Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 152.163.100.200 (talk) at 02:29, 21 February 2006 (→persistant AOL Denial of Service Vandal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:29, 21 February 2006 by 152.163.100.200 (talk) (→persistant AOL Denial of Service Vandal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Tasks

    The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
    NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

    General

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe closed

    This arbitration case has been closed. Freestylefrappe is desysoped with immediate entitlement to reapply for adminship whenever he desires. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    In accordance with the following message, I have deleted his user and user talk pages:
    "Delete my user and talk pages. freestylefrappe 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)" from User talk:Johnleemk. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Since talk pages shouldn't be deleted, I undeleted it and blanked it—hope that's all right. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I support the undeletion, I believe the page should remain with a searchable history. Blanked is fine, of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Advice requested from experienced admins

    Some time in January, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) arrived and began to make big changes in the Christianity article and other related articles. His changes were resisted by those who had been editing the article for some time, as they were considered to be attempts to insert and present fringe scholarship as mainstream views. He sometimes edited as 64.121.40.153 (talk · contribs), and acknowledged those edits as his, when he inadvertently got logged out.

    After Givanni33 had met with some resistance, BelindaGong (talk · contribs) turned up to support him. She sometimes edited from an IP address – 38.114.145.148 (talk · contribs), which she agreed was probably hers. Her very first edits both as 38.114.145.148 and as BelindaGong were reverts to Giovanni's version. They both reverted aggressively, while lecturing their opponents for reverting them. They very quickly violated 3RR, but were not reported as they were new (even though they had been warned gently but frequently of the rule before the actual violations occurred).

    They continued to revert unrepentantly, and seemed to take advantage of the fact that the "old" editors were reluctant to report them, or to go beyond three reverts themselves. Finally, after a long period of gross violations from both of them (on one occasion, Giovanni reverted an article 11 times in about eighteen and a half hours, despite being asked repeatedly to stop), they were both blocked. See the reports ] and ].

    Since then they have been careful, and have not violated 3RR, although they have, on numerous occasions, taken six reverts between them in a 24-hour period. They have also voted together. Belinda often shows up to revert just as Giovanni has used up his three reverts. In fact, as I write these words, she's doing it right now at Christianity.

    The WP:RFCU results came in on Saturday. User:Giovanni33 is User:BelindaGong. They had constantly denied this, and had put up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other (see their talk pages), while suggesting that User:Str1977 and User:KHM03 were sockpuppets, and that I was a meatpuppet for Str1977.

    I would appreciate some advice on what I should do now. I seem to recall that in the past, admins have blocked indefinitely an account that was sockpuppeting to get round the rules, and have also blocked the main account for a period. In my view, Giovanni is the real account holder, as Belinda nearly always just reverts to his version, whereas he posts long messages to the talk pages in order to justify his edits (though he then insits on posting his extremely controvesial edits even if he hasn't achieved any kind of agreement.

    I know I can't block people I'm in dispute with. Does that mean that I shouldn't block Giovanni or Belinda, since I have opposed their edits? Is an indefinite block on Belinda justified?

    Advice would be welcome. AnnH 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    You're right that you shouldn't block them, as that would be an abuse of your administrator privileges. But it sounds like they are definitely violating the spirit of 3RR, which is an abuse of having a second account. Coming here and telling the story was the right thing to do, as it sounds like this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't have time right now to investigate the specifics and engage in the appropriate dialogue before considering a block (which may well be necessary) but I'm sure some other admin will do so. moink 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would suggest that you submit a WP:RCU to see if they are sock puppets of each other. If they are, block both for 3RR violations. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    As indicated above, she already has, and they are. -GTBacchus 06:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Looks like User:MONGO has blocked both for 24 hours, an appropriate remedy for the apparent violation. I'm sure many will be keeping an eye on them after the block expires. Good job keeping your cool, Ann. moink 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Kecik (talk · contribs) has shown up to continue the edit war. Jkelly 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I think the article Christianity could benefit from mediation. I'm surprised to see very few citations. In controversial pages like this, people have to stop presenting their own views and do serious scholarship. That means presenting a multitude of views and documenting who says what. I know next to nothing about the subject (I'm an ethnically Jewish agnostic raised as an atheist), but reading the article and the discussion I don't understand the difference between the views. Assuming one is mainstream and the other is more of a fringe view, they should both be presented so that someone like me understands the different views and can recognize which are mainstream and what the controversy is about. I don't know if the parties in this debate can accomplish this without moderation. I'd also try to get everyone to agree to a ONE REVERT policy. If there is a clear controversy, three reverts just waste everyone's time. If people can't behave civilly and work together, perhaps the page needs to be protected and all edits happen by agreement on the talk page. If you all worked together you could probably create a great article. Good luck. -- Samuel Wantman 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I second this notion. Infact my proposal has been that no one revert anothers work without at least coming to the talk page first. Making the talk page mandatory before making a revert would do a lot to help.Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    This is why I could never run a stable of sockpuppets: It's just too easy to get confused. I believe both of these, as well as BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are currently blocked for using puppets to avoid the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Again, I have no socketpuppets, and I'm willing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for anyone would would like to take me up on the offer. I will trust any arbcom admin with my the personal ID's. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    User:FionaS may be an additional sock. KHM03 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think FionaS did admit to being a sock infact. But, not my sock. She stated that she wanted to speak out but not be targed for harassment in her main account. This person may be an established older user. There are legitimate reasons for somoene to have a sock, and it appears Fiona made a good argument for why she adopted this sock. I also note she did not do any reverts. That editors feel they must hide inorder to express themselves is indicative of the chilling atmosphere that results when those with a contrary POV are bullied. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    As I'm rushing out now, and have no time to provide an update, perhaps some not-too-busy admin might take a look here and here and give some advice. There's quite a history of redlinked user names appearing, agreeing with Giovanni, reverting to his version, voting for whatever he votes for, etc. And one of them accidentally signed his own signature for something that Giovanni33 was answering. Then he logged in as Giovanni, and changed the signature. Comments please? Thanks. AnnH 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: I admit I edit warred in the very beggining. I have stopped. I noticed you keep bringing up my past 3RR violations to paint me as an aggressive edit warrior, but the truth is otherwise. I extensively used the talk pages to work for and infact build real consensus. I pleaded that no one reverts to undo anyother editors work (except for vandalism) without first at least going to the talk page. My idea to stop edit warring was ignored. Still, I learned that simply winning an argument by providing references while the side failed to and went silent, did not entitle me to edit war in vio of the policy; being right is no excuse. So I stopped. I am reasonable and I have been convinced when wrong. I can be swayed, but with reason, and evidence to support the claims. After my first block, I never violated the 3RR again. But I continued try to find out what the objections were and have them substantiated, using reasoned arguments, and sources. This apparently emboldened other users (my theory) who started to show up, agree with me and help me out--but no different than the tag teaming you have enjoyed with your confidants in pursuing for your POV. (another theory is that they are real sockets created to make it look as if they were my sockets to use as a diversion away from edits work). But, I assume good faith. When the threat of possible equality for a secular POV encroached, in part by my winning over the moderate voices, the aggressive attacks of socket puppet accusations started, and expanded so that anyone who agreed with me was automatically suspect; to assume bad faith was made the norm and civility was thrown out. That Belinda proved to be my wife (a fact I felt I had a right to keep private) was seized on as excuse to avoid even trying to work on the article to address contentious points. Now it's locked. Temporarily this might not be bad if it forces others to go to the talk page to address the issue.
    You will forgive me, AnnH, if I think you have utterly failed not to bite newcomers. Freethinker was a newcomer, yet as soon as he explained his relation to me he was attacked, blocked, and his page defaced with a socket puppet label. This is the opposite of assuming good faith. Now he doesn't want to come back. Infact you called him a "meatpuppet" outright, after he explained his connection to me. He was new and wanted to help with the POV disputes. I mentioned before to you that the Wiki policy states, "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." It should be reasonable to understand (yet you said you can't understand it after it was explained to you) The only other time I used another account was once when I was at a friend's house, to introduce him to Misplaced Pages (I think getting a more diverse body of pov's is healthy, not bad), and I used his account only to respond to a question on my talk page. This was all open and disclosed by me. Its lot logical to assume that this is an attempt by me to use a socketpuppet, esp. when I use his PC and even sign his name to my message (which I corrected, to my name when I know full well about the usercheck abilities. Yet, despite this you keep spreading a negative bad faith interpretation that assumes a negative intenion on my part. I also will say that as a result he was blocked, and I was blocked for an additional 48 hours (72 in total for having my wife edit and inviting a friend). I don't protest this, even though I'm innocent of any sockepuppetry, and did not violate 3RR or any rule. What I do protest in the strongest way possible is the continued distruption with constant socketpuppet allegations of me and others based on allegations and variations of different half-truths that insult, disrupt, and distract from honest editing.
    I think the Christianity article's problems, in part, stems from an ideological rigidity kept in tact by a dominance of multiple users sharing the same basic POV. Apparently any new comer doesn’t meet groupthink standards is bullied into conformity, silence, or expulsion. I felt I was. You will recall that user Sophia stated she felt bullied and ganged up on, when she first joined, that it was scary. Others stated similar sentiments. The very fact of the nature of maintaining one POV means that newcomers who do not fit will get the bite experience. Most will probably leave. In this sense the article space acts like just like institution, it’s self-selecting.
    The socket puppet allegations have not stopped but are now being pushed agressively despite the fact that the checks have cleared me and the others. This now objectively serve as a tool keep the status quo by attack users integrity instead of their arguments. I see it as intimidation and disruption with the aim of getting me permanently banned. In my forced wiki-break (although I've been editing in the other wiki language sites) I've also had a chance to read a lot of messages so I'm confident I know whats going on, what you have been saying, and others, and can easily see what the motivations and goals are not in good faith. You want me gone for good. I'm sorry if I'm not going to violate any rules to make that easy. Belinda is not my socketpuppet, and I can prove she is my wife. That should restore my credibility and put to rest this modern day inquisition. I’m willing to forgive and continue assuming good faith as I realize that is not a luxury but a necessity in order to focus on the collaborative effort we are all supposed to be part of.
    Despite my concilliatory and amicable disposition, and the fact that I've pleaded to to focused on my arguments to improve the Christianity article, the continued allegations of socketpuppetry by those I've had Pov diputes with, continue unabated. I think, are being done in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of the POV differences. The speculations continue to disrupt good faith discussions and turn them into personal attacks. It has gotten so bad that I think it borders on harassment. Sadly, I've been convinced that AnnH has been making this her mission, expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an ugly inquisition; even an older valued editor has left in protest describing it with this kind of language. AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith assumptions, making interpretations and speculations to cast the worst possible light over me and others, over and over in different places. I have had a hard time even keeping up with trying to defend myself over the many one-sided half-truths being spread. Keeping my marriage private was my right; that I chose to not share this fact is irrelevant to the fact that she is my wife and hence not a sockpuppet, which is all that should matter (I've offered to prove it-- if any arbcom admin is interested, by sending you our respective ID's for Giovanni and Belinda Gong, our real names). I disclosed this after a usercheck showed our connection to offer a valid explanation for the appearance of sockepuppetry. We were both blocked. Due to the POV dispute I've had with AnnH and a couple others, they are now taking advantage of this to continue what is essential a personal attack, including anyone else who has agreed with my pov. Even after a usercheck has cleared them and myself, all kinds of accusatory speculations continue unabated. The result is in effect to disrupt constructive edit work to improve the substance of articles. This is indecent, counter-productive, and harassment. The role that AnnH describes of my wife, also exactly matches her own role in pushing for her own Pov with user Str1977; they have use up 3reverts each between each other, and AnnH has even accidentally gone over 3rv's in a 3RR vio herself. AnnH says that was an accident and I believe her. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules, although this McCarthy like witch-hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals. I ask her to stop this, if not for me then for the good of Misplaced Pages as it's inimical to the good the project. Thanks for reading. Giovanni33 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Advice requested Part Two

    I would very much appreciate more input from admins on this matter, as otherwise this can just turn into a back-and-forth litany of accusations between Giovanni and me. The Christianity article has now been protected. I would like to answer some of the accusations made against me, and then to request advice as to what should happen now.

    I seem to be accused of having driven SOPHIA away. I disagreed with SOPHIA about some of her edits (while agreeing with others). I respected her and have never at any stage suspected her of anything dishonourable. At one stage, she said on the Christianity talk page that it had been "scary" to have me and two others "at" her at the same time. Following that statement, Str1977 left her a message saying that he was sorry if we had scared her, that it had not been our intention, and that he appreciated her efforts at calming down tension. I followed that with a post saying that I also regretted if we had scared her off, although I didn't recall having done so, and that I respected her as a genuine editor, here to improve the encyclopaedia. Our posts (Str1977's and mine) are here. She replied here that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to explain that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than she!) was scary when she was new. She also said that Str1977 had left her a nice message and that she regarded us both and KHM03 as serious, thoughtful editors, and that she admired the patience that we had shown towards Giovanni33.

    SOPHIA was extremely hurt and angry when the checkuser result came through, showing her connection to TheShriek. It was I who requested a check, and I did so in consultation with other editors. I did not include SOPHIA in it. When Giovanni arrived, he engaged in massive edit warring. I don't mean an accidental slip into a fourth revert (as I did myself on one occasion) — I mean six and five and eleven, ignoring warnings and pleas from other editors. It was unfair because none of the "older" editors had a history of running to WP:AN/3RR to report an opponent, especially not if he was new, and we were all trying to stay within the rules ourselves. At least four new redlinked users appeared and said on the talk page that they agreed with Giovanni. Most of them began reverting to his version, and also following him to other pages, voting where he voted, claiming that there was consensus, etc. These users were BelindaGong, Kecik, MikaM, and TheShriek. All except TheShriek have been blocked for 3RR, and again they were not reported for a first, accidental slip into a fourth revert. When I requested the check they were all fairly new. The contributions of the first four would probably show that at least 95% of their contributions are agreeing with Giovanni on the talk pages of various articles, voting where he votes, and reverting (or doing partial reverts) to his version. The fact that the checkuser showed Giovanni to be the same as BelindaGong certainly justified requesting it, since Belinda and Giovanni constantly took double votes, took at least six reverts, made claims about the number of editors who agreed with their version, and set up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other. TheShriek was also shown to be the same as SOPHIA. However, when that result came through, I saw that there was no evidence of gaming the system, taking double votes, or multiple reverts. I sent SOPHIA a polite message here, telling her about the result, and asking if she would like to clarify anything, as there was now a statement (not an image) on TheShriek's page that he was a sockpuppet for SOPHIA. She posted a rather angry reply here, saying the TheShriek was her husband. We all accepted that, and were sympathetic, but she could not be pacified. I posted two more friendly messages on her talk page, and some one the Christianity talk page (e.g. this one), explaining that we respected her, and that nobody thought she had done anything wrong, and that I had personally removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's page. When she complained that the would be permanently in the edit history, I told her that I had used my admin powers to remove it from the history, and asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. KHM03 was also sympathetic to her, and Str1977 posted a very friendly message to her. So much for the accusations made by Giovanni and his supporters that she left because she was persecuted and hounded for her POV by the Christian editors.

    With regard to Freethinker99 (talk · contribs), he arrived at the Christianity talk page while Giovanni was blocked, and told us that he was a new user and that he agreed with Giovanni. His writing style and arguments were simlilar to those of Giovanni. His second edit was a revert to a Giovanni version. He reverted three times in a little over two hours (like Giovanni/Belinda).

    • At 20:24 on 14 February, KHM03 posted a message to Giovanni33's talk page, asking him to clarify if he had any connection with Trollwatcher, John1838, or Kecik.
    • At 23:08 on 14 February, KHM03 added "And User:Freethinker99".
    • At 23:59 on 14 February, Giovanni answered "I'll . . . state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past." But he signed his post while logged on as Freethinker99.
    • At midnight on 15 February, Giovanni logged on as Giovanni33, and replaced Freethinker's signature with his own.
    • At 00:04 on 15 February, Freethinker99 posted a comment with little relevance to anything being questioned on Giovanni's talk page. It would give an ostensible reason for Freethinker still to be in the edit history after the telltale signature had been replaced. I'm sure many Wikipedians who have been away from a talk page for several hours just check the difference between the last version they were familiar with and the current one, rather than going through each diff.
    • At 00:11 on 15 February, Freethinker posted that he had written that message for Giovanni and had signed it by mistake.
    • At 00:19 on 15 February, Freethinker claimed that he had let Giovanni write a post to his own talk page on his (Freethinker's) computer.. (Eight minutes earlier, he had claimed that he had written that post for Giovanni.)
    • At 00:23 Giovanni posted to his talk page that he had not seen KHM03's question about Freethinker when he answered that he had no connection to any of those users, and that he did, in fact, know Freethinker.

    I did not attack Freethinker. I did not block him. (I don't block people I'm in dispute with.) Nor did I add the sockpuppet template to his userpage (though I support the admin who did). I did say that his story, if true, makes him a meatpuppet. I stand by that remark. If he really is a different person, he arrived at Misplaced Pages to revert to Giovanni's version, and to argue for it on the talk page.

    Giovanni recently followed me to Jdavidb's talk page, and saw a message I had posted there thanking Jdavidb for bringing me to Misplaced Pages, as I believed it was he who had posted someething on some blog asking people to join Misplaced Pages if they were prepared to respect NPOV. On discovering that post, Giovanni posted to several talk pages and project pages that I, despite saying that it wasn't allowed to invite friends to join Misplaced Pages, had joined in exactly the same way. For the record, I have never met Jdavidb, and have never, as far as I know, reverted to his version of any article. We very seldom edit the same articles. That is now being compared to Giovanni's friend and wife (if they're not Giovanni himself) reverting constantly to his version, while pretending to have no connection to him.

    I apologize for boring everyone with such a long account, but I really would appreciate some input, as BelindaGong and Freethinker have now both been unblocked, and the Christianity and Adolf Hitler articles will presumably soon be unlocked. I really have no idea whether Giovanni, Belinda, and Freethinker are one person, or two, or three; but their connection to each other (which they tried not just to keep secret but actually to mislead people about) has been shown. What is their position now? WP:SOCK says that "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." Well, Giovanni and Belinda have taken double votes, (see ) but Giovanni is now insisting that Belinda is his wife, and is therefore not a sockpuppet.

    Can someone clarify what the situation is now? I seem to recall that it came up in the case of Hollow Wilerding, but am not sure where to look for information regarding that case. Was there reference to some policy or some ArbCom ruling that a family under one roof is officially one single user for voting purposes, or am I imagining that? I'd like some reassurance that Giovanni and Belinda are not entitled to 6 reverts between them every day. And to anticipate his likely statement that I have reverted to Str1977's version, I'd like to say that I have never met Str1977, and we both have a long history editing articles in which the other user has no interest. We do have some overlap of interest and of POV in Christianity-related articles. Before Giovanni and his sockpuppet(s?) arrived, I would say my average was lower than one revert per day.

    We now also have new users John1838 (talk · contribs) and Trollwatcher (talk · contribs). I certainly don't want to imply that every new user who supports Giovanni is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. (I was once a new user with a POV!) But these two users seem to be just criticizing editors, rather than making helpful contributions. In particular I'd like someone to take a look at John1838's user page.

    Any help would be appreciated. AnnH 22:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Signing another user's name

    With this edit, User:Domfeargrieve tried to influence a VFD by signing a keep vote as User:Mikkalai. My personal opinion is that this is a blockable offence, but there's nothing in the blocking policy that covers it. How shall I proceed? Snottygobble 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    It is disruptive, so it is a "blockable offence". Of course, if the user in question did it only once, then it's no big deal. If he persists after warnings, then he probably would get blocked. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not in agreement. Impersonation is no biggy in my opinion. Jimbo Wales 15:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (this comment was actually made by 172.200.194.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

    Classic--God of War 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Karmafist and Template:Kfwelcome

    Karmafist is using his own template(s) to welcome users. Normally probably not a big deal but this one asks the new users to sign a petition of his and points them to his own User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies. I just don't think it's right to drag new editors into ongoing battles and ask them to provide input to a policy proposal they have neither the context nor the experience to have any real knowledge of. If I'm not mistaken there's Template:Kwelcome, Template:Kfwelcome and Template:Kawelcome also.

    New users should start out with as clean a slate as possible and make their own judgements. This is just wrong. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I wouldn't argue about it. If e wants to promote some petition by hawking it to new users, let em. If the idea is a bad one, it'll be clear to new users as much as anyone else. Ignoring it is the best way to handle this. 134.10.12.35 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)
    Disagree, how will it be clear to new users? He has no right to sell anything to new users and welcome templates shouldn't be a new battle ground. Rx StrangeLove 06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    There's no policy about what editors can communicate to other editors (as opposed to how, etc). However, as a matter of ethics, I think this highly inappropriate, especially given the context (welcoming new users, which though informal, many new users may mistake as formal). --bainer (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    There's not policy about lots of things that are just "bad". Introducing new editors to Misplaced Pages by shoving wiki-socio-political junk in their face is just poor form. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    It occurs to me that his welcome template is in the Template: namespace, instead of in his namespace, so he doesn't own the template. If you think the link to his philosophies page is inappropriate, why not remove it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've removed the two links at issue. Rx StrangeLove 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    Basically I think that these templates violate WP:BITE. We should not expect new users to immediatley know everything about Misplaced Pages and its customs, and I think this extends to asking them to get involved in wikipolitical debates. I think linking to petitions and controversial statements in welcome messages is an abuse of the role of welcomer. The Land 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I take no issue with karmafist's manifesto in and of itself, nor do I oppose, on principle, the creation of a boilerplate message in his own userspace linking to the manifesto. I do, however, find it inappropriate for him to use such a message to welcome new users. Thus I feel that he should keep his "hey, come check out my manifesto" message completely separate from his "hey, welcome to wikipedia" message and refrain from advertising the manifesto on the talk pages of user accounts younger than say, one month. His current methods are likely to confuse new users and damage the credibility of his manifesto, much as meatpuppets damage the credibility of an AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:20, Feb. 14, 2006

    Strong agree here. We can't ban him from doing this (only Jimbo can, and I doubt he'll bother). That doesn't change the fact that it's terribly bad form to involve people in wikipolitics when we should be going back to the era when, you know, the article namespace mattered. Let newbies cut their teeth editing articles, and allow them to get stuck debating policy once they're admins (hehe, this calls to mind a corollary of the Peter Principle -- most of the work in an organisation is performed by those at the lowest levels in the hierarchy). And if Karmafist wants to use a boilerplate welcome message to advertise his brand of wikipoliticking, he can create it in his userspace. Template space is for stuff a large number of people will want to use. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not an admin, but I have been reading up on this incident as I work to gain experience, and I'd like to add a strong agree as outlined by Johnleemk. User-space-as-bully-pulpit is one thing; pretty much anything designed to incite should be kept out of template space. RadioKirk talk to me 14:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    The message with its two personal opinion links do seem somehow wrong to me. The manifesto in itself is choc full of bad faith, and Misplaced Pages is represented as (as Karmafist undoubtedly genuinely believes it to be) a place where the bulk of decisions are made by coteries of partisan friends who show high persistence in shouting matches and edit wars. This is newbie biting, it seeks to poison the mind of the new user and encourage suspicion and antagonism of which Karmafist, alas, has shown much of late. I went through last night and replaced a few of his welcomes with the official welcome message, subst'd. If each of us did a few of them, then this toxicity would be reduced considerably. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Looks like he's at it again, presumably pasting in the text directly without using the template. See , , and , for example, or this list. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've asked Karmafist to stop doing this in the strongest possible terms. I think getting newbies into wiki-politics before they fall in love with the encyclopedia could do tremendous damage to the project. -- SCZenz 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Karmafist has agreed to stop targetting new users for "a few weeks", which is most definitely an improvement. Hopefully he won't have to start doing this over again. NSLE (T+C) 06:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Editor making arbitration rulings?

    Am I misreading this? .

    I dont believe that's entirely appropriate. I removed it once, but got reverted. Since I'm not on the best of terms with this editor, I'd like to have a third opinion by a sane admin. User has been informed that behaviour was inappropriate here . I hesitate to be the person to issue the warning however, due to past history.

    Kim Bruning 07:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    This issue raised by Kim is a broadening of the debate found here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment
    Kim confuses making with relying upon arbitration rulings. Other's have been enjoined by the arbcomm for this same behavior. That's called precedent. Enforcing policy is very much within the purview of an administrator's duties, even when such policy is established by precedent, and I simply cited precedent in the infobox. FeloniousMonk 07:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think this is a separate issue which needs looking into, and I'd rather not confuse it with the other. In any case, I'll leave this up to a competent 3rd (or 4th) party. Kim Bruning 07:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    This seems like a pretty complicated issue. I'm pretty sure there is not a blanket prohibition on editing articles of organizations one is involved in. I have edited MIT Assassins' Guild, for instance, and really not very many people know much about it who are not members. The perspective of someone inside an organization can be a useful one to incorporate while achieving NPOV. On the other hand, the Assassins' Guild is not a controversial topic, while Answers in Genesis appears to be quite controversial. I think the box is excessive. I think asking the editor in question not to edit the page is excessive. Can you imagine if US Democrats were enjoined from editing Democratic Party (United States)? On the other hand, when evaluating various POVs in the article and associated discussion, I can see it being useful to know when an editor is a member or a strong supporter of an organization. moink 07:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Arbcomm has set precendent about involved editors a number of times, here's a couple: WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing are both analogous to this. WP:AUTO states "Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." That your wife shouldn't be editing your bio or organization's article in an pov way is not much of a leap, there. WP:BLP says "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Again, it is not a stretch to see that your wife shouldn't be editing your bio and organization's article in a highly pov manner either. We're not on new ground here. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Slapping an infobox on an article that refers to arbitration precedent may not be the best way to handle this type of situation. Using the infobox cited above implies that this move is a standard practice rather than a somewhat exceptional remedy. While it has be established that the ArbCom can impose editing restrictions on editors and that the ArbCom can specify 'open' restrictions that permit admins to bar disruptive editors from certain articles, it hasn't been established that admins have a unilateral power to do so...and I'm not entirely comfortable with going down that road.
    We already have tools in our toolbox to work within established policy and practice to deal with 'insiders' editing their articles. If an editor is making a nuisance of themselves on an article–despite warnings or guidance–a short block for disruption can be applied. It's a good idea to post a note to WP:AN/I outlining the circumstances both for review and so that other admins are aware of the trouble. (If an admin is personally involved in the dispute, it's best to post a note and let someone else block.) The trouble with Jack Sarfatti and User:Jack Sarfatti was handled this way; if not entirely satisfactorily, it did not require the intervention of ArbCom and curtailed the edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, we've tried discussing this at her talk page for weeks and she simply deletes all comments, warnings, cautions, etc. as "trolling" or "vandalism," often accompanied with a personal attack. Guettarda can tell you all about that part. I felt that a persistent warning in the form of a infobox was a far less dramatic and disruptive remedy than blocking, which, in my recent experience, simply hardens bad attitudes and drives marginally disruptive editors into chronically disruptive editors, ala User:Benapgar. But sure, fine, we'll take down the infoboxes and just block her if she continues to disrupt the articles in question if that is consensus here. FeloniousMonk 08:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Practically, I'm not sure how the effect would be different. About the only way to enforce its provisions would be through blocks. I'd feel more comfortable with "If you persist in violating WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:OWN, and/or WP:DICK, you will be blocked for a period of time" compared to "If you edit this article you will be reverted, and blocked if necessary". I suppose it depends on whether or not we think this editor can learn through operant conditioning to avoid bad behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    So, does TenOfAllTrades' comments represent consensus - no infoboxes, but blocking when disruptive instead? If so, I'll take them down and we'll move forward under that advice. FeloniousMonk 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Banning policy, which appears to cover bans from single articles, says that one needs consensus from "the community" for bans (other than those decreed by the Arbcom/Board/Jimbo).... It doesn't sound like use of Arbcom precedent is in there as an available method to ban. --AySz88^-^ 08:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ban? Nobody has been banned or under threat of being banned. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I thought enjoining someone from editing a certain article is equivalent to banning from the article? --AySz88^-^ 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    The infobox merely says users can be banned from such articles for such behavior. It then goes on to direct editors to report editing by enjoined editors here, at this page, or to follow WP:DR. Personally or overly involved editors are already enjoined from editing articles in which they are participants as a matter of policy. FeloniousMonk 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    (May I suggest that we all drop the word "enjoin"? It is not a commonly-used word and I, for one, am not sure what people mean by it in this context. Do we mean "prohibited", or "blocked", or "discouraged"? I'm sure there's a more common word that we can use. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) -*A legal definition is somebody covered by an injunction, but it's not clear that the user in question has an injunction. There are only four "enjoined" users now, so far as I can tell.-Will Beback 09:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

    Ut oh. Jonathan Sarfati also has the box ,

    The latter by Duncharris. I'm feeling rather errr, put out. Is this a new fad? Kim Bruning 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, one more Kim Bruning 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hopefully that's it. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with them

    Misplaced Pages alleges to be a community. In any community there are laws, or in Wiki's case, policies. One of the primary of these policies is "assume good faith". How are we to asssume good faith if we allow duplicity and conflict of interest to flourish? I think that the big picture needs to be looked at here, and I do not feel that that is happening. Jim62sch 11:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I can't state this strongly enough. A ruling by the arbitration committee does not mean that administrators can use that ruling willynilly in similar cases. That statement should say "editors who are intimately involved may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with by the arbitration committee". This has to stop. -- sannse (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    This is a highly complex issue. I think its important to keep the separate events in mind. AA has been argumentative, disruptive, and has violated 3RR at least three times in the last week or so on Safarti. That FM placed this notice after multiple attempts to talk to her may not have been the best way to handle this, but here is my question: What is? She deletes messages off her page when they are cautions, warnings, etc. She forged signatures, including Guettarda's, to what she called a "summary" but was clearly formatted to be a straw poll. There was a statement, followed by Support and Oppose, and she added the signatures and even date stamps! Guettarda had not even made any statement about the subject. When told to remove all signatures but hers, she was hostile, dismissive, and entered into personal attacks. This is like Gastrich, compounded with dishonesty, as AA has steadfastly denied any connection with the subject. I am more concerned about the outright lying and clear bias, not to mention what appears to be lack of interest in working with others civilly, than I am FM's possible poor wording on a talk page notice. This entire discussion seems to be focused on the infobox, while what precipitated the infobox is being more or less ignored. KillerChihuahua 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    While we can't just randomly apply an arbcomm ruling to all cases, the fact of the matter is that editors are not support to edit articles that they are too closely connected with. No one minds if someone makes a few minor changes or makes non-controversial edits. But in this case the editor has been disruptive (she has been blocked for 3rr violations at least 3 times). The issue was raised more gently in the past, and she denied any connections. It isn't the first choice, it's a choice of last resort. Guettarda 14:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    True - and if it went to RfC or arbcom I venture to suggest the result would be the same. Whitewashing and edit-warring articles on people with whom you are intimately involved is so clearly unacceptable per WP:NPOV that I'm surprised that we're even having this debate. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    So take it to Arbcom. Or block for the actions that require it (I certainly have no problem with a short block for someone forging signatures). But this idea that the arbcom made a ruling in one case, so admins can apply that in similar cases is dangerous. To pick a case I've reread recently - Lir did a few provocative edits, and was banned for a year. The fact is that there was a whole lot more to that story that isn't on the case page. So if you take that and run away with it: provocative edits = year ban, you are really going to be going too far. This is important not for this case, but for the extremely dangerous precedent it sets. This would be giving admins a vast new licence to block or censure in ways that haven't been done before. In one sweep, you are rewriting a lot of policies limiting what admins can and can't do. Please stop it. 

    -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    Principles used in arbitration cases might be appropriately incorporated into policy, but the usual steps need to be taken for adoption as policy. Our decisions are based on particular situations. Expanding them to a general policy needs to proceed through discussion of the wisdom of applying the principle in general and how the policy is to be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    That about covers it. But also, since we can't technologically ban a user from editing a single article, the discussion above is in some respects moot: any ban will only be enforceable by providing grounds for blocking if the ban is breached. But if behaviour that justifies a block is ongoing anyway and a block isn't felt to be helpful, what purpose does a "ban" serve? If people are playing nice, it doesn't matter if they're involved (no action needed); if they're not, it doesn't matter if they're banned (action can be taken per usual policy). Rd232 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    As I see it, Aa should not have been editing the article in the manner in which she was doing. This issue was raised before in a non-confrontational manner, and Aa denied being having a close connection to the subject matter. Given her repeated 3rr violations on the article and her increasingly hostile, confrontational and straight-out dishonest actions on that article, something has to be done. When FM presented to evidence to her that she was, despite her denials, closely linked to the subject of the article, she deleted his post and continued to edit. So, the logical next step is to post a heads up to other editors.
    While only the arbcomm can actually ban users from specific articles, I would like to assume that their actions are not arbitrary. This comment was not based on a specific remedy proposed in the Min Zhu case, it was based on the underlying principle which most of the arbs supported. So to say "the arbcomm has said that Class X of editors should not be editing Class Y of articles, it's seems reasonable to repeat that. Obviously, you approach a person privately first, but when they delete the comment from their user page, it makes sense to post it somewhere else. Whether you take the matter up on the pages where the editor is editing (but probably shouldn't be) or if you take it up here is a judgment call - to me, you try to solve problems locally before you bring them here. Guettarda 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to add my voice to the other Arbitrators who have commented here. While this is a principle that the AC has upheld in numerous cases, I do not think it appropriate for editors to invoke the AC in cases like this. If you want an Arbitration Committee ruling on something, prepare a case.

    The talk page message in question also appears to claim AC authority in making such a pronouncement. Yes, the AC has said that editors too associated with a topic MAY edit inappropriately, MAY be unable to correct that behavior, and MAY be forbidden to edit certain articles by ruling of the arbitration committee. The AC has not delegated the responsibility of deciding cases where this is appropriate. Users/administrators cannot take it upon themselves to decide that users are banned from editing certain articles and claim that the AC endorses that behavior. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    If the situation is as bad as FeloniousMonk says, it should be taken to arbitration, where the case will be accepted and a temporary injunction obtained if necessary. If it's just a matter of a rather obstinate but otherwise good editor that Felonious Monk understandably doesn't want to alienate, then use of talk pages, and (I'm afraid) very brief blocks to get his attention, would be better. But this ruritanian message box with its misleading message just won't do. We do not make policy this way and administrators currently do not have the power, without considerable community support which is obviously lacking in this case as yet, to institute bans of this nature. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm going to strongly agree with Tony, Morven, and others here. Invoking the arbcom decisions alone is not good enough, and especially acting as if they sanctioned such action is innapropriate. Deal with the user using the standard dispute resolution including discussions, RfC, and arbcom if need be. In the meantime if the user truly meets the disruption clause of the blocking policy that can be enforced as needed, though it is better for a non involved admin to take care of that. An RfC can be a successful way to gather consensus that a user is being disruptive to support behavior change if possible or blocking if necessary. - Taxman 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    To reply to what Morven said, the message, while worded a bit strongly, did not say that she was banned from editing the article. It said (emphasis added) "Per arbitration committee precedent editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with." Agapetos angel is editing disruptively - she has been blocked for 3rr violations on that article three times. Unless you are asserting that the arbcomm rules capriciously, the principles adopted in one arbcomm case of what is right and proper in editing Misplaced Pages should be applicable to other similar cases. If you tell someone "X is not allowed" and they reply "I'm not doing X", and then it is brought to your attention that they are doing X, and you point out that the evidence and they delete your comment and ignore it - isn't it reasonable to point out to them "If you continue doing X the arbcomm may ban you"? The remainder - posting the boxes and where they were posted in a separate issue. The issue of arbcomm rulings is informational, and it is useful information that should be available to other editors interaction with the person on the articles in question. Guettarda 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    IMO, the infobox is designed to "look official" while making a statement that is not official. I especially have a problem with the wording following that which you quote:
    The above listed editors are enjoined from editing the article's content due to their proximity to the topic. To report abuse leave a message at WP:AN or follow the steps at WP:DR.
    which leaves the distinct impression that there is an arbcom-sanctioned ban on these users. I do not have a problem with leaving a personal message on a user's talk page telling them that the behavior they are engaged in may lead to sanctions. However, I am opposed to an official-looking notice implying arbcom sanction being applied to articles' talk pages naming particular users and implying that they are officially banned from the article. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I agree entirely with Matthew here. It's not the warning that disruptive behavior isn't allowed and will result in sanctions; it's the way it's presented. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Personally I feel that FM has indeed been "over-applying" WP:AUTO and "arbcom precedent" in the tenor of his comments (for example, ). The autobiography guidelines are only that, and in in fact very weakly worded (far too weakly, IMO). I made similar observations on the Sarfati talk page before all of this blew up, come to that. OTOH, I regard AA's behaviour in editing in this manner, and counter-accusations of harassment to be very poor. While I generally agree with the drift of what Tony S. says, I'd strongly recommend against blocks that are a) not based clearly on blocking policy, and b) applied by admins involved in related disputes. Alai 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Mistaken identity: Oklahoma and Paul Vogel

    On February 7, I told Mel Etitis that 216.45.251.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was used by banned user Paul Vogel to vandalize Cosmotheism and William Luther Pierce . At around the same time, a new user, Oklahoma (talk · contribs), previously editing under various IPs beginning with 64, 68, 69, 70, etc., popped up and began editing Cosmotheism. ME took my original statement to mean that Oklahoma = PV. As a result, ME blocked O as a sock puppet of PV . He even told me that "Oklahoma admitted to being 216.45.251.197" . O has openly stated that he is not PV . I have to agree with O here that this is a case of mistaken identity. First, when Oklahoma admitted to being an anonymous user, he likely admitted to using 64, 68, 69, 70, etc., and not 216.45.251.197 - this would be a misunderstanding by ME. Second, the IP addresses do not trace to the same geographical region (the 64, 68, 69, and 70 addresses trace to Oklahoma, while 216.45.251.197 traces to New York). Third, when editing Cosmotheism, O focuses on Mordekhay Nesiyahu while PV focuses on William Luther Pierce. This alone should be convincing evidence that Oklahoma and Paul Vogel are two different people (CheckUser would be the ultimate clarifier, of course). I told ME about this yesterday , but so far, he has yet to respond. I hereby urge that someone look into this matter and, if necessary, unblock Oklahoma and apologize to him for mistaken identity. --TML1988 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    I somehow missed your message on my Talk page; sorry — I don't know how that happened. I'll unblock Oklahoma, but given the behaviour that led to his blocking (vandalism via IP addresses, evaded by opening an account), I don't think that an apology is in order. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    OK, he's unblocked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see any edits to those articles in Oklahoma's contributions or on the articles' history pages, though he commented on the talk page of Cosmotheism. All of the rest of his edits are also to talk pages, most of them his own. Are his edits to the articles not showing up for some reason? -- Kjkolb 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Legal mutterings

    I'd be grateful if someone could have a quiet word with User:Terryeo and User:Spirit of Man, who are complaining on Talk:Dianetics and Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Dianetics that the current article on Dianetics is "slanderous" and "criminal". Several other users have commented that this is inappropriate and contravenes at least the spirit of WP:NLT. As a party in the mediation, it's inappropriate for me to tell them to stop making such claims (not that they would listen to me anyway!). I don't think it requires a big stick - just a request not to make claims bordering on legal threats or accusations of criminal wrongdoing.

    It would also be helpful if any admins with a moment to spare could drop in on Talk:Dianetics to advise on some issues which have been raised regarding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR: specifically whether Dianetics should be treated as a pseudoscience per WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and whether the works of L. Ron Hubbard can be considered a reputable source per WP:NOR#What counts as a reputable publication?. -- ChrisO 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, regardless of whether a religion has been built around it. The claims should be treated the same as any other scientific claims, as if it had nothing to do with Scientology. As for Hubbard's works being reputable, it would depend on the situation. If the claim is about the religious beliefs of scientologists, I would say that it can be considered reputable. However, if it involves scientific claims, it cannot be taken on his authority alone. A scientist must have his work independently verified and then gain wide acceptance before it can be considered correct. Also, Hubbard was not a scientist, so his expertise is questionable. While the unverified scientific claims can be mentioned in the article, they must not be stated as if there were no doubt as to their veracity. -- Kjkolb 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Particularly as the only science done on them showed they were actually false ;-) (Yeah yeah, I know, content issue ...) - David Gerard 12:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Patch

    My proposals (please respond/discuss/vote on sub page so as not to disrupt regular discussion here)

    1. I am quite satisfied with the m:9/11 wiki move proposal argument style and I propose it here for all deletions.
    2. I also propose the merging of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive.
      • Articles for deletion is misleading, this is not a page where only deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as keep or move/rename as well as delete. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other nonsense
    --Cool Cat 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    You are welcome to make alternative proposals. Also please explain why you support or oppose a particular view point. --Cool Cat 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Fix cut-and-paste move of American football positions

    A new user, Cardshark04, has botched up the edit history of the American football positions article by cutting its contents, pasting them to his new article, American Football positions (notice capital "F"), and redirecting the old article to the new one. I would appreciate it if the move could be fixed and the pages merged under the old title, which meets WP:NC. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 04:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately, American Football positions (with the capital "F") was created on Febuary 9, a few days before Cardshark04 even touched that page. Luckily, there has been no edits on the "lowercase 'F' article" between February 5 and when Cardshark04 edited. So I can merge the page histories of both pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, the real villain appears to have been a different user. -- Mwalcoff 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Squidward vandal

    It seems that a vandal has appeared who blanks entire pages and replaces it with a "Squidward" picture. Due to the significant amount of disruption this has caused, I assume that it would be reasonable to block these IP addresses indefinitely, and then slowly review each of them to ensure that they are not open proxies? --HappyCamper 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    The wide range of IPs that the attack is coming from suggests that they are all open proxies. I'd suggest blocking them all indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    How was this vandal able to use so many different IPs? Have they all been blocked? I must have reverted around 150 of of instances of this, all seemingly different IPs. Paul August ☎ 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think I know, but I'm a little afraid to post it here because vandals read this board (i.e. WP:BEANS). Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe go on IRC and get admins to preemtively block the open proxies or loopholes? Or is it more complicated than that? --AySz88^-^ 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked the range 203.186.238.0/24 indefinitely. It was used by the Squidward vandal and appears to be an open proxy. —Guanaco 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not to nitpick, but that should be narrowed a bit further to 203.186.238.128/25. -- Curps 06:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    On an unrelated note, I was heartened to see how effective we can all work as a team. Although the vandalism was extremely disruptive, for the few minutes that it was occurring, it seemed that all the administrators who were online were working in unison, and in short - it was wonderful to see that. --HappyCamper 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I second that. It actually didn't take long to undo the damage. Also a lot of open proxies were found and shot. Nice work everyone. Antandrus (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I third that, most edits were reverted within 5 min of it coming up. I think we can expect another bot attack tomorrow as this is 2 days in a row at the same time. By the end of it, I had 150 firefox tabs open each with a revert order on a page. -- Tawker 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I thought I would mention that this was Squidward's second appearance. He made a similar attack yesterday but of shorter duration. —Wayward 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    According to http://www.apnic.net/ , the range 203.186.238.128/25 belongs to an ISP in Hong Kong. Maybe this is an ISP proxy and not an open proxy... can someone high up at Wikimedia contact the ISP and ask for their assistance? 

    inetnum:      203.186.128.0 - 203.186.255.255
netname:      CTIHK
descr:        City Telecom (H.K.) Ltd.
descr:        Internet Service Provider in Hong Kong
country:      HK
admin-c:      CH134-AP
tech-c:       SL116-AP
mnt-by:       APNIC-HM
mnt-lower:    MAINT-HK-CTI
changed:      hostmaster@apnic.net 20000704
changed:      hostmaster@apnic.net 20020116
status:       ALLOCATED PORTABLE
source:       APNIC
person:       CTINETS HOSTMASTER
address:      15/F, Trans Asia Centre,
address:      18 Kin Hong Street,
address:      Kwai Chung, N.T.,
address:      Hong Kong
country:      HK
phone:        +852-3145-5111
fax-no:       +852-3145-5267
e-mail:       hostmaster@ctihk.com
nic-hdl:      CH134-AP
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-CTI
changed:      hostmaster@ctihk.com 20000831
source:       APNIC
person:       Sam Leung
nic-hdl:      SL116-AP
e-mail:       fionat@ctihk.com
address:      15/F, Trans Asia Centre, 18 Kin Hong Street, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong
phone:        +852-3145-5190
fax-no:       +852-2199-0810
country:      HK
changed:      hostmaster@ctihk.com 20040706
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-CTI
source:       APNIC


    I believe that below is the complete set of IPs used by the Squidward vandal in today's attack. As someone already pointed out, there were at least two prior attacks yesterday. Some of the blocks are conflicting (24 hours vs indefinite), sorry about that.

    -- Curps 06:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I went through the first half of the list, and a few of the ones on the bottom - it seems like a only a handful of them were left as 24 hour blocks; I have fixed these. The rest have been extended to an indefinite block by others. --HappyCamper 07:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have made a parallel list at User:Mushroom/Squidward, and I think almost all block conflicts have been fixed. Mushroom (Talk) 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    An additional list can be found at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Squidward. —Wayward 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:The Ungovernable Force

    This user has a rather blatant attack on their user page. I don't feel like I want to get involved any further, but if anyone else thinks it is inappropriate, please do something about it. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm so so so tempted to make a userbox that says "This user should pursue social networking on MySpace or somewhere similar. Misplaced Pages is a project to write an encyclopedia" specifically for putting on user pages that look like that - David Gerard 12:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ack. This user is local to me, and as it happens, I was discussing userboxes with them today ... the topic of fascist pig-dogs didn't come up, though. They seem to have made a good faith effort to compromise (which MarkSweep could easily have missed), so I'm reverting them back to their partially redacted page. Hope that works out.
    User:Adrian/zap2.js 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Editor Violating Probation for Disruptive Editing

    Just over a week after was closed, user Benjamin Gatti authored Clean safe nuclear energy, which is disruptive editing at its finest. We need three administrators to concur in this, and decide what is appropriate. Simesa 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I am an admin so that would be 1. I am not involved in this particular article and the arbcom decision makes no mention of involvement of the admin involved. Just wanted to add that I am pretty sure that he deliberately made that article to test his probation. Most definitely violates it. Here is the specific part of the decision that he has violated and here is the remedy. --Woohookitty 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, I am considered "involved". So we need 3 admins. Please take a look. --Woohookitty 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    The remedy you've linked to is proposed. I don't think had the 4 supporters needed and regardless of that, it expired when the case was closed. I think what you want is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Remedies which, if I read it correctly, allows any 1 admin to ban him from any existing page, and allows any 3 admins to extend the ban in other ways, implicitly including imposing a ban on creating new pages on the subject of nuclear energy. So the number of admins needed depends on what you want to do. I suggest starting there, then asking for support. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I just gave the wrong link. It was approved per this. --Woohookitty 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've had a look at the page and it is a blatant POV article. However, it's currently up for deletion and is looking somewhat shy of supporters. The remedy applies where Benjamin Gatti disrupts the functioning of Misplaced Pages. Let's see what his response is. If he is disruptive then under the terms of his probation we should take action. David | Talk 13:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Personally, I feel that creating yet another bad-faith article (this is not exactly his first) is disruption. It's a time and resource-waster. · Katefan0/poll 13:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Obvious bad faith article creation. The article will obviously be deleted, but anyone can in the meantime enforce the first probation remedy to prevent him from editing it further. Beyond that if this or similar happens again, we should consider restricting him from creating articles if he is just going to waste people's time in this bad faith manner. That would take 3 admins, which we shouldn't have any problem with. - Taxman 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    And Ben's response?
    "I will happily include your block as evidence of systemic bias against true and accurate articles related to nuclear energy. We criticize china in vain who do ourselves block the truth. Benjamin Gatti 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"
    Oi. Block should be extended, but I won't push it. --Woohookitty 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    We have the 3 admins needed for the block

    Per AN/I, we have 3 completely uninvolved admins who think he should be blocked. That would be User:Bunchofgrapes, User:JzG and User:Geni. We also have 3 admins who have been somewhat involved with Ben (though not currently), who also agree with a ban. So now we just need someone to do it. As for how long, the consensus seems to be for one week under the general probation guidelines of his case. For whoever does it, please log it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. --Woohookitty 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked and logging. -GTBacchus 03:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. --Woohookitty 05:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Link spamming, User:JamieHari and the Marvel Project Database

    I'm bringing this here because the user is disputing mine and Lowellian's reading of the situation and I want to check it.

    JamieHari (talk · contribs) has consistently and repeatedly been adding links to two wikistyle projects he founded to comics related articles. This to me is in breach of quite a few guidelines, given at times they are added as references even though the sites in question are not reliable sources, the founder is adding them which contravenes WP:EL and in breach of WP:SPAM since it promotes a website. Discussion on the issue is to be found in the following diffs: , , , , , and . It is also worth bearing in mind I have concurrently listed Marvel Database Project for deletion, to declare any possible conflict of interest. Steve block talk 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    You seem to have done the right thing in discussing it with the user. The user has been asked a number of times to stop in the past, and I have added another. If he continues, that could constitute disruption. Are there any current links to the site left? Try our search function and google to see. If so they should be removed, and only added back if a consensus arises for it on the article's talk page. You may be interested in a similar case that, though it took too long, eventually ended with ending the behavior. User:Uriah923/OmniNerd. I would hope judicious use of similar dispute resolution techniques could allow you to wrap this up with much less wasted time and angst. - Taxman 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've made a start, but there is a lot of them, ., He seems to have indicated he will stop the link spamming. Steve block talk 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Complaint by purported subject of Tove Jensen page

    A user claiming to be the cult X-rated film star Tove Jensen (see Tove_Jensen), has appeared on that article's talk page and complained about some of the details in the article posing a danger to her and her family. (see the diffs and )

    The specific facts in the article that this user is complaining about are fairly unverifiable, and I would claim don't belong there. Of course, I'm not sure to what extent this user's identity as the subject of the biography is verifiable, either, and even if it was, we are under no obligation to have our biographies approved by their subjects. Input on the proper way to proceed here would be welcome. Nandesuka 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've just rewritten the page, rewording POV statements, removing contested and unverified claims, and ditching (for now) the credits list. Dif. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    It should likely be stripped if everything that can't be immediately verified with solid references. --DanielCD 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Lists have been re-added, along with a porn video cover. Is it ok or is this an issue? Just FYI. --DanielCD 20:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I thought book/video/album covers were only fair use when used in articles about the book/video/album in question. --Calton | Talk 21:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yep. Jkelly 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    This is a valid fair use (which is why I added it), the article in question is of the subject of the image. This cover is clearly in a directly related subject. Example: articles like The Beatles, if we have a Beatles album cover by the Beatles, that would mean it cant be included in The Beatles but only the album in question. Doesnt make any real sense does it?  ALKIVAR™ 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Depends on the usage, and my terse response was probably not helpful. If the article about The Beatles has a lengthy section discussing Abbey Road, and the album cover appears there in order to identify the album, we have a reasonable claim to fair use (especially if our commentary discusses the album cover). If, however, our article on The Beatles says something like "They were a pop group. This is what they looked like..." and then uses the album cover, we're simply choosing a picture that we happen to like and don't have any real "fair use" claim. Randomly choosing an attractive magazine cover or DVD cover that features the subject of our article may happen a lot, but we shouldn't be doing it. Promotional photos from a press kit are a much better way to go; their copyrights are typically owned by a publicist and our use then matches the intended one. Jkelly 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Jeffrey's edit looks sound. We have no obligation - but it does help, and we have an obligation to at least hear out reasonable complaints about factuality and safety. --Golbez 21:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    It has been altered though, since his edit. I was just pointing it out, since she is still living and such. I'd rather get some lumps on the head for being a dummy than to see any legal trouble; better safe than sorry.
    I think it's good as it is. I personally don't like the picture, but that's just me (not that what's in the picture isn't rather cute...just kinda spicy for an encyclopedia article). It looks fine enough to lay it to rest. --DanielCD 22:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    The lists are all factually verified by the Color Climax Corporation owned website to promote her. This is not "opinion" and certainly not false, is verifiable fact.  ALKIVAR™ 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    And for the record Daniel, Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors... in an article about a Porn Star it should not be a surprise to have something pornographic.  ALKIVAR™ 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think that statement was quite uncalled for. I made it very plain in my comment that it was solely my opinion. As I said: It looks fine enough to lay it to rest. --DanielCD 22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    This is a promational image, I think making it smaller may actually not be allowed as it would make the copyright statement at the top unreadable. —Ruud 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    From WP:FUC: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think this would apply to promotional images, but I could always e-mail Color Climax for explicit permission. —Ruud 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    You might want to post this at the article's talk page as well. --DanielCD 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    In general, WP:LIVING answers the original problem: use references of high quality. Anything not referenced, take it out of the article and put it on talk waiting for a reference. Anecdotes from the subject are explicitly not referenceable information. Read it, it's just the guideline you need for a case like this - David Gerard 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    THIS MAY NOT BE A PROMOTIONAL IMAGE! This image is a scan from a magazine, not a specific promotional image. "Pictures courtesy of Color Climax Corp & use with permission." is the copyright given on the page this comes from. Europornstar does not own copyright and does not have permission to release this as a "promotional" image. Or more specifically, although Color Climax released this image to EuroPornstar to attract visitors to their website, this does not mean they licensed this for 3rd party promotional use.  ALKIVAR™ 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've already mailed Color Climax, given that I saw it on two websites both with a statement saying "used with courtesy of Color Climax" and that is has a logo in the corner (which I doubt a magazine scan has) I concluded this was a promotional image. —Ruud 01:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Save Function Bug

    Have to, @ minimum, use the save function twice to save any edits. Done it once, a Fatal Error message appears each and everytime. Martial Law 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Probably left over problems from the server troubles a day or so ago. I too have expirienced sporatic problems with servers 7, 9, and 10. I alerted the problems with svr10 to Brion in IRC, but not the others. --lightdarkness 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    You should ask at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical), which is monitored by at least one of the developers. --cesarb 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Cascading Malfunction

    What happened ? While discussing another malfunction, the whole site had a melt down and went down. Is it HTML Tidy Again ?! Martial Law 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    I could'nt access anything at all for @ least 5 min. Martial Law 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Tim's working on fixing the load balancer for proper redundant operation. Unfortunately it's not quite there yet. :P --Brion 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Big Spring, Texas and 3RR violations

    I've recently reported two 3RR violations on this article; no action has been taken, so I'm wondering if I'm filling out the templates correctly. The second report today is regarding a user who was blocked for the same reason last month. Is there justification for a semi-protect of this article? OhNoitsJamie 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Addendum the user's most recent revert is perfectly fine; it was the previous reverts ] to the article that were problematic.

    VUFORS

    I am in danger of being dragged into taking sides in an edit war. User:Vufors and an anonymous user are having a dispute about Australian Ufology, and when I blocked the anonymous user for continuing to disrupt unrelated AfD discussions, both sides replied to me after the block had expired. Apparently Vufors is trying to "own" the Australian Ufology article, reverting all changes anyone makes into it. This is against Misplaced Pages policy. But I do not want to act as an abritrator and decide who is right. Please see this comment on my talk page by Vufors:

    At this AfD the pest, attacker and vandal has returned... see my Discussion notes?
    Best Regards Vufors 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Also have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Australian Ufology (2nd nomination). JIP | Talk 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    12 Cylinder Engines, V12, and W12

    User:Samstayton merged V12 and W12 into 12 Cylinder Engines yesterday without seeking any kind of consensus, an action which I disagree with. In doing so he somehow lost the page history for W12 in some sort of a double move. 12 Cylinder Engines contains the history of V12, and the V12 and W12 pages just contain the history of their redirects. I'm looking to discuss the issue with Samstayton and also seek some kind of consensus on the issue, but in the meantime, could an administrator see if it would be possible to recover the page history of W12? Even if 12 Cylinder Engines remains, the history of the W12 article should be available somewhere. TomTheHand 14:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    No worries, the W12 history is available at 12 Cylinder engines (little "e"). I've asked Samstayton to weigh in, but I'll probably split the articles back up unless there's a strong argument for keeping them merged. --Interiot 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    So THAT'S where it went. I was incredibly confused as to how they got merged with one's history disappearing. TomTheHand 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    *sigh* need advice

    Sorry, just want to get a second opinion regarding a matter that is being thrust upon me. TrinityC (talk · contribs) has been fighting a long term vandal on Matthew Vassar, and is convinced that Master and Commander (talk · contribs) is a sock of the vandal. There's a post on my talk page which shows M&C signing a vote of his, overwriting an ip signature. That ip did vandalize the Vassar article back in November, but its a range that resolves to Stanford . The only time M&C edited the vassar article was to remove a makeshift vandalism warning that TrinityC had placed on the main page of the article.

    Now, personally I have a hard time saying there's a definite link between M&C and the person at that ip who vandalized the article 4 months ago. The Vassar vandal uses a wide range of IPs, and afaik this same ip has only touched that article once. M&C has certainly contributed positively in basically every edit I've looked at from them. However, TrinityC has gone so far as to remove M&C's votes from afd pages and .

    At the moment, my intended actions on the matter are:

    1. Restore M&C's votes to the afds.
    2. Warn TrinityC against bullying and WP:BITE

    ...but I wanted to see what other admins feel about the situation. Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    This is actually a good question I think many of us could benefit from having answered. It is indeed frustrating to highly suspect a sock, but be just that hair-width short of evidence (or to feel that way). Still, others might feel you have a rock solid case. I'd say your stated intentions are probably the best way to proceed at the moment, and to patiently let him continue taking rope until he hangs himself. If worse comes to worse, come on to them as separate people like you have no clue. Lul him into a confidence that will make him slip up (or that will convice you that you are in error, whatever the case may be). --DanielCD 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with DanielCD, but you might also like to request a CheckUser at WP:RFCU: it probably wont be conclusive, but it might convince you that in fact this is not a sockpuppet. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. I think for now I'll go with my intended actions above and request a checkuser on M&C, which will hopefully show one way or the other. Thanks to both of you. --Syrthiss 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see how Checkuser would help. It seems clear that the user and the anon have edited from the same IP. The question is just what inferences we can draw from that. (I'd say not much). Mark 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    The only thing that checkuser would show is that M&C was / was not only editing from the stanford IP (ergo not jumping ips like the vassar vandal), and that M&C was / was not Wiki4Life (which seems to be the complaint on the AFD discussions). --Syrthiss 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel

    I have speedy deleted this page after discussion with admin emeritus Kim Bruning: it was being used to post personal information about the subject of the RfC in clear violation of about half a dozen policies, of which I might cite WP:NPA and the Foundation Privacy Policy. Independant review is of course welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Someone undeleted. I don't think that's a good idea. Kim Bruning 15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Duncharris (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who has also edited this RfC, has now restored the page twice. Request enforcement by other admins. Physchim62 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    There is enough material in that RFC without the "personal information", which, btw, is public domain. I only restored it once. The identity of the user is directly relevant to the matter at hand. You cannot stonewall an RFC like this, that is completely out of the question. — Dunc|☺ 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    On second thoughts it may be possible to refile the RFC without the "offending" personal information. — Dunc|☺ 15:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    :-) Kim Bruning 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    That would seem better. If you must use personal info then it's not really suitable for an RfC. Physchim62 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well. All's well that ends well. I had a comment I was trying to add, but edit conflicted about 8 times, so now it's a little dated. This page is 199Kb long! --DanielCD 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    No... wait, it's back again? Oh dear. Interesting comment there though... now what to do? Kim Bruning 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've edited it a little. Is that a reasonable compromise? It seems to me that if someone is misbehaving then their behaviour is what matters not who they are. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    That'll do me :) Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was ok for a bit, but then people started fighting and tossing in more evidence , the rfc is basically not maintainable like this. Also things have spread further, so I'm asking the Arbcom to step in. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) .

    User:Shultz block

    I've blocked User:Shultz for one week for a series of trolling edits on the Ref Desk, despite warnings and his previous extensive history of blocks for this .

    I warned him for a series of edits in which he created a redirect from 'Kim Il Sung City' (in Korean) to Seoul and then asked on the Refdesk what the redirect meant . He subsequently removed his signature from his question, then deleted the question, then re-added it from an IP address.

    In another bout of Korea-related trolling, he started with a question , added a wikilink to it after Dirk had answered and then (using another IP address which he had previously identified as himself ) berated Dirk for not noticing the wikilink which had not existed when Dirk answered.

    While the Refdesk is perhaps not the most vital part of the Misplaced Pages universe, this sort of unpleasantness and time-wasting has to be stopped. Mark 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Good detective work. We don't need that kind of behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well done, Mark. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I also agree with the block. Has anyone noticed though that User:Shultzii has arrived on the reference desk with similar questions and has a long history of people asking him to stop redirecting and other unhelpful edits? Nothing better than circumstantial, but may be worth checking. - Taxman 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked Shultzii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Shultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which was used to circumvent the block on the main account. For evidence just look at their user pages. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've discussed this matter with Shultz, here's my best AGF interpretation of what might have happened. Shultz created a redirect from "Kim Il-sung City" (in Hangul) to Seoul (the redirect no longer exists) and want to draw attention to this "hilarious" feat. He logged out and posted anonymously on the Reference Desk, yadda yadda yadda, he got blocked for trollish disruption. He has promised to take similar attempts at humor to Uncyclopedia. He also indicated that he wants to start over using a different account when the block expires. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Deceptively drawing attention to a POV redirect can hardly be good faith; neither can insulting someone for noticing something that clearly wasn't there. I would not support him getting a new socl either; possibly, CheckUser should be used to prevent this. Superm401 - Talk 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    WikiProject Pedophilia kept, no consensus

    I have just closed Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia, as a no consensus. It was very clera from the debate that there was no consensus to delete it. I didn't feel that there was a particularly clear consensus to keep it in its current form, either, with many 'rename' or 'userfy' comments. However, it is kept as is as. The Land 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    I think that's just about all that could be done with that dying pony. Good job. --DanielCD 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Undelete view changed

    See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Undelete view changed. --cesarb 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    No more George W. Bush templates

    It is clear that there will be no acceptable solution whereby some of the more polemical templates are deleted, but not others. The various templates related to George W. Bush are a clear example of this. The only long-term solution will be to get rid of them entirely, which is what I've just done. In the interest of avoiding more divisiveness, please discuss any future actions here first. Thank you, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'll say a few more things: This is not the End Of The World As We Know It. As the French Misplaced Pages and German Misplaced Pages have demonstrated, the project will not grind to a halt if we disallow polemical userboxes. And before anyone says "let's wait until we have a comprehensive userbox policy", let me counter this by saying that we're under no obligation to keep stuff which is irrelevant to the project's main goal. Once we have a comprehensive userbox policy, let's see if it says "polemical templates are Ok and encouraged"; if so, these templates can be recreated in a flash. But for now, things will be much easier without them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you. -GTBacchus 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, that's WP:BOLD, but it has my full support. The mood on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates shows that the mentailty is 1) All userbox deletions are 'out of process' regardless of the WP:CSD 2)All userbox deletions will be listed on DRV, regardless of the merits of deletion. 3) All will be sent back to tfD. 4) TfD will delete nothing. Basically, not only is this unencyclopedic material enjoying the full benefits of an inclusionist deletion policy designed to keep encyclopedic material, it is expected that userboxes will be treated as a special case - never speedied - always reviewed - inevitably kept. This is unsustainable. --Doc 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think you mean "the project will not grind to a halt". Sam Korn 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I certainly do, now corrected. Thank you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Sigh. Does it not occur to you at all than it will cause more "divisiveness" to just whack them in a flash than to just leave them for a while? Does it not occur to you at all that doing so and then saying "please discuss any future actions here first" is problematic? We're under no obligation to not delete every person's user page that has anything on it that doesn't aid the project, but we don't because most of have some slight shred of common sense. What was the emergancy that required this action, almost certain to result in recreations, wheel wars, blocking, and further driving potentially good editors from the fold as well as giving the "freedom of speech" provocateurs something else to scream about? And would it have been so crazy to talk about it first? - brenneman 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've considered this. In fact, I've ignored userboxes for a long time, treating them essentially like trolls, hoping they would go away. But they clearly won't, on the contrary. We can no longer ignore the elephant (no political pun intended) in the room. I don't see why we shouldn't enforce core policies vigorously. We don't go around first debating whether we want to enforce 3RR, for fear that we will be accused of "censoring free speech" (or treason, for that matter). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    We might as well use the correct terminology. It's called a ForestFire. Sam Korn 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Aaron might be right, but what is the other option? No compromise will be acceptable to the warriors, and they clearly will not go away. Will some editors leave over this? Quite possibly. Will some of them be a loss? Probably. But the alternative is a) just allow wikipedia to become a POV-pushers club, and campaigning ground/my space. 2) Wait. But for what? Will it get better? I think the problem here has in fact been too much delay and tollerance. If we had delivered a swift 'no' to this several months ago, we wouldn't have created all these new warriors. Karmafist has been going around petitioning noobs with his 'manifesto' creating partisans rather than wikipedians. We must cry stop. --Doc 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • These are probably the most often deleted, restored, and recreated templates of the lot. Is there some special "Delete and I really mean it this time" tab that has been used? Further, since I've seen Jimbo (praise be his name) quoted a few times with regards to "not acceptable", didn't he also ask for restraint in deleting things? For less action and more talking?
    • This "fire" is caused at least in part by the repeated deletion of these stupid little boxes. If they aren't deleted right now than they won't go to TfD and DRv, then we won't have the non-stop three ring circus. A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle. Did the memo go out that Misplaced Pages had to be finished tomorrow and I missed it?
    • One of the things that we're supposed to be good at as administrators is resolving conflict. We're meant to help people talk about things, we're meant to educate newcomers into our occult ways, we're meant to be patient and thoughtful. By continuing to randomly delete stuff we're creating POV warriors, not stopping them. When we balance out the damage done by these templates continuing to exist for another week or even a month by the "forest fire" that is created by the continued and repatative deletion, there is no contest.
    • I'll ask Mark directly: why was it that these had to be deleted now as opposed to next Thursday?
      brenneman 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      Playing devil's advocate: why next Thursday rather than now? Sam Korn 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    There is no presumption that eventualism always trumps immediatism. I could counter by saying "if not now, when?" But to be honest, several things happened today that made me realize that there will be no other quick solution that will make everyone happy. Check WP:TFD and my talk page to see what I mean. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    "A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle," quoth Aaron. Can you explain how? How will waiting around make the userboxes go away? How will it send the message that they're not part of an encyclopedia? How will it change the minds of the edit warriors? How will it counter the idea that Misplaced Pages is a free webhost? What on Earth are you proposing as a solution? -GTBacchus 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Brenneman, I 'hear what you are saying'. But perhaps you can tell me what you'd prefer - and how it will play out in the long run? We wait (for what?) and exactly what happens? --Doc 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    As requested

    Ok, this turned out to be huge. Sorry to post such a screed here, but you did ask. And it's only about one tenth of one percent of the total words we've wasted on this. - brenneman 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    A quick and dirty summation

    • Stop fighting the boxes. The boxes aren't doing anything and do not present an ugrent problem.
    • Editors and admins are doing things, and it is the continued posturing on both sides that is the urgent problem.

    Possible classes of userboxes, with totally made up percentages

    • Marginally useful (5%)
      • These are the language, browser, etc boxes. Convert these into categories. The users who have are likely to be amenable to reason, and there is no rush.
    • Useless but not mostly harmless (90%)
      • "This user is made of meat" et alii. These are mulitplying because they are easy, and the "pick lists" of userboxes make this worse. Slow the creation of these and eventually eliminate them.
    • Potentially harmful (5%)
      • Divisive user boxes (.1%) - These are mostly either simply jokes in poor taste like the original "This user is a pedophile" or trolling like the "This user had been attracted to females under 16 while not under 16"
      • Polemic user boxes (4.9%) - These are the thorniest issue. "User dislikes George Bush"
      • These need to be removed, we all agree on that. The only question is how and how soon.

    What's the harm again?

    • All problems arise from the editor's behavior and not the user boxes.
    • The mostly harmless 90% are often used by the newest members of the community. Not a huge problem, and it's good if people have fun and learn some wikimarkup. But when the first edits they make (or the first 75) are hanging curtains on a user page, it's easy to lose sight of the "encyclopedia first" concept.
      • First get rid of the pick-lists, then slowly {{subst:}} and deleted the existing templates while explaining nicely the reasons why. Again there is no rush. This can almost certainly be done with simple talking, and work on the wikiproject. I've dipped my toe in here, and the response has mostly been "Sure, I thought it was funny, but since you asked nicely I'll take it down."
      • This is not an urgent problem, and is not amenable to a quick fix.
    • Divisive boxes - are actually few and far between.
      • In some cases it's just stupidity, and a simple explanantion is all that's required. More often it's trying to get a rise, and should be treated as such. When SPUI pops a "pseudo-pedo" userbox on his page, deleting the box isn't going to do anything. Remember We don't feed trolls. Editing is always a better way to solve a problem than use of sysop powers. Edit troll boxes into something mild. If someone wants to edit war, 3RR blocks are uncontroversial.
      • This is an urgent problem only if we make it so, but is amenable to a quick fix.
    • Polemic boxes - these are the actual problem. These range from the mild "This user doesn't have a problem with the UN but just thinks they are useless" to the shocking "This user supports Hamas' campaign of suicide bombing".
      • These may also be used for vote stacking. I've only seen one instance of it, but there could be more. No images in templates, full stop, would solve half this problem. This is, I believe, also supported by the developers. Using {{subst:}} would solve the other half. Talking about other ways to use an image-free, substituted template for vote stacking might be spilling the beans.
      • This is not an urgent problem, but is amenable to a quick fix.
      • The big problem is that people feel like they that they ought to be able to voice some opinions about Geogre or somesuch. And to some small degree, they should. We're humans, we have opinons.
        • When we use admin powers to stop people from expressing their opinon (or some fascile mass-produced group-think opinon as the case may be) they are going to be upset. They can't restore things, and if they re-create them they just get deleted again. So now DRV and TfD are totally constipated because people feel like they need to have their "voice heard". Of course that's bollocks, there's no freedom of speech here, only the freedom to contribute.
        • Deleting fairly mild "Anti-pope" user boxes as if they were "This user hates jews" is troll-baiting. As long as we keep jamming people down, they are going to keep popping back up in other places. The irony of deleting an anti-George bush template is that it's only going to convert another mild-mannered editor into a "template freedom fighter".
      • This is urgent problem, but is not amenable to a quick fix. But it can be made less urgent.

    A proposed solutions

    • Stop deleting boxes for reasons of "controversy" or "trolling". Someone must stop shooting first, and we're meant to be the sensible ones.
    • Use redirecting and editing to fix problem boxes. User 3RR if required. Stop playing with the sysop buttons, you'll go blind.
    • Get some less inflammitory members of our community to engage the template warriors in dialog. Work on the wikiproject.
    • Have a little more patience, use care, and remember that everyone thinks they are right.
    I have to agree with Aaron. What we must remember here is that the majority of users with these boxes probably won't have any knowledge of this debate, or the damage the boxes can cause. Imagine an editor who doesn't read AN, or TFD or anything like that, but sticks to a few articles about his favourite subject, whatever that may be. Upon going to the user page of another editor, he finds a "This user does not support George Bush" box, or whatever, and thinks "hey, I like that", sticks it on his page and thinks nothing more of it. If he sees one day that it's been deleted or removed from his page, can you really be surprised when he wonders why or gets a little annoyed? We need to explain to users like him why these boxes are such a big deal. Raven4x4x 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I highly 2nd this suggestion above. I'd ask that it be put onto a separate page somewhere, so it can be referred to. This is really sensible, and right. We do need to get rid of these things, but we also need to do it in a way that adds, rather than splits, the community. 134.10.12.31 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)

    Not doing something about polemical userbxxes is not an option. They have been used in several instances of attempted vote stacking, they are divisive because they inject external political advocacy into Misplaced Pages, they give people the wrong idea about what Misplaced Pages is for and what a user page is for. They are harmful. And the boss wants them gone.

    Speedy deletion has been very successful, and the new criterion has gained wide acceptance among acculturated Wikipedians. It's not as if we're doing this without explaining what is happening, and it's not as if a huge number of editors were using these boxes--a large-scale survey I did found that only around 10% of all active editors on my watchlist actually had polemical userboxes.

    But still the number of useroxes grows. Up from 3500 on January 4 to 5800 when I checked again on February 14. The page of political belief-based userboxes is up from 45 in January to 150 in February. A relatively small number of editors are producing userboxes in any great numbers, and quite a few of them those already known as trouble-makers on these pages. Names like Mistress Selina Kyle (92 boxes), and Bourbons3 and his sock Dussst (a total of 174 boxes across both incarnations).

    People with no interest in editing the encyclopedia become Userbox producers and advocates--User:Vargher, on WP:DRV, said "Jimbo Wales is the founder of Misplaced Pages, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide." A quick check showed that Vargher had produced a grand total of five article edits and seven talk page comments in his three weeks on Misplaced Pages, during which time he had managed to make SIXTY edits to his user page. Bourbons3, in addition to his prolific userbox creation activities, made a habit of uploading pictures he obviously did not own with deliberately falsified upload summaries.

    So its utter nonsense to say that Misplaced Pages isn't being damaged. It's pie-in-the-sky to imagine that we can get anywhere by talking to the kind of people who come to Misplaced Pages to produce this trash. And its insulting to equate those, some of us senior Wikipedians with an edit count that would make your eyes water, destroying this damaging rubbish, with those producing it and frankly little else on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, editing articles is important. People shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages just to fight about userboxes. If I were a closing admin in a deletion discussion I would not pay much heed to the recommendations of someone with 5 article edits overall.
    Tony, I think you may be trying too hard to save Misplaced Pages from the evils of userboxes or the deletion process or whatever you feel is most urgent at each moment. There are five days since your last article edit. For the month of February so far article edits are 7% of your total contributions. So here is my annoyingly condescending advice to you: Relax a little :) Make some old-fashioned content-contributions. Let someone else carry the torch for awhile. Don't burn yourself out, we want to keep you around for a long while. Haukur 11:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Tony describes an ever-growing problem here in Misplaced Pages. People like Vargher, for instance, demonstrate my law: that the number of opinion-expressing userboxes is inversely proportional with number of edits that user makes to the main articlespace. I won't say that I'm much better, because I'm just a lightweight editor, but the amount of time and serverspace that these relatively new users spend on Misplaced Pages could be better used for editing articles. If they want to go around making pretty little userboxes expressing their opinions, why don't they go on some other Wiki, or maybe LiveJournal or something? Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation have all their currently-overloaded servers to make an encyclopedia: not so people with a tiny amount of main articlespace edits can go around making pretty little userboxes saying that they are opposed to George W. Bush. --Deathphoenix 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Haukurth, please don't mistake my article edits for my only contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am also a clerk and a tools developer, and I am currently in the middle of a very important arbitration case involving me and, not surprisingly, userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I don't mistake your article edits for your only contributions, in fact they are just a small portion of your current contributions. And I'm not saying all your non-article contributions are useless either :) Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Aaron Brenneman's post has convinced me that our approach has been much too lenient so far. We've seen a lot of silliness related to the more polemical userboxes, plenty of boundary testing behavior, and a few cases of borderline trolling. This has to stop. We need to keep in mind what the goal of this thing here is. This is not boxopedia. It's time to be decisive and send a clear signal that we're serious. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I think at least one of the boxes you deleted was pretty good. It read: "This user opposes George W. Bush but equally vandalism of his Misplaced Pages biography." That's a good message to send to clueless newbies. Not liking X does not mean that you would want to damage X's article. Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Nah, it's a case of WP:BEANS. Whenever you say "don't do X", someone will take this as an incentive to do X. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    People need an incentive to vandalise GWB? WP:BEANS applies to fairy new ideas not something that has already been done several thousand times.Geni 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please check my block

    I just blocked 87.202.17.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for excessive reverting and incivility. RIPE query indicates it is an allocated IP. The problem is that there is actually a potential, um, "conflict of interest" here. I assert that I didn't notice this edit until after I had blocked. But since that comment was addressed to me, there is a danger that my block could be interpreted as some kind of retaliation. I'd like an uninvolved admin to examine 87.202.17.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s contribs and Talk page, and override my block with whatever they feel is appropriate. Thanks ahead of time. Jkelly 02:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked for 24 hours, then unblocked to reblock for the week you originally did. The edit summary of seems to be an adequate reason for a long block, not to mention the reverting.--MONGO 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh and this pleasantry:--MONGO 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, MONGO. Jkelly 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

    The Carl Hewitt case has closed.

    Carl Hewitt is banned from autobiographical editing regarding himself and his work or that of his students. This ban includes creation of links and categories which refer to that work.

    Carl Hewitt is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts.

    Should Carl Hewitt edit any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

    For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:SteveDevine and what I should do about images

    User:SteveDevine has uploaded three images, which I am reasonably sure are connected with an article he created about a 16-year-old girl, which I speedily deleted. However, since I am totally blind, I am not sure what these images are and am not sure what to do with them. Is there a better page to ask a question like this? I have been patrolling Newpages for over a year now and sometimes run into images with specific names, but usually only one, not three. Academic Challenger 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Well, they're all of the same girl, and I can only assume they were to go on his article. I'm guessing they could be deleted. Raven4x4x 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    The article was about an Australian teenager, Jessica Mckenna. Three images were all the same; I've deleted two of them and placed a template:nosource on the other. Steve Devine, btw is an All Black scrum-half . — Dunc|☺ 11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Though SteveDevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is possibly Stevedevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Dunc|☺ 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think I saw him create a bunch of variations on his username, but it could have been someone else. Is there a problem with this, as long as they are not using them to avoid a block or influence consensus? I figured that it would be pretty dumb to do those things with such similar usernames. -- Kjkolb 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm indefinitely {{UsernameBlock}}ing User:SteveDevine. The account could cause problems later. If you find more duplicates, list them here. Superm401 - Talk 06:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    A Day No Pigs Would Die

    Can an sysadmin please remove "A Day No Pigs Would Die" from the Children's Book's category? The book has been banned, hence making it not appropriate for children. Maybe it could be moved to the Young Adult section? Pkazazes 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    While I support keeping children from having to read the book due to the fact that it sucks, the book is marketed towards children, and assigned to children in schools. Banning books is a local decision - not a binding comment about the appropriateness of the book. Phil Sandifer 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. You don't need an admin to remove an article from a category.
    2. My opinion is: seeing as it won a few awards for "children's books", I would think that it can exist in a category for children's books. Misplaced Pages is not a nanny. --Syrthiss 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Whether or not it is banned has nothing to do with whether it's a children's book. Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Heather Has Two Mommies is a children's book which has been notably banned in some places. So have any number of other books which were written primarily for children. Jonathunder 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I read this in ninth grade. It was pretty good and all ninth graders should read it. --DanielCD 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    My fith grade class is reading it, and my mother read it to my brothers. . . and she had to do a ton of quick thinking

    Page blanking DRV discussion

    User:MarkSweep is blanking in progress DRV discussions. See . When I reverted him, he threatened to ban me. Please make this stop--God of War 19:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I wouldn't bother. If consensus was ignored to delete userbox templates, what makes you think consensus will be respected for a DRV debate? Especially when it's coming from Jimbo. --Kbdank71 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    As Kbdank71 has said: "It's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy." --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • He is also deleting the comments of those who question his actions .
    And what will happen if debates that have outlived their original purpose are allowed to go on and on and resurface in all sorts of different places? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    What will wikipedia come to...? Just look around. It's already happened. --Kbdank71 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh my, what will wikipedia come to without userboxes ....? Maybe (unthinkable) an NPOV encyclopedia and not myspace! --Doc 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed. I keep picking up userbox edits in Lupin's filter. There are so many people that make almost no edits other than the 70+ userboxes on their page...typically "Bush is a nazi", "this user is gay and has a boyfreind"...blah...blah...blah. What a waste of server space.Voice_of_All 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, it's your behavior that's inappropriate. You keep inserting debate into a section called "Global notices" designed, not surprisingly, for notices, not for debate. You should have posted to the talk page in the first place, and I've moved your comments there. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    OK...now I don't agree with "WP:NOT justification", I do agree that Jimbo does not want this crap here...he has expressed it, he has added T1. I don't believe that the same arguments need to be rehashed...nor that this crap really even deserves a debate anymore.Voice_of_All 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Can I have a Slippery Slope? Right now a single admin can take offense at a userbox and then speedily delete it. He can then silence all opposition to this and threaten to ban them. How long will it be until the day that a single admin can take offense at an image like Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg. Ignore the overwhelming consensus to keep it Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_Results and then speedily deleting it citing some WP:@#$ while proceeding to stop all debate about his decisions and threating users that disagree with him.--God of War 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, but you don't get it - we have process and consensus to protect encyclopedic content from arbitrary deletion - but these are not designed to protect your damn userboxes. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - that's it, and that's all. You don't get to hide behind 'slipper slope' arguments because we use common sense here to know what is encyclopedic and what is WP:NOT. --Doc 22:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes...encyclopedic content will be carefully considered...as that is the point of Misplaced Pages. Userboxes like "Bush's edit to the constitution need to be reverted" have nothing of value, especially encyclopedic value. Besides...it was Jimbo who finally laid down common sense. If a template says "this user is a vegitarian", and an admin speedies it...well then I bet other admins will have the common sense to restore it.Voice_of_All 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'll happily step up as a second admin who agrees with Mark Sweep's actions (if Doc hasn't beaten me to it) so that we can put a stop this "single admin" tomfoolery. Process is good. Process is important. Process does not exist to protect non-encyclopedic content. Go write in article space. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    My name is Tony Sidaway and I agree with this message. Seriously,though what's the point in clogging up DRV with repetitive debates? Pick one or two of these T1 speedies that you think are egregiously bad (say if someone has accidentally speedied a babel box or a template saying "I'm from Idaho" as a T1. Come to me with one of those and I'll gladly undelete it. Come to me with the outrageous nonsense we've been seeing on DRV in recent days, however, such as "This user is a cannibal", "This user accepts that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but sure wishes the United States were one" and similar trash, and you shouldn't be surprised if I refuse. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

    A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.


    Shivraj Singh, DPSingh , Gurkhaboy and all of their sock puppets and all users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles. This is to be enforced by the usual escalating blocking policy.

    For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    For how long are these users banned from these articles? User:Zoe| 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Indefinitely, I guess. --TML1988 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'll ask the committee to clarify, but for now I'd assume it's an indefinite ban. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    If there is no statement otherwise, remedies have no set expiry. Sam Korn 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I was always under the impression that bans were never for more than a year. User:Zoe| 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Indefinite. It is doubtful that their caste will change within a year. Their place will be taken by others from the Rajput caste who hopefully will conduct themselves more courteously. There are a million other articles available for their attention. Fred Bauder 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Vandalism policy

    I am getting very frustrated with people sticking to the word of policy regarding blocking people on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I often find that people should have received a test4 or bv template long ago but people often seem to not bother warning people when reverting vandalism or give them too leniant a template i.e. test1 when the edits are clearly vandalism not just a mistake. Really I do not really see the point in warning a blatant vandal as they are not the sort of person who would be likely to take any notice, in fact, it would probably encourage them. I would be grateful if someone please block this ip Special:Contributions/66.189.121.67 as they have done nothing but vandalize since May 2005. Thanks Arniep 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Consider me a "rogue" admin in this sense. I show no mercy...I even rollback with a different summary for vandals. Adding a :) or "cool...I can edit" gets a test1....but "I suck cock", which I see here all the time, gets you 24 hours on the spot, more if you vandalized other stuff. They can always come back later if they magically become constructive editors.Voice_of_All 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    No vandalism from this particular IP since last warning. The IP appears to be registered to a school, so this is probably a series of separate delinquents rather than one persistent one. Thus, warning before blocking makes sense. Chick Bowen 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    This is the entire problem, warning will often not deter these people, but just encourage them. I really find it absolutely amazing that even if an ip's edits have consisted of nothing but vandalism from the start, still no block is applied just because people have not put the appropriate warning templates on. Arniep 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry if you have no mercy for vandals, but most people believe they deserve at least a warning. Either try to change policy, or become an admin and be bold about vandalism blocks. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I will not block a user who has never been warned, and I will remove all unwarned IPs from WP:AIV. See User:Mindspillage/admin for rationale. --Ryan Delaney 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    But the current warning system is just not working properly because people are using either too leniant a template or often not bothering to warn a user at all (resulting in the situation we have with this ip). Arniep 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I warn with test1 for people just playing around (and I rollback). If they have vandalism with a clear intent to damage the article/person in question, they get a test4 and my revert usually has "reverted vandalism by...to last version by..." in the summary. If the edits show a clear attempt to compromise Misplaced Pages more than once then they will get:
    A)blocked indefinitely if it is a new account with an innapropriate/suggestive/fractalic (like "snfdsfnp444") name or an account with no other edits(a vandal account)
    B)blocked for 24/48 hours if it is an IP or a new user with an exceptable name(most anything) and some other edits (not a vandal account).
    C)blocked for 15 min - ~1 hour if it is an AOL IP.
    And pretty much there we go. If someone keeps adding ":)" or "hello?" to an article, they will get test1 up to test4. They are not "true" vandals. Adding "HE IS GAY AND LIKE TO SUCK HUGE COCKS" will get you thrown out the door much faster. It is really just common sense. Besides, what Britinnica authors add stuff like that to their articles?(none...because they would get fired).Voice_of_All 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Mindspillage says in her rationale "(warning) What does it cost you? A few minutes of refreshing someone's contributions page to see if they're still at it.". This is the whole problem- that it is not at all the only cost- what it costs is a lot of time wasted by wikipedia contributors in dealing with vandalism when they could be improving articles! I don't think that a distinction should be made between offensive or non offensive vandalism, whatever sort it is it still wastes a lot of time for everybody so is detrimental to the project. I think that the applying of at least a short block of at least half an hour for blatant vandalism would greatly reduce the amount of work in dealing with this problem. Arniep 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    It really depends on the person you're dealing with. If someone is trolling, then a tame warning will indeed encourage them: if the vandalism was attention-seeking behavior and you warn, they know that they got somebody's attention. However, it's hard to tell a priori what is going on. So it's only fair to warn at least once, but warn according to the severity of the vandalism, ranging from "can I edit this? LOL" (a clear test-1) to some horribly malicious stuff (jump directly to test-4). The person who writes "can I edit this? LOL" will probably stop after test-1. If someone removes a warning or gives some other indication that they are aware of it but just don't care (like writing "screw you, I can do what I want"), I wouldn't hesitate to block immediately. The other thing you can try, but only for serious vandalism: warn once; if they continue, warn a second time and block for 2 minutes. That will force them to go to the talk page and it also sends the message that you mean business. Oh, and I also tend to block longer for sneaky vandalism, like changing dates and numbers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes...sneaky vandals really try to mess things up and throw people off, I really block them. Delibrate misinformation or posting of private information is a good way to get blocked.Voice_of_All 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    As to Arniep's last comment: That seems a little extreme though. Plenty of good editors, even admins, once did silly stuff like adding smiles to a page, and it does not hurt our credibility that much either. Using test templates on obvious trolls is a good way to waste time, and hurt our credibility. I guess you do get to rack up your edit count, if you are in to that. Nevertheless, the trolls are the ones that bother me, not the users who are just playing around with an editable encyclopedia for the first time; they may become a good future admin.Voice_of_All 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, that's a good way to think about it. Try to assess the damage done to Misplaced Pages's reputation by the vandalism. If no reasonable person will get upset about it (perhaps they will scratch their head and wonder what that smiley is doing there, but they won't pick up the phone and call the Foundation's office), it's benign. If it's designed to cause offense, the gloves are off. Perhaps we should make templates along those distinctions, rather than first warning, second warning, etc. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Surely vandalism is not merely about causing harm to a persons reputation but much more importantly it is causing harm to the project because it wastes our time, whatever type of vandalism it is. Arniep 02:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I just want to point out that our current vandalism policy works just fine. Try hitting random page a few times. See any vandalism? Almost certainly not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm afraid that is missing my point, which is that we spend much too much time dealing with vandalism when we could be improving articles. Being liberal with vandals is harming the project. I believe applying short blocks for obvious vandalism will soon bore those who attempt it and make them go and find some other site to vandalise. Arniep 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I was deliberatly ignoring your point. How can you possibly know how much time anyone else spends vandalfighting? I frequently do a spot of recent changes patrol when i am otherwise at a loss for what to do. When I'm in the mood to get stuck into an article I don't patrol for vandals. Also when i am patrolling for vandals I often read the pages that i am reverting. Sometimes i edit them to improve them. If I never delt with vandals ever again my article contribution rate would not go up. i'm sure of that. If yours would then stop looking for vandals and start editing articles. I believe in warning vandals first. Sometimes they really are good people testing out the software Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, if the edits are clearly just a test they should be given test1, but I think in all other cases where there is clear mischievous intent there should be a short block so the vandal gets bored and goes elsewhere. Arniep 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Vandalism? *checks notes* One page out of 503. Copyvios are a much greater threat: six pages out of 503. --Carnildo 07:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    What do those figures show? Is that a sample of pages on which vandalism was found at one time, pages that have had vandalism reverted in the past 24 hours? It seems strange to me that people are arguing only in the terms of legal threats here, I am arguing that dealing with vandalism is wasting a lot of time that could be avoided by using a more effective policy in dealing with vandals. Arniep 14:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's vandalism that got past RC patrol and lasted long enough for me to find it by clicking "random page". In this case, the vandalism had stood for over a week. --Carnildo 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    For your information, policy discussion goes onto Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). enochlau (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    While I think existing policy works fine, I do think people need to use {{bv}} more often. I often see a number of blatant vandals while on RC patrol, and I find it crazy to be using a friendly test message with these people. I recommend going straight to {{bv}} (created just for this purpose) and then if the vandalism continues, {{test4}}. Then only block. Johnleemk | Talk 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    User: --Urthogie committed 3RR

    I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.

    Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wrong on all points: Siddiqui didn't bother to read the rules when he was welcomed on Dec. 11, 2005. He has not created the page Jewish terrorism. See its history and talk for his today's inflammatory edits. He failed to address points raised in talk and instead engaged in edit war, lost it against the consensus (User talk:Siddiqui#3RR on Jewish terrorism) and now blames the Jews. Oh, and I don't see how Urthogie broke 3RR. ←Humus sapiens 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    (moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    TIME Magazine covers

    Regarding all the TIME covers we gave in Misplaced Pages: this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Misplaced Pages will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    The high resolution ones are not fair use and should be replaced or deleted. We really should have a template, analogous to {{nosource}}, to indicate that a fair use image should have its resolution reduced or be deleted. I'm no good at such things, but would welcome someone else creating one.Chick Bowen 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Done, {{fairusereduce}}. Edits are welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Good work Ilmari. But do we have any guidelines as to what is an appropriate "low resolution" in relation to the original work? I also had a look at the various images in Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The majority seem to be used on the article relating to the subject on the cover, and not the particular issue of the magazine itself. There is a clear contradiction with the wording on {{TIME}} which has as the only fair use rationale:
    • to illustrate the publication of the issue in question
    There is a clear anomaly here which needs to be addressed I think. Fair use for the article on the subject on the cover could be argued in many cases I am sure. It seems to me the best way forward is to modify the template. Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've reverted your modification, since the rationale you added was way too broad. To quote an analogous example from Misplaced Pages:fair use, "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses" does not count as fair use. However, I agree that there's a gray area here. In particular, I believe that using a picture of a TIME magazine cover to illustrate the fact that a subject appeared on the cover of TIME magazine probably does count as fair use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that if the fact that a person/place/thing appeared on the cover of TIME magazine is itself a notable fact, and one which is discussed in that subject's article, then it is appropriate to have the cover image to illustrate this fact. However, this isn't quite the same as a general allowance to use the covers in any context whatsoever when an illustration of its subject is needed. *Dan T.* 13:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's exactly my point. It seems to me that many articles are using the TIME magazine images as a general picture of the subject without reference to the relevance to their portrayal on the cover. I think some wording needs to be fashioned on the template to restrict this blanket use. I am sure we can work something out. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I quite agree with Cactus.man; fair use is not for illustration of the subject within an image per se, it's for illustration of a discussion of the image itself or its immediate context. Meanwhile, I've added a sentence about deletion to Ilmari's very useful template (thanks for that), though I think we could have a specific time limit. I'll start a discussion at the template talk page. Chick Bowen 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Err... ? · Katefan0/poll 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    It's cool, this is sorted out now. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Template:User Libertarian US

    This template (it read, "This user supports the Libertarian Party.") was recently deleted; I was unaware that a simple statement of support for one's political party was somehow divisive. Does anyone have a suggestion for better wording ("This user is a member of the Libertarian Party."?) that would be allowed to stand in template-space? I cannot find any evidence that this went up for TfD and it certainly doesn't seem to qualify for T1 (though, that's what it's listed as)... RadioKirk talk to me 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Someone recreated it as "This user is a member of the Libertarian Party. Pro-choice on EVERYTHING!" I removed the gratuitous "Pro-choice on EVERYTHING!". Superm401 - Talk 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    MarkSweep deleted it again, saying "for the sake of consistency". I'll ask him to weigh in here. Superm401 - Talk 07:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would suggest just having a sentence on your talk page to the effect that you're a member of or that you admire the Libertarian Party. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you but, if I may persist, this fails to address the issue. I've read discussions on that which is politically divisive and how, for instance, several GWB templates qualify for T1. I remain unconvinced that a simple statement of support for one's political party—or, at the very least, of membership therein—qualifies. A political statement and an acknowledgement of political affiliation hardly compare. RadioKirk talk to me 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it be easier to just forget about your political userbox, as per Jimbo's request, and just write a sentence on your user page about your party affiliation? There is no need to have process for the sake of having process.--Alhutch 09:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Easier, perhaps, but I'm arguing a principle. I read Jimbo's request as issued in the spirit of the polemic, not necessarily to be extended to a simple acknowledgement of political affiliation. Until/unless he clarifies this issue, I believe the debate a valid one. RadioKirk talk to me File:Libertarianpartylogo.png 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    In any case, it was clearly an in-process (T1) deletion, but an out-of-process recreation - David Gerard 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hmmm..

    ... I appear to have been de-sysopped. Can someone explain why? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Nope, I just can't edit locked pages. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Nothing in the meta logs: . Chick Bowen 04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    There have been no logged changes here to your privileges and Special:Listusers indicates that you are still a sysop. I don't know why you wouldn't be able to edit locked pages. Can you give an example (not that it should matter)? Superm401 - Talk 06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was a problem with editing Adolf Hitler. Strangely, problem has gone away. Something on my browser must have gone screwy. Apologies for knee-jerk reaction. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    AAAAA! Its The Boys from Brazil cabal! :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh no! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Legal Threat

    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hyles-Anderson_College, probably the biggest stretch of a legal threat ever. Mike (T C) 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've removed it and warned the poster. Superm401 - Talk 07:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Final decision

    The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

    This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rick lay95 - block warranted?

    I've been experiencing long-term difficulties with User:Rick lay95. I now feel too personally involved to block this user, since his talk page comprises mostly messages from me. He's been blocked twice this month (the second time, I'm convinced he used User:Zeo6 as a sock puppet account to evade the block - please see my rationale at User talk:Zeo6). Since the second block expired, he's persisted in uploading images without source details (despite 38 previous missing source/licensing reminders and three messages from me in which I've offered to help him if he doesn't understand how to deal with source/licensing tags), he has blanked a redirect page and he has removed an AfD tag from a page he created - I left a "final warning" after that one.

    Since the final warning he has uploaded images which he tagged as public domain because he "couldn't find anything that matched and that happened to be the closest could find". As a result, I left a long-ish comment here, warning him that he needed to start heeding copyright issues and to follow policies. He has since added a speedy delete tag to an article for no apparent reason.

    As I've said, I feel too personally involved in this case to give another block myself. It could be that due to my lengthy involvement with this user and my subsequent frustration, I'm over reacting. However, I feel a block (probably longer than the 24hr/48hr blocks he's already had this month) is in order - please could another admin review this case and take appropriate action (either issuing a block or telling me to cool down if I'm over-reacting!). Thanks, CLW 18:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked for one month. The amount of repeated copyvios he has uploaded is ridiculous. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, Greg. CLW 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


    Moving a page: Transatlantic (band)

    There has been some controversy over the name of a page on a band, Transatlantic. It has been resolved as shown at User_talk:Chiok. The page started out at TransAtlantic when I moved it to Transatlantic (band). The page was then moved to TransAtlantic (band) by way of copy and pasting instead of using the "Move" button as I did. Because of this, I'm unable to move the page back toTransatlantic (band). If an admin could move the page and notify me on my talk page, User_talk:Snaxe920, I'd be happy to take care of any links to the three pages in concern. --Snaxe920 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Problem has been rectified. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Acharya S

    Some one needs to do something about this page. There has been a long running content dispute there since September 2005, and the page has been protected countless times (and is so now). However, instead of any fruitful discussion, or any decent debate, the two groups of editors remain locked in a mudslinging verbal match. So almost everyday, there would be 10 paragraphs of "you said, I said" venom added to the talk page.

    Here is a sample of today's entry from Rpsugar (talk · contribs):

    Zarove---YOU DON"T HAVE ANY VALID POINTS PERIOD AND YOUR CRITICS ARE NOT VALID CRITICS--PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CHARACTER. YES, YOU ARE AN ABOMINABLE FRAUD. I CALL THEM AS I SEE THEM. NO, I AM MORE THAN JUST OUT TO DISCREDIT YOU. I AM DETERMINED TO EXPOSE YOU AS A DESPICABLE ABUSIVE MUCKRAKER, LIAR, DEFAMER THAT HAS NO BUSISNESS TO BE ALLOWED TO BE AN EDITOR FOR ANYTHING. THAT, MORE THAN ANYONE FALLING INTO LINE WITH ANY POINT OF VIEW, IS MY PRIMARY MOTIVATION. I WOULD NO MORE SERIOUSLY DISCUSS WITH YOU ANYTHING THIS OR PARTICULAR SUBJECT, THAN I WOULD WITH A ROBBER, THIEF, LIAR AND ALL ROUND IMPOSTER OF YOUR UNSTABLE LACK OF CHARACTER.


    Also added to it is the subject's attack page on her website against wikipedia. See the page here. Almost any editor other than the two groups have been berated to the extent of leaving the page. I think its high time to have the issue cleared. Thanks. --Ragib 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm actively looking into what can be done. Charles Matthews 22:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Given repeated personal attacks and assuming bad faith (,,,,,,,,,,,,) and that he was warned twice about personal attacks and once about "bad edits" (admittedly vague), that the last warning said it was final and that he makes no edits off that page, (except Jesus-Myth), I'm blocking for 4 days. If someone objects, explain why here and unblock. Superm401 - Talk 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I see Charles Matthews has blocked for a month. I have no real objection to that, since I just noticed he has been blocked before for 48 hours. Superm401 - Talk 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    That page and its history is quite appalling, starting with the very first revision . No wonder the subject is upset . I would say delete it (to remove the long and acrimonious history and possibly personal information), and start again with information that is verifiable and NPOV, not duplicating other articles (notably Jesus-Myth) and not using quotes from people she has a history of antagonism with unless necessary (and then with context). I'd probably vote for deletion again (Dec 05 AfD was "no consensus"), since too many editors involved seem unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, and her notability isn't so great that an article on her is essential, separate from her work as referred to elsewhere. Rd232 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    it has been listed for deletion in the past Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Acharya S.Geni 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Er, yes, I referred to that AfD above. What's your point? Rd232 14:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    ... And more venom continues to foment in the talk page. --Ragib 21:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Warned for personal attacks. Chick Bowen 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Eh? I was blocked?

    Why was I blocked? Can I be, you know, unblocked? That'd be nice... --Xiaphias 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Responded at user's talk page. It is a little paradox, isn't it? :) Chick Bowen 23:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    We occasionally have what could be called "rolling blocks." What happens is, an editor ends up on a dynamic IP address that has been blocked earlier in the day for one reason or another, and is blocked as a result. Sometimes it is not a direct block of the IP address, but a Misplaced Pages:Autoblock that causes it. Generally, the problem corrects itself quickly, as the user is moved onto a new, unblocked IP just as quickly as he or she was moved on to the blocked one. It's inconvenient, but barring all users demanding static IPs from their ISPs, there is nothing that can be done. In future, if you have this problem, you can email the administrator who placed the block, or add {{Unblock}} to your talk page. Make sure to say you believe it is not an actual block of your account, but a block of the IP you are on, and give that IP address (it will appear in the block message you see). An administrator can do a "hard unblock" (acutally input that IP into the unblock page) and force an unblock of that IP, whether the initial block was an actual IP block or an autoblock. Essjay 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    You can always check that your username hasn't been blocked at the block log. (Note that the User field there refers to the blocker, not the blockee - so leave it blank when checking your own block status.) Rd232 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    I get this message: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Duk Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kalsi". The reason given for Kalsi's block is: "suspected sock of User:Kiop, serial copyvios". (see our blocking policy)

    That is a Misplaced Pages:Autoblock; it can easily be removed. I'll go see if I can't find it now. Essjay 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I pulled three autoblocks matching that discription, everything should be back to normal. Essjay 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hey 2006

    Hey 2006 (talk · contribs) was recently created today. I'm not sure about his edits though. All of his edits seem to be tagging random artcles for deletion. Could someone go threw his edits and Afd's he started are worth keeping? Moe ε 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'll take a look now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    A couple of his recent edits appear to involve removing the }} at the end of templates; I left a note on his talk page. --AySz88^-^ 00:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've also formatted some of his AfDs and listed them all. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for dealing with that, Flcelloguy. My question: I understand that this is our usual practice, and I have no problem with what Flcelloguy has done, but is it really necessary for us to complete AfDs if they are both badly formed and clearly are going to be kept? Obviously any AfD that is correctly nominated has to go through the process (even if that will certainly lead to a speedy keep), but does one that appears to be either bad-faith or based on a misunderstanding of the process and that is not correctly nominated need to? This is not a rhetorical question (and not necessarily about the current user; I'm think more of clear bad-faith or retaliatory nominations such as often come up); I'm curious to know what others think. Chick Bowen 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    (2 edit conflicts) I was going to say before 2 edit conflicts that its better to just let it's run course than delete because who was going to support the deletion of an article that has the AfD description of "who?" It's no big deal to speedy keep. Moe ε 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I just think that anyone, who we believe is acting in good faith, has the right to nominate articles for deletion. If we need to speedy keep them, we speedy keep them - it's no big deal. In addition, most of the articles that he nominated weren't "obvious" speedy keeps, per se; it's no harm to put them through AfD. Of course, that's just my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Terrence Murphy and C.C. Brown were both up for AfD and both Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Terrence Murphy and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/C.C. Brown were closed as speedy keep but the AfD tag was not removed from the article. I removed them now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Anon makes legal threat

    69.214.212.201 (talk · contribs) just made a legal threat against Misplaced Pages here. I already reported this user once for vandalism but nothing was done about him. Moe ε 03:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hit with a one-month {{threatban}}. Essjay 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Essjay. Moe ε 04:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't read the cite as a legal threat. Shouldn't we AGF? -- Samuel Wantman 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would normally, but when I saw the text, "I would hate to see this go to court", that got me a little worried. Moe ε 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    squidward followup

    After determing that the Chicago Public Libary is involve i have drafted a letter at the link below and would be happy if as many people as possible could sign it, please feel free to endit it to for formatting etc nd propose major changes to it on its talk page

    letter Benon 19:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    LOL, How do you even know the attacks were originated from Chicago Public Libary? Morse hansel 06:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Checking the vandalism IPs in ARIN. — TheKMan 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    yes, and ive confirmed with the isp in question, by phone (i had skype credit lying around) that the block used was from the libarys load balancers and proxys, but they would prefer the libary totechies to deal with it before escalation to there abuse department Benon 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Only a small portion of ips were from Chicago Public library. Even if he can't use Chicago Public Library anymore, he can still use other public computers. Morse hansel 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    yes the majorty of the ips used where open proxies, but we should at least be alerting the libary,we dont want to make it easy for himBenon 01:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wheel warring by Grue

    Grue (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored Template:User freedom (which I had deleted) without any prior discussion. I have asked him to revert his actions, but to no avail. Any thoughts on what to do next? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    That's the wounderful thing about CSD. Only takes one admin to do it and the same number to undo it.Geni 12:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm, I don't think I'd call it a crystal clear speedy under T1. I'm also not sure I'd call the issue wheel warring. Undeletion policy allows an admin to revert an out of process deletion. If Grue does not believe the template matches T1, from what I can see, one course of action open to him is to declare it out of process and undelete. Might be best to run it through XfD and get consensus on the questionable status of the template. Steve block talk 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    There's no point taking it to TfD. TfD can't delete userboxes, for the obvious reasons. -Splash 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Umm yes it can. It would have deleted that pedophile one if people had been prepared to wait. If a userbox is userspace based then there is always MfD.Geni 16:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    When you see the chads hanging, it may be resonable to question the validity of the result. --Doc 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    It's a bit premature to say "wheel warring" just because an administrator reverts a deletion. There are many circumstances in which an administrator might do this--one such is the exception clause in the undeletion policy. Obviously if you ended up fighting over it, you could have a wheel war situation, but it looks like you're both being fairly mature over it even if you disagree.

    If you really think it should be speedied, I'd try to convince another administrator to do so, or else convince Grue that it should be, in which case he'd probably be happy to do so himself. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    'Premature' may be your view, but it does not appear to be arbcom's. I quote the policy finding from the pedo-userbox wheel war case: 8.2) Misplaced Pages:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." --Doc 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's ok. Arbcom doesn't have the power to set policy.Geni 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    *Sigh* Do we really have nothing better to do? Are the bottled up admin powers just itching to get out, and our heads will explode if we don't use them? Can everyone just please stop? For the love of mike, can everyone quit deleting/restoring/redeleting/making-sweet-love to the silly userboxes for five minutes? And why was this a "wheel war" to restore something that was deleted after having been restored several times before? Surely the admin who deleted it last was just as guilty? - brenneman 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree with Aaron on this issue. Stop bickering over userboxen, go sort some stubs or something. — Feb. 20, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>

    User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW deleted

    I have speedied this userbox under CSD T1. Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Misplaced Pages (UDUIW) should be enough to tell anyone that this is blatantly divisive and polemical -- and it's clear factionalism, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    agree, there's been quite enough of this already.--Alhutch 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was recreated, and I have re-speedied it. User:Zoe| 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yarr, 'tis now on DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Moving Page, confused process?

    The article WBOB needs to be changed/moved to WDJO, which is the new callsign for the radio station. The radio station has changed hands last week, and the entire article became invalid. I am in the process of rewriting the article to describe the change, and the future for the station, but obviously the callsign needs to be modified to fit the change, and possibly a redirect from the now defunct WBOB callsign so that users may find the new station.

    After reading the help guides, I have become thoroughly confused as to the process of modifying this page, so I thought it best to let some experienced users and administrators know of the issue, so that they could take care of it, rather than me screwing it up royally.

    For reference of the name change, you can go to which contains a local newpaper article on the recent change. Or, if you live in the Cincinnati area, tune into 1160AM to hear for yourself!

    I've moved the page for you. In order to have the ability to move pages, you must be registered; it's fast, free, and easy. All you need is a username and password, and you get multiple benefits. I hope you join us! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Note that due to vandalism problems you don't get the ability to move pages until you've been a member for some time. Plugwash 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    <pulls dirty face> so is it even still possible for me to log out to edit much at all? :-/Kim Bruning 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, only 950,000 articles are still left unprotected! :) Superm401 - Talk 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wiki-Lagtime

    What is going on ? Wiki is acting like dial-up is faster. Do you have a server down ? Now I get "Operation has Timed out" Martial Law 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

    I second that opinion. About 1 in every 5 page loads times out, and the rest are super-slow. This reminds me how glad I am I don't have dial-up anymore, else all websites would load like this. --M@thwiz2020 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Strange ... I don't see any delay ... at least not now. --Ragib 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    For me, it's been slow for hours! --M@thwiz2020 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Is this really a topic for the admins' noticeboard? Wouldn't it be better placed at the help desk? Hermione1980 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    I just timed a lag time of 30 sec.s and a "Operation has Timed out" has finally appeared. My watch has a stopwatch function. Martial Law 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
    <sigh> I have dial-up and a lag-time of 30 sec., it really sucks. ;-) Moe ε 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm on DSL, that should'nt be happening. 30 sec. lag time ? Martial Law 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :-)

    False reports of vandalism

    Both Hipocrite, and Colle have called my contributions vandalism (each on more than one occasion) and it is really starting to bug me. I'm not sure if wikipedia can do anything, but I've spoken with Hipocrite telling him it would be a content dispute and not vandalism - and I have also posted a message explaining my frustration on the Abortion talk page. Is there anything else that can be done? This is really upsetting. Chooserr 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, you might start by being more cautious in your presentation of information. For example, in Abortion, you added, It has been reported that abortion is the leading cause of death for women reproductive age in most third world coutnries . However, looking at your citation, we find it saying, In developing countries where abortion remains illegal, unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. So what's wrong about your interpretation?
      1. It's a leading cause, not the leading cause.
      2. The article was talking about illegal abortion.
      3. The article said nothing about most third world countries. It refers specifically to developing countries where abortion remains illegal.
    If we assume good faith, we must assume that you did not understand that your presentation of the data was distorting the data; that it was an honest mistake on your part, and that when the mistake was pointed out you understood the correction. Calling it "vandalism" was incorrect; WP:VAND makes it clear that NPOV violations are not vandalism. However, it is blatant and (if my good faith is unwarranted) disingenuous POV editing, and Hipocrite and Colle would be more correct barking up that tree instead. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wheel warring by Guanaco

    Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted Template:User disBush without discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archive#Template:User disBush for the discussion. —Guanaco 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same discussion as you are, because I see nothing close to consensus, and a good portion of undelete votes with comments such as "permanently block these divisive and inflammatory admins" (I guess once we get consensus on that, Jimbo needs to go, huh?). —bbatsell ¿? 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    And that's forgetting that it's not up to community consensus to decide what Misplaced Pages is fundamentally about. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hard policy is fairly limited in fact NPOV and NOR are the only bits I can think of off hand.Geni 03:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe you should revise WP:RULES :) Physchim62 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    the phrase "Hard policy" does not appear on that page.Geni 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, the consensus for undeletion seems slim to non-existant there. I trust that the admin who closed the DRV will be relisting the template on TfD. Physchim62 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it was relisted on TfD, at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes. --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    He already listed this on TFD. See here Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19/Userboxes#Template:User_disBush. As per WP:DRV#Decisions_to_be_reviewed 50% is all that is required to get deletion overturned and listed on TFD. As you can see here disBush had 10 undeletes to 6 deletes. Guanaco has followed all the rules in undeleting this.--God of War 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Looks like someone re-speedy-deleted some of the boxes listed on TfD on that page..... --AySz88^-^ 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    That would be User:Drini. Look at the log here. . These undeletions were valid by the DRV and can't just be ignored. No matter how much you hate userboxes.--God of War 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Eh, is there any evidence that Drini was aware of the TfD or Deletion Review? --AySz88^-^ 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes I informed him and he replied with a dismissive "no" . DRV is not a suggestion, these should be undeleted right now.--God of War 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    DRV is not a straight vote either, that's why I suggested that the consensus was weak to nonexistent. Physchim62 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Consensus isn't required on DRV. A majority in favor of undeletion is a clear indicator that there are significant concerns about the deletion. —Guanaco 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Physchim62, please read this: WP:DRV#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. Quoting, "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." Isn't that clear enough for you?--God of War 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well....hmmm. I would say that consensus is needed for deletion the 1st time. So during the 1st AfD/TfD consensus, you need ~60-66% to delete (depends on socks/arguments/consensus too), anything less is keep/redirect/merge. DRV is a challenge to a decision...it should require consensus to overturn...not just "some people disagree with deletion" or a even weak majority. Otherwise DRV becomes useless and gets flooded, because if ~40% is needed to keep for TfD and ~51% needed for DRV...anyone might as well challenge almost every single TfD/AfD if they disagree with the decision; when only a 7-12 people vote (like most normal AfDs/TfDs) that 40% could too easily be 50%, especially when people "rally" or it is seen as just "a vote".Voice-of-All 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not what's happening here. Here userboxes are being speedied and then brought to DRV. I don't know of any properly closed TFD discussions that were later brought to DRV. Key words being "properly closed"--God of War 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Opps....well hopefully my lecture is still usefull. In this case though...then DRV is like the 1st time, since Speedy is unilateral...so then they should be undeleted. Normally 1+ admin objection to a speedy means undelete (though not for usertemplates...which are somewhat exceptional). Several admins should be enough. So yes...they should be undeleted.Voice-of-All 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Key words indeed being "properly closed". Many userbox keep votes on TfD should be discounted as per Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Discussion and/or Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. The same applies for some votes on the relevant deletion reviews. Physchim62 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would say that the template is inflammatory and unhelpful...so it should be deleted...however T1 is a bit shaky now. Even subst templates that violate the idea of T1 should be removed. However...we have no agreement yet...so we should not be deleting just yet. I like the idea of having a list of what templates can stay, which is already being proposing on the talk page.Voice-of-All 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe the time to remind people of Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. Physchim62 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Post

    Um, we're currently the lead headline in the online edition of the Washington Post. Here's the article. Just thought I'd mention this. Chick Bowen 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not us, the Chinese Misplaced Pages. :) --AySz88^-^ 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    True. En.wiki is actually mentioned briefly. Well, reflected glory, perhaps. Chick Bowen 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    At the risk of sounding like a Misplaced Pages fanboy - when it's described as "Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it shows how well the Wikimedia Foundation's branding and publicity efforts have worked. Because that's really the key, and it's good to see an article that doesn't focus on criticisms of Misplaced Pages's reliability and accuracy. It's also interesting to read about the Chinese Misplaced Pages - due to the language barrier, many of us have no idea what's going on there. Rhobite 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Copyright infringment

    Just now I got a message from User:Deiz about a possible copyright infringement of Image:HIM logo.jpg. Here is his message:

    How are you the "creator of this work"? This is as clear-cut a case of copyright violation as I've yet seen on WP. It's the intellectual property and trademark of HIM, which in turn Bam Margera has sub-licensed for a fee. Just because you drew a copy of it in MSPaint doesn't mean you created it, much less have the right to release it into the public domain under the GDFL - what if you did the same to the McDonald's M? You even gave it the filename "HIM logo". There is a tag for "logo" which you should immediately apply to this image. Copyrighted images can only be used on WP to identify the artists and works they belong to, which does not include being part of a WP editor's signature. This is exactly what all the picture licensing controls are designed to avoid. ++Deiz 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    My response to this is didn't I draw it? Meaning, if I draw an image, whatever it may be doesn't mean that I created it? Now, I know it's HIM/Bam Margera's log and all but does that stop people from drawing a heartagram? If it is copyright infringement, I'll be happy to remove it where needed. I'm not to clear on if it's copyrighted or not, can someone here help? Moe ε 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    This sentence from the image policy is useful: However, simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. I did a search for the logo on the web and I'm afraid that yours doesn't seem to be sufficiently different to be considered your copyright. A parody would be fine, but not a copy. I can't help but point out that images in sigs aren't so great anyway. . . Sorry, Moe. Chick Bowen 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    So how should I go about removing all of them? Moe ε 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    You might want to ask Bluemoose if he'll do it with his bot. Carnildo also has a bot specifically designed for removing images. Chick Bowen 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Can't we just color it pink and call it a parody? lol Sasquatch t|c 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    There was a discussion on the use of trademarks a while back, but I can't seem to find it for the moment. Trademark protection is of course different from copyright protection: my call would be that the original image lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrighted, but it's a close call so I'd rather not just leave it at that. Physchim62 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, that's not a bad idea Sasquatch. Could I jazz it up a bit and it not be copyright? Moe ε 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, IANAL, but it's only fair use if you're commenting on or criticizing the logo. Please just make a bot request to remove the image. Superm401 - Talk 06:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Darn, and I just made another sketchy image too. :-( Moe ε 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    <huffs> Well, I never. :-( I went ahead and asked Carnildo if his bot could go through and remove it. You are all lucky I take critisism to my art so well. Or maybe it's not my art ;-) Moe ε 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Will do. --Carnildo 08:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Brian Peppers

    This has been resurrected after clearly being deleted. Some serious POINT is in progress with this article. It's going to have to go to arbitration. --DanielCD 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Yea that was up a whole what, few hours. Nevermind. Go ahead and turn the place into a toilet if ya'll want to. I withdraw any concern whatsoever. --DanielCD 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination) does not appear to support deletion. I'm disappointed that Wikipedians feel the need to invade this man's privacy, but we should probably respect the AfD outcome. This seems like a situation where Jimbo or the board needs to intervene. Rhobite 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Nevermind. Go ahead and turn the place into a toilet if ya'll want to. I withdraw any concern whatsoever. --DanielCD 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    This is something for Jimbo ultimately, IMO, but I don't even know if he wants to step into this cesspool. It's pathetic, pretty much plain and simple pathetic. Rhobite, I share your disappointment that so many Wikipedians cannot see the forest for the trees - that someone getting their photograph mocked on stupid kindergarten dropout Web sites does not make that person's life encyclopedically notable. To quote Joseph Welch, "Have we no sense of decency? At long last, have we left no sense of decency?" FCYTravis 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    It's POINT. Pure and simple. A trolling venture of great ingenuity. They opened and closed the AfD quickly on purpose to keep any new comments out. They were only in the deletion debate yesterday, so it couldn't have been up for more than a few hours. --DanielCD 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on any of this but I do need to say that the afd was open for 4 days. And if you have a problem with it being closed "quickly", ask Mailer Diablo about it. --Woohookitty 06:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Looking at the talk page, the editor showing most sign of an imminent outbreak of WP:POINTism is yourself. Trumpeting—on the talk page of an article which is still present after 6 nominations for deletion—"Someone's ass is going to get tore up for this. Who's the moron? I'm nominating it again if no one else does in 24 hours. You guys suck; not here to edit or be constructive, just playing games", "You know this is going to go down. To bring it back up is simply ludicrous", "The only way it can be a violation of WP:CIVIL is if it's aimed at someone in particular anyway. I can cuss at the wind all I want." does not seem to me to be the best way of putting your argument across. Now I might be as socially crippled as the next nerd, but even I can tell that you're just going to get people's backs up like that. If your argument was as strong as you seem to think, why is this article still here? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    WP:SB Fouled up

    Something has fouled up the WP:SB. Last time I've seen this, HTML Tidy fouled up.Martial Law 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

    The WP:SB page is really fouled up. Martial Law 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :(

    Now the WP:SB appears to be functioning correctly. WHAT is going on ?! Martial Law 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

    I did a manual reset between your last two posts, but I have no idea if it was that that helped or not (it's the first time I've been to the sandbox as far as I can remember :). Physchim62 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Facebook moving

    Recently, a vote was held on Talk:Facebook (website) on whether or not to move the page to Facebook. The vote was four in favor of moving and four not. User:Nightstallion closed the vote as "no consensus." A couple of days later, User:Savidan, one of the users who wished for it to be moved, went to Nightstallion himself and convinced him that the page should be moved, so he did. My grievance is that I feel the vote on requested moves was for nothing, especially if the user is going to disregard the opposing voices and get the page moved whether there is a vote or not. Someone please keep an eye out on the situation, because I am absolutely livid that the user has gone behind my back as well as others' just to get what he wants. Mike H. That's hot 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    (Move was reverted by FCYTravis. —Quarl 2006-02-20 10:34Z)
    I don't understand this; why was a vote needed? There's no article at Facebook, only a disambiguation page in which there's only one link to an actual article: Facebook (website). Isn't a move pretty automatic, given naming conventions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Since there was disagreement, clearly discussion was/is needed. WP:AN is the place for process discussion, not content discussion, so I suggest this discussion be continued at Talk:Facebook (website). —Quarl 2006-02-20 13:44Z
    I would agree with Mel on this. The only other links are to a Wiktionary page and to a Misplaced Pages: project namespace page, and it's my understanding that interwiki and cross-namespace links are not exactly compatible with mirror sites, even if self-references weren't an issue. — Feb. 20, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
    It didn't used to be a Wiktionary page, there was actually stuff written there. My point is that there was a vote, there was no consensus, and a person went behind the backs of others and got the page moved anyway, which is wrong. Mike H. That's hot 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

    This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Brian Peppers and User:Thivierr

    I reverted a legally inaccurate edit by User:Thivierr on Brian Peppers (an article that I wish would simply die, but as long as it's there it needs to have accurate information) and put an explanation on User talk:Thivierr. These were my message and the response:

    Your revert/edit made the definition legally inaccurate, since, as the statute defined, it does not require forcible conduct (which you've implied it does). Further, Peppers was only convicted of an attempt to commit the crime, not an actual commission thereof. --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Rubbish. Read what I did again. Read what offendor web site said. Then read WP:NOT. Then, do not *ever* write anything on my talk page again. --Rob 09:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Any thoughts on what, if anything, I should do on this point? I have absolutely no desire to pick a fight with this user, and yet this appears to be bordering on, if it is not actually, a personal attack, and if there is a reason for me to write on his/her talk page again, well, I don't think that it's appropriate for him/her to tell me what or what not to write. Opinions?

    (P.S. See why this article has absolutely no redeeming value?) --Nlu (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    If you need to contact him - do - don't be bullied by his churlishness. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 14:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    i agree. Simply ignore the don't write on my talkpage again instruction. His talkpage is provide by the wikimedia foundation for the purpose of improving the encylopedia. If he doesn't like it tough. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    God of War trolling

    Whilst some POV declaring on your userpage might be good for the project, WP:NOT a webhost for politial essays. User:God of War has been hosting User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present (previously User:God of War/Was REVENGE worth it President Bush?. This is an abuse of userspace. I would have sent it to MfD per process, but the page in question has the bold header Warning! The following contains a Point Of View that will tempt some to censor it by listing it at WP:MFD. clearly trolling for someone to do that and make him a 'free-speech martyr'. This I attempted to reason with him and but was met only with . I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I've had enough calls of 'admin abuse' for this week. Perhaps someone else could take this up and try either reason or deletion. --Doc 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    You're not going to believe this, but I will actually try to talk to him. Better if it's a user (especially a pro-free speech one like me) than an admin, which will just upset him and others (quite understandably as I see it). I agree that that essay has no place on wikipedia and crosses the line of allowing political and social info on a user on their userpage. The Ungovernable Force 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Userspace exists as a scratchspace, a personal office if you will, to help with building the encyclopaedia. It's not a free patch of land that anyone who registers a free account can regard as their entitlement, and it's not somewhere where one can put inappropriate content and hide behind a kind of "userspace privilege" to protect it. I've spoken to God of War (talk · contribs) — or someone claiming to be him — many times on IRC, and, as near as I can determine, he's intelligent, and fairly cluey on what Misplaced Pages is and what it's for. He knows better than to write inflammatory personal essays and then bung them in userspace and say "NPOV doesn't apply! I can do what I want!". God of War has the potential to be a good contributor to our encyclopaedia, but at the moment he appears too busy being childish and abusing his userspace privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    I have listed it at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's a mistake, if you read my initial post and the offending article's header, you will see that this is exactly what the troll user was hoping for. --Doc 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Relax with the personal attacks there doc. If I was trolling I would be posting this everywhere. As it is, I was keeping it quartered off in a sub-page until I finish working on it.--God of War 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it needs to go, somehow. Which would be worse, trolling at MfD or trolling on ANI when someone speedies it? android79 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey guys, Has anyone here actually tried reading it? It's not a rant and it's not an essay.

    It's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with a few factual statements with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration. I was going to get to it eventually but until then I moved it out of my main page and into a sub-page.--God of War 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    I screwed up. :(

    I didn't know there was a naming convention for Senate and found a new article that was created for Rhode Island. I promptly moved it to fill in a red linked "see full article" spot on the Rhode Island article. I need someone to revert back the page move as it actually wasn't as helpful as I thought it would be. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rhode_Island_Senate&action=history Sorry to make you deal with history merges. I promise to be more careful. —WAvegetarianCONTRIBS 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not sure what to do with this....

    On the page Categpry:Freemason Wikipedians, there is a subcategory Freemason wikipedians (with a small w) that has nothing but the user template on it. Is this something that should be AfDed, or is it supposed to be there for some reason? Also, as it is really an empty subcategory, how can it be AfDed without people getting confused with the "capital W" category, which is correct and should stay? MSJapan 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages Lagtime

    Misplaced Pages must be freezing up again. Timed a 120 sec. lagtime w/ a "operation has timed out". Martial Law 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :(

    Seems to be getting better now. --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    I can finally edit after hours of not working! --M@thwiz2020 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Its still fouled up. Martial Law 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :(

    User:John1838

    This seems to be little more than an attack page, and it now mentions me. What are my options...what can be done? Thanks for any advice/help...KHM03 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


    persistant AOL Denial of Service Vandal

    Dante26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the cause of wave after wave after wave of AOL autoblocks, and it's been weeks since he was indef blocked, it's clear at that this point that he/she is intentionally disrupting AOL users from editing, by seeking out large numbers of autoblocks, is there anything that can be done? maybe delete the entire account? Any suggestions other than cleaning up the dozens of 24 hour ip autoblocks it leaves in it's wake?--an AOL user 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Uir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) almost certinaly the same person as above, same style of intentional autoblock phishing, it would be nice if someone could cleanup the collateral damage, these vandals exist for one reason, to get blocked, and trigger as many autoblocks as humanly possible--an AOL user 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    Category: