on or ? -- Banjeboi 14:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • We should seek consensus on whether or not it violates BLP. :) You don't indicate if there's a discussion about it at BLPN; if there's not, you might want to launch one. If there is, and there's insufficient or unclear response, an RFC may be appropriate. I am reminded of the RFC on the real name of another marginal (and presumably unwilling) celebrity, here. My point is that any consideration of this should consider policy itself and usage in other articles, rather than specifically this one. While the Suleman octuplets are much bigger news than the Chukwu octuplets, privacy issues seem similar. --Moonriddengirl 14:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I have to head out for a while but will look to doing this later, if anyone wants to start it up feel free and I'll join in. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been updated following this request for clarification

ScienceApologist is banned from Misplaced Pages for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification. SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks of Klaksonn?

Admins might like to keep an eye on User:Sinrecon and User:Nutekara. Allegedly new accounts, but went straight to editing user talk pages for Klaksonn socks. WWGB (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards