Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 11 September 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

User:Asgardian reverting during consensus discussion

Now that the above matter of admin tools has been resolved, I think Asgardian's reversions during consensus discussion needs to be addressed. He was previously blocked for doing this, and again removed information from the article after four other editors made it clear that such information should remain. If he thought that discussion was concluded, then he reverted against consensus. If he thought it was still ongoing, then he knowingly reverted during a consensus discussion. Some action needs to be taken to let him know that this and related behavior on his part is not in the spirit of collaborative editing on Misplaced Pages. Nightscream (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at User talk: J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and we should be able to come to some consensus on the next step. (Emperor (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Once again, it has been stated by an administrator that I was not at fault. The focus, and the continual focus should Nightscream continue to discuss this, is his unfortunate abuse of administrator priviledges. As to edit warring, Nightscream would appear to now be doing that exact thing with another editor - cautioned and blocked for incivility - at the very article Nightscream erroneously protected. Nightscream was also advised by both myself and an administrator that there was no consensus, and and a quick check reveals I was in discussion with another editor - in the spirit of collaborative editing - when Nightscream protected the article.

Then there is also the side issues of Nightscream's comments to Mangojuice here regarding their opinion of his actions:

As to my past history, we have all made mistakes, but an examination of past blocks reveals some were not appropriate, such as the one issued by Nightscream in this instance : As I said before and will continue to do so, I am happy to discuss formatting styles at Red Hulk. xeno has marked the issue as resolved, so I suggest we all move on. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on my admin activities, Asgardian, and it's not going to be, regardless of your attempts to shift it into one. That discussion, is above, and it was resolved. If you want to discuss that further, then take your comments pertaining to it up there.

Mangojuice's assertion that you did nothing wrong is untrue, because even if his statement that there was no clear consensus were true, that doesn't change the fact that you continued to revert during the discussion, a point that neither he nor you have addressed, despite my making that point clear in the first post that started this discussion. Can you explain this?

Indeed, your insistence that his say-so settles the issue of your reverts flies in the face of your simultaneous attempt to argue the settled one regarding my admin actions. If Mango's say-so resolves the questions about your behavior, then why does the same principle not apply to the fact that he and others agreed the matter of my admin activities was resolved? He and xeno agreed that I had done nothing wrong aside from an error, and both Mangojuice and ThuranX apologized to me on my Talk Page. So why do you continue to press the issue, even after Emperor made it clear that the two issues are separate? Mangojuice's mere say-so about consensus absolves you of the unrelated point of your reverting during discussion, but his and numerous others' statements that my matter is both separate and resolved does not hold true for that?

Simple. It's because you are habitually dishonest and manipulative during such disputes, and never abstain from stooping to whatever shameless tactic you can in order to evade intellectually honest scrutiny or criticism. The fact that you can feign adherence to the above principle in one passage, and then contradict it in the next one in attempt to detract from the true focus of this discussion further illustrates this.

As far as your willingness to discuss formatting at Red Hulk, you made it clear here that you did not wish to discuss that issue there, but at the Comics Project Page, and refused to answer a question of mine at Talk:Red Hulk for that reason. Despite this, you still have not joined the discussion at the Comics Project Page, despite the fact that I started that discussion four days ago because you requested it. Why is this? Xeno marked it as resolved? Where? Are you referring to this or some other discussion? The links show that he has not done any such thing. Can you point out where Xeno has said this?

I would point to Asgardian's behavior here as further evidence that something needs to be done about his inability to adhere to Misplaced Pages's principles. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is clearly marked resolved above. You have also failed to be civil, and are in fact openly abusive (Simple. It's because you are habitually dishonest and manipulative during such disputes, and never abstain from stooping to whatever shameless tactic you can in order to evade intellectually honest scrutiny or criticism. The fact that you can feign adherence to the above principle in one passage, and then contradict it in the next one in attempt to detract from the true focus of this discussion further illustrates this.)

In short, this is not conduct becoming an administrator. Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous issue pertaining to admin tools is marked resolved above, which is why you were out of line in trying to dredge it up. The current issue pertaining to your behavior is not. The two issues are separate, and your attempt to claim the latter is resolved, while continuing attempts to dredge up the former further illustrates the problem of your behavior. No one has made any determination that the issue of your behavior is resolved, as the matter of your reverting during discussion has not been addressed. You continue to deliberately ignore that point, and to pretend that pointing it out somehow constitutes "abuse". You are wrong on both counts, as you are on the notion that you are in any way fit to make judgments about "conduct".

To make the separate nature of the two issues clearer, I'm changing the section heading to a Level 2 one, since I'm the one who started this discussion in the first place. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have you considered perhaps informal mediation or an RFC to help resolve this dispute? I see that the consensus discussion is being held at a less active subpage: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text, why not move it to WT:COMICS? As this edit war was over a few days ago I think no admin actions is needed at this time so I'm marking this resolved. –xeno 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not begin this discussion to discuss that issue, xeno. My first post at the very to of this section explains what I wanted to discuss. It is not about that edit war, nor about the issue of titles or dates in article. I already began a discussion on that topic per Asgardian's request on the WikiComics Project Page a week ago. I began this discussion to discuss the issue of Asgardian's policy violations, which have nothing to do with whether the content dispute he exhibited this behavior was itself resolved. Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ehpitcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.241.12.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Other IPs used as well, just listing the two recent (and current) ones for the sake of brevity.

Brief background. Secret Service agent William Greer is believed in some quarters to have been involved to some extent in the assassination of JFK, some people even going so far as to say he fired the fatal shot from the front seat of the limousine. Since July 2007, the William Greer has been the target of a fringe POV pusher intent on making the article basically an attack piece on Greer using all sorts of original research, unreliable self-published sources, even if which properly sourced would not belong in the short article on Greer to the extent it has been. Six months ago I said that the place the fringe theory should be added is Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories with a short summary in the Greer article, which is exactly where WP:FRINGE says it should go. But, stubborn as ever and insisting that anyone removing the information from Greer's article is trying to cover up the truth(™) (see recent talk page edits and edit summaries), the two year edit war has carried on regardless.

The "facts" that the editor adds are generally observations on primary source material designed to make Greer look as guilty as possible. "Facts" such as "His testimony also seems to deny that he turned to look directly at Kennedy during the shooting, although the Zapruder film shows him doing this." sourced to the film and his testimony, both primary sources. Similarly "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report." is sourced only to the FBI report, which has also been used in other related articles to try and insinuate that Greer was an FBI suspect. I could go on and on, but there's no real need I hope.

I'm unsure whether the Ehpitcher account is related to the IP editor, but it seems highly likely. Given this editor is a single purpose account that has violating pretty much every content policy going for two years and edit warring for two years to expose the truth(™), I believe it's time to bring this to an end. I am proposing a topic ban on all articles relating to the assassination of JFK, broadly construed to avoid the problems carrying on in related articles such as this edit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank Christ you only gave us the brief background. Endorse ban. Crafty (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. When an editor links to a YouTube video as a legitimate source, and then attacks other editors for trying to cover up the truth, he clearly does not get it. Two years is more than long enough for him to come to an understanding of the rules. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Dunno if I can endorse it since I'm an editor at that article, but this seems the best solution to deal with someone who has no interest in abiding by WP rules of content and civility. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Clear evidence of tendentious editing. --Jayron32 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. It is clear there is a problem here with the above named accounts/IPs. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the main account. There's no evidence of any intention to contribute productively. Any further editing of the same style by IPs may be considered block evasion, and the IPs may be blocked as necessary. Jehochman 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Good Lord... -GTBacchus 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• How do we know these two IPs are the same person as the registered account? The IPs have been blocked repeatedly, but the registered account had a clean blocklog until someone indeffed today. Obviously there's a problem with attempting to use YouTube as a source, yet we don't indefinitely block someone when that's the only demonstration of inappropriate behavior. Could we have a bit clearer demonstration of the problem please, with diffs? Uncited assertion is a problematic basis for community action (if it's true in this instance, then please supply more substantiating evidence). Durova 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The evidence is in the IP's contributions. There are no non-tendentious edits to the article, they are all reverts to one of two previous versions. One highly tendentious version, dated September 2008, was being reverted to until 16 August, shortly thereafter, a slightly amended but equally tendentious version was created by leaving out some of the information, and has been reverted to since then. All their contributions are evidence, just look at the page history. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence presentations normally come in the shape of diffs and quotes, rather than invitations to review page histories. Durova 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• The diffs are in the contributions of both IPs. As RepublicanJacobite says, the editor has zero non-tendentious edits to the William Greer article, and all their edits are virtually the same. Therefore if you would like to see the evidence, I suggest clicking your mouse button twice instead of clicking it just once. All their edits to the John F. Kennedy assassination article itself are also tendentious, as I'm not counting minor fixes to tendentious information they have just added to be a separate edit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• What's to be gained from indefinitely blocking an account that hasn't edited for more than two years? Nathan 23:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• The same feeling. The account is inactive. This seems like a punitive block, rather than preventative. –blurpeace  23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• If we have reason to suspect that sockpuppetry is involved shouldn't it go to WP:RFCU before applying the banhammer? ϢereSpielChequers 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is very unlikely that a checkuser, or an admin patrolling SPI, will be able to tell you anything you can't see above. It's actually very unlikely a ban will achieve anything either... -- zzuuzz 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The behavior certainly would be reprehensible if the report above is accurate. What we can't see above is much in the way of evidence; it's mostly unsupported assertion. It's hard to understand the haste with which an account that hasn't edited in two years has been indeffed over a biography whose subject has been deceased for the last quarter century. Shouldn't we put a bit more effort into making certain the proposal is correct? Durova 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an extremely small chance that a checkuser query could draw a connection between the IPs, but there is no way to connect the IPs to the account. So in the best case scenario, we are left with... banning a couple of IPs... J.delanoy_adds 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per others above, I don't see the point. –Juliancolton |  00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like a strange maneuver to block an abandoned account so that you can then say IPs who are editing are block evading - particularly when a link can't be established. Topic banning an IP is effectively impossible - why not just use semiprotection when necessary? Nathan 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• comment: Errr, you don't ban the IPs, you ban the person behind both the old account and the IPs, the block is just the technical implimentation of the ban. And you know that it's the same person per WP:DUCK, not per the CU data. And the point of banning is because so you can apply WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits because his input is no longer wanted and we don't want to spend time debating again and again the same flawed arguments with a person that just refuses to get the point. And if the IPs are not the same person, then they are editing only to push the same POV and sources as the account, which means that you can apply WP:MEAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Guys, please be careful not to inadverdently ban innocent IPs in an attempt to ban one particular individual. If the registered account is blocked, semi-protection should be adequate to protect the article, and blocking the IPs shouldn't be necessary. Now, if we had flagged revisions there would be even less of a problem. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion here. The account is only listed to show when the tendentious editing began and I am not seeking to have an account or IP blocked. I am seeking to have an editor topic banned, which can be enforced by block and page protection. As Enric Naval correctly states we don't ban IPs or even accounts, we ban editors. The disruption caused by the editor is ongoing and has been for most of the last two years. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I just accidently blocked (and then unblocked) myself

I didn't know that admins could block themselves! Fortunately we can also unblock ourselves as well. I think I now have the most embarrassing block log on Misplaced Pages. Don't try this at home. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Others have done this too. This block log is exceptionally funny. Jehochman 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you not get the pop-up notice? John Reaves 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No (I use Google Chrome as my browser if that might make any difference). Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we were meant to have a self-block warning. Is it software or JavaScript? Ale_Jrb 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Or a joke, in which case it's actually quite a good idea. :) Ale_Jrb 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He might be talking about the popup in easyblock.js (the use is which is pretty much the only excuse for blocking oneself on accident =) –xeno 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All the best people block themselves once. Durova 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But only a select few block themselves for being an imposter. Jehochman 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Curious. An admin can block oneself, yet is unable to confer WP:God-King status flags - even on to an (permissable, naturally) alternate account. I know, I've tried! Does this dichotomy strike any one else as somewhat arbitrary? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• LHvU, you don't want that flag. Not only you don't get any useful elevated permissions, your Talk page attracts all sorts of vandals, kooks & other assorted troublemakers. (You know, stuff like "How was my edits 'original research'??? I didn't do any research at all to come up with those facts!") -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not if I were God-King, would it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind Nick, it might have been worse. You could have accidentally blocked another admin, for example. EyeSerene 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Or could have accidentally blocked a user and not notice for an hour or so. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I got blocked as grawp by a bot. I think I win. :P -- Luk 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I can only offer this from my experience in a previous life. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I keep thinking about blocking myself to get myself off here and doing something else more productive. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages is like crack and I just can't go cold turkey. Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Another admin would surely unblock you. Like crabs in a bucket, we shan't let one escape. –xeno 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done this to myself too. At least I got to see what an autoblock notice looks like.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As punishment for your mistake you must chop down the largest tree in the forest, with.......a herring! Chillum 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We shall do no such thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff happens. MastCell  20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... 1am ... possible WP:EWI Black Kite 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There actually is an award for this... Durova 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And to wrap things up, the all time champ at admin self-blocks. Durova 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that per WP:BLOCK it will "almost never be acceptable" to unblock oneself. I suppose it's not that rare after all :) Tim Song (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. While I still feel dumb, at least I'm in good company. I'm yet to block another admin or myself so far today, so that's also an improvement over the last two days. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

I have no idea where it's appropriate to ask this, but how do I get confirmation of an Oversight e-mail I sent? I only ask because I checked the box to have a copy sent to me, and my e-mail client blocked it as dangerous (probably because I mention some particularly questionable things with respect to the contents of a particular page in it). I just want to make sure that it didn't likewise get shot-down / filtered by the system on the other end. How would I go about getting a confirmation of delivery?

Thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't know a way other than email that they do it automatically. you can always email them again and ask them to confirm receipt on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Most requests are responded to quickly enough that this isn't typically a problem. Assuming and P&P and I are thinking of the same thread, the email was received by oversight-l and is currently under discussion -- either way, I've replied via email to such effect. (Though Protonk's suggestion could work just as well, if I hadn't noticed this post.) – Luna Santin (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate edit

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=LGBT&diff=prev&oldid=312750016 . This anon added text to the aritlce telling gay people to commit suicide. I don't think people who post such trash should be allowed to edit this site. All of the other edits from the IP have been in a similar vien. Zazaban (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

31 hour vacation, in case he comes back. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tool to find which articles two editors have contributed to

There's a tool which will discover which articles etc two editors have both edited. Can someone help me find it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py ? –xeno 15:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

tools:~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php? Algebraist 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

User Wikispoke continues to add non-encyclopedic and unreferencable statements to True Romance (without edit summaries) regarding an undocumented and uncited bootleg internet re-edit of the film going around Pirate Bay. This persistent readdition of removed material is the only edit this user makes and continues to make despite warnings and guidance. Will a sysop please address this user. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs admin intervention just yet. You just finished leaving them a talk page message for the first time. Why not see how they react to that? --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I misread the watchlist page, not showing my last reversion, I thought they had done it yet again. I'll watch it. Mjpresson (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world is American Literature: A Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography protected from creation?

I'm getting a message that only admins can create that page. Anyway, if someone could create it with

#REDIRECT]
{{R from alternative spelling}}

that would be great. Thanks. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you couldn't - I can't see that it was protected at all. I'm stumped. Shereth 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was never protected, so my guess would be a software bug was causing the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be a regex on the title blacklist, probably too much punctuation or something like that. I don't know enough about regexes to pinpoint the precise problematic regex. Woody (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't match anything on the local blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the difficulties have been caused by the incorrect redirect syntax using a url rather than a wikilink? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think admins would have a magic pass on that one (though you're right, of course). SO probably not the main problem. - Jarry1250  16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible I guess. Anyway it's redirected now, and never happened again since, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year.

All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn | 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

What do we do now about vandalism from London schools?

Just reverted some vandalism from 82.198.250.72 (talk · contribs) - I'm unclear as to what action we should be taking about continued vandalism from IPs like this one which was unblocked a while ago after discussion here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As while I wrote this the IP made two more vandalism edits I've blocked it for 24 hours to prevent any more today, but that's not a sufficient remedy Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Synetrix IPs should be treated like any other school IPs which sometimes have good edits. That is, schoolblock them as needed. The previous discussion really centred around the hardblocks, which is really something only a checkuser should do. Softblocks, even long ones, should be fairly uncontroversial. -- zzuuzz 09:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what zzuzzz said is fine. I would say even go for another year softblock on these, but the 3 month you placed is fine too. –xeno 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal

This is for the third time that I am bringing the issue to the notice of Administrators. User By78 has removed Dr.Manmohan Singh's image with that of CCP head Hu Jintao. Similarly information about the Brahmos-II Hypersonic missile has been removed from the cruise missile page.Bcs09 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the user, then file a WP:RFC/U if you can't work it out. lifebaka++ 13:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't switching out an image inappropriately simple vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I do the same?Bcs09 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:New admin school

Hi all. I was wondering if someone with a bit of technical knowledge might be able to write a page on creating edit filters for the new admin school? We have Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Instructions, but that's still a little complex for people with limited technical knowledge. One of the problems we've had is people creating filters with little knowledge about how to do them so detailed instructions, written simply, might be a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Instruction #1: Do not attempt to make a filter if you do not understand what you are doing. Chillum 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree... Edit filters are for people who know what they are doing when it comes to regex... –xeno 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking much the same thing. If you don't have sufficient technical knowledge to make one 'safely', you probably shouldn't be making one at all - especially as there are plenty of admins who do have the knowledge, and can help you. It's easier than, say, the spam blacklist, but you can do lots of damage very easily... Ale_Jrb 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all good and well saying that, but in practice people will still create filters (even if they have limited knowledge). Of course we can add a disclaimer in, but it would be good to have simple instructions about how to make a filter so they're open to more admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a warning template to Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Instructions, for what little good it might do. Rd232 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a flag for those who can create/edit filters. Why is it being granted automatically with +sysop? Shouldn't people have to demonstrate competence before being allowed to edit such a powerful tool? → ROUX ₪ 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is - a number of administrators are self granting it, I believe (though I did also, so I can't really talk). The thing is, the right is required to view the details of hidden filters, which is fine for all admins and the reason many are granting it, but it also allows you to edit them. I think the best solution would be separate read/write rights, but that's not how it is atm. Ale_Jrb 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, separating would make sense. Grant read privilege automatically, restrict write to those who have demonstrated competence. Is that programmatically feasible? → ROUX ₪ 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

<-Advertising Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested more widely rather than training a cadre of experimenting regexers might be a better job. ↪REDVERS 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe admins can now view private filters without the EFM flag (since r52743) –xeno 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a flag, but admins can grant it to themselves (yes, even noobish ones). They really should have the good sense not to start editing filters until they have a good grasp of regex, at which point they'd probably be able to understand the instructions already written. I would hazard a guess that "simple instructions on how to write filters" would probably be close to useless as they would really only teach an admin how to write a simple filter, filters that have long since outgrown their usefulness as vandals have evolved to circumvent these. However, someone should take a stab at it all the same. Just make sure you focus heavily on the TEST FIRST and do not enable any preventative actions until the user has thoroughly tested it and perhaps had it peer reviewed. –xeno 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be even more useful would be instructions for noobie admins on how to understand what edit filter reports mean, and how to deal with such reports on AIV (or wherever). I know I would! Stephen! 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. I'm still not sure how to deal with AIV reports where edits have been disallowed. Can you be blocked for edits you were never allowed to make in the first place? TNXMan 17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I would say "Yes, definitely." After all, if it weren't for the EF they would have made that edit, there can be little argument over that. EF baiting? Possible I suppose, maybe a slight exception to the rule. - Jarry1250  18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit filter reports people to AIV? I think a help page would be useful to this old admin, nevermind new ones... J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's the EF, not precognition. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Close gridlocked merger discussion

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this gridlocked merger discussion, and consider whether it should be closed: Talk:Genocides in history#Merging Communist genocide here The proposal has been up for a month, and it is clear that there is no consensus. Yet a small group of editors are citing the discussion as reason for blocking other attempts to improve the controversial article, such as renaming it. --Anderssl (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No administrator action is required. Calling for administrator action suggests a special power to arbitrate conflicts over content which administrators do not possess. Post a request at WP:Third opinion, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. Recommend you start with the first of those and work up the line if no progress is made.--Doug. 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand - Help:Merge#Closing/archive a proposed merger states that "if the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard". The point here being that two users already tried to close the discussion before, but were instantly reverted by other users although it is abundantly clear that there will be no consensus. There's been plenty of uninvolved editors coming in and offering their opinions only to be yelled at from all sides and leaving, so I doubt mediation will do much good... I am not asking for arbitration over the content, just to state whether the merger discussion should be closed or continue to be kept open in spite of no progress being made (the last contributions mostly are discussing whether to close the discussion or keep it open, there is no real discussion on the topic itself). --Anderssl (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the users who tried to close the discussion were reported to the ANI: The admin that answered suggested that we might ask an admin to close the discussion. That's why I posted this request. --Anderssl (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to remove the resolved tag at the top of the section. Ks0stm 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't sure if I was supposed to. :) --Anderssl (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I'm pretty sure they won't have a problem with it. If they do, just tell them I was encouraging you to be bold. Ks0stm 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I partially disagree with Doug here. While no administrator action is absolutely required, one of the duties of admins is to read consensus in contentious discussions. As an uninvolved admin with no prior opinion, I read through the discussion and then closed it accordingly. Hopefully the close sticks. I have also offered my opinion (as an editor, not an admin) of how to proceed. Hopefully this help will be of some assistance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Anderssl (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced RFM request

An anonymous IP who was trying to contest an AfD created Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/PODS (company) the other day. It's not attached to a regular RFM page or anything, so I'm not sure why it exists. Anyway, I marked it for CSD a few hours ago, but it hasn't been touched. Should it be deleted? Is this something for MFD? — HelloAnnyong 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's deletable but it would not hurt to drop by the IP talk page for a brief (and gentle) tutorial on how to contest deletions. Thatcher 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The IP figured it out two minutes later and posted on the AFD listing for the article. — HelloAnnyong 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page not moved with article

Talk:Steven Kaplan should be at Talk:Steven Kaplan (economist), I believe--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was a cut-and-paste move from 2007... ouch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you correct the histories?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the histories & took care of everything else that needed done. Unfortunately, there are many thousands of copy & paste moves that remain uncorrected from well before 2007. The reason they are rarely done is because they are a pain and rather time consuming. (And also there are always more pressing matters. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is now September 11 (or 9/11)

This is just a heads up to editors and administrators that articles relating to the 9/11 attacks are much more likely than usual to be the subject of vandalism, inappropriate editing, and point of view editing in the next 24-36 hours. As difficult as it may be, please try to be kind to earnest but unschooled editors; it will be hard to tell them from the problem editors. Risker (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved admin issuing block

An admin, User:ArnoldReinhold (who signs as "agr") has been involved in debates and editing around Heaven and Earth (book). He just blocked another editor, User:William M. Connolley, who has a different view on the issues surrounding this book. It's somewhat ironic that WMC is under an arbcom case for blocking while involved and now has been blocked by what appears to be an involved admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs that tell the complete story so that inquiring administrators don't have to work so hard to research it themselves? Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to basically come down to this. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also a larger chunk of text being disputed. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this was a poorly-issued block by an involved admin. –Juliancolton |  04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sure. Here's Reinhold arguing his POV based on a definition in a Misplaced Pages article -- and of course Misplaced Pages (or any open wiki) is not a RS. Admins, of all people, should know that. Here's Reinhold removing a well-sourced and attributed edit. WP:BLP doesn't say that we can't include material critical of a living person, but that such material must be carefully sourced -- as it was here. The most charitable explanation is that Reinhold is not familiar with the policies he is supposed to be enforcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arnold has also blocked Ratel (talk · contribs), another user who appears to be involved in this dispute. –Juliancolton |  04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an involved admin. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being involved he has not blocked anyone on the other "side" of the dispute, despite the fact that there was plenty of to-and-fro by all concerned. This doesn't look good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x3)Wow, that is a terrible block. He is obviously an involved party to the dispute. Calling that a BLP violation is quite a stretch. Putting something in the "See also" section does not mean that we are labeling the subject of the article with it, it just means its a related topic. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is already consensus here to undo the block and give agr a warning. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked William M. Connolley for now, and, if no-one objects, will unblock Ratel shortly. I do not object to my actions being overturned if an uninvolved admin sees fit. –Juliancolton |  05:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now unblocked Ratel and advised the blocking admin against using the tools to further their position in a dispute. –Juliancolton |  05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to this article via the BLP notice board. I removed material here and in Climate change denial that in my judgement violated BLP. I had no prior involvement in either article. I then participated in both talk pages in an attempt to explain my actions, and help find constructive solutions. Note that I refer to the definition of climate change denial in that article because is clearly suggests that deniers act in bad faith as part of industry sponsored disinformation campaigns. So suggesting someone is a denier by linking to climate change denial is squarely a BLP issue. I've suggested that one way to resolve the BLP problems is to change that definition and participated in subsequent discussions on that point, but have not edited the article itself further. I think a review of Ratel (talk · contribs)'s edits makes clear that he is determined to brand the author of the book in question. As for WMC, when he reverted my edit I went to his talk page and politely asked him to explain his reasons. He blew me off. See . He and Ratel then reinserted the disputed material after requests by other editors to hold off until the matter is resolved on the talk page. I then blocked both for 12 hours for BLP violation and edit warring. I think my actions were appropriate and fall clearly within policy. As for the other editors involved, in the "to adn fro," our BLP policy says disputed material should be removed pending resolution of the issues raised. That's all they did.--agr (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you respond to the editors pointing out you were clearly an involved admin, and as such shouldn't have been the one to make the blocks? Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something so if anyone can clarify, that would be good. How involved is agr really? I only see two edits on the article, and both were quoted as BLP, which seems to be in response to what was said on the BLP noticeboard. Meanwhile, WMC and Ratel were heavily involved in the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at agr's contribution history, it appears that it is true that he was only involved in the dispute within the last couple of days. So, I don't think he was trying to "win" a content issue that he was historically invested in. He did take a side in the debate over whether the content in question was a BLP violation or not. To be honest, I can't decide who is right on it, because it comes down to whether Global Warming is an established fact or not. If it is, then those who say that it's a bunch of hooey really are deniers. If Global Warming does turn out to be a less severe phenomenon than what many think it is, then the "global warming denier" label will turn out to have been an unfair label. What to do? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well when there's a dispute over BLP vio, I thought the better way to go about enforcing policy was to at least temporarily remove the material in question (if it is legitimately being dispute, which seems to be the case here)? Also, if he'd used BLP Special Enforcement (which is relatively dead), would we have come to the same result? Again, if anyone clarifies, I'd appreciate it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The blocks were completely out of order, as was the attempt to invoke BLP. It was made clear that there were plenty of other uninvolved admins including me , and stated as consensus on BLPN who thought there was no BLP violation and that you were wrong to raise it. As far as I can see you made the blocks because you felt put out that your opinion was not being taken seriously and that sort of reaction is not appropriate conduct for an admin. You should apologise immediately. --BozMo talk 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro to Climate change denial says this: "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby" (emphasis mine). Linking to that article clearly implies that the author is spreading disinformation for financial gain. This is a BLP issue, and BLP says questionable material should be removed while the material is being discussed. That's what agr did here. WMC and Ratel edit warred to keep the BLP-questionable material while the discussion was ongoing, which is grounds for blocking. Given agr's previous uninvolvement with this topic, what's the problem? ATren (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if you totally misinterpret the purpose of see also sections. See also links are not categories. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By linking to "denial", there is clearly an implication that the author is a "denier", not a "skeptic", and therefore the author is involved in "disinformation for financial gain". The see also should link to a debate or skeptic page, not the denier page. ATren (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were linked in the body or given as a category, yes, in the see also section no. The layout guideline states it well. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (emphasis mine). By putting something in the "see also" section, we are not saying "The subject is also this," we are saying "These are also related." Otherwise the phrase "see also" would be completely nonsensical. Mr.Z-man 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to take part in an edit war, then block other involved users. –Juliancolton |  05:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly it wasn't BLP related material it was the inclusion of a book under "See Also" which implies the book was is related. Also that there was plenty of contrary opinion on a very bad call as being BLP and that the block was made with a block note on WMC's talk page implying annoyance at lack of respect for agr. --BozMo talk 05:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been linked to here's the BLP discussion. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, it's not about linking to the book from the denial page, it's about linking to the denial page from the book and author pages. ATren (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I was too quick to say that agr was wrong. He appears to have truly thought that he was protecting a BLP from a violation of the policy. The statement that Atren quotes does appear to indicate that it was a BLP violation to include that link in the "see also" section of the article. I now think the block was, arguably, justified. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the sanity check - particularly your second sentence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The "see also links" section of the BLP policy was added just a couple days ago with almost no consensus. William M. Connolley was blocked 8 hours after his last edit to the article, that hardly seems "protective." Mr.Z-man 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But, WMC almost immediately added the questionable text back in when he was unblocked, so perhaps "protective" applies here. ATren (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's some POV pushing going on. As was suggested at the BLP noticeboard, I don't know why the see also link isn't moved into the aritcle body where the link will be given appropriate context. This looks equivalent to adding criticism to an article on a popular president saying he's socialist, and then using that to justify a see also to the article on socialism. Come on people, grow up. And WMCs refusal to discuss the issue on his take page after a polite request is also rather unseemly. I would say his history of editing articles related to these issues speaks for itself. And Ratel equating the article subject to a Holocaust denier should probably be enough to give any fair minded person pause, whether you think global warming is well established or not. The term denier and denial is loaded and should be used with caution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird days indeed. This one will run and run. Still, I seem to be unblocked now - thanks. agr's original block was absurd, of course. More, the notice left on my talk page was distinctly ambiguous "I have issued a 12 hour block for BLP violations and edit warring" - when I read that, I didn't know who he was talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, since you're unblocked now, could you help out by removing any links to Global warming denial from BLPs which don't include it with the proper context and helping ensure that no one else adds them back? Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the links should be there is contentious. My view is that this is largely the std skeptic crowd wanting to downplay the unwisdom of the septics. The BLP issue is spurious William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold blocked users over a BLP issue that is brand new, that is, whether or not to have links in the See also sections of pages (any pages, in this case the page was on a book, not a person). The BLP policy was altered only yesterday, without much discussion, specifically because of this content dispute (at Heaven and Earth (book)). ArnoldReinhold was an involved admin, who had entered the fray with his opinions and done some reverting. He should not have blocked other editors over the issue, especially when the point under discussion is rather murky (ie climate change denial is a term not exclusively reserved for organized, funded disinformation campaigns but may also reasonably be said to relate to anyone who is lobbying publicly to block AGW legislation or claim that AGW is a "scam" or wrong or dishonest, as the person in question has indeed done). I think ArnoldReinhold should resile from further involvement in this complex topic since he did not even know clearly what AGW meant diff when he arrived from the BLP noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The BLP guidelines are not new and adding see alsos to cast the subject of a biographical article in a negative light is not helpful. If the wikilink is worthwhile, include it in the body of the text. The holocaust is a historical event so it not particularly similar to global warming which involves a lot of modeling, theorizing, and predictions. There are differences of opinion over the science and how best to protect the environment and people who would be affected by climatic changes and atmospheric changes. While some editors seem to have very strong opinions and perhaps feel that this is a critical issue, we are still bound by our policies to fairly and accurate write up an encyclopedic article that reflects the content in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of events

• On 10 September 09 (yesterday), agr responded to a BLP noticeboard discussion by removing what he considered a BLP vio as an uninvolved admin (at 10:41). He also attempted to discuss this matter at the noticeboard, on the article talk page. WMC reverted this action at 11:04 as being a non-vio. Agr attempted to discuss this with WMC, and brought this to WMC's and Ratel's attention at 13:16. WMC was clearly unresponsive to the merits of the concern at 14:01. At 19:53, another editor reverted back, urging WMC to wait for the issue to be settled as it is disputed, but WMC edit-warred again at 20:11 with the summary "why should I wait for the issue to be settled and not you? that kind of edit comment really winds me up guv".
• On 11 September 09 (today), this version was reverted again at 02:49 with the summary "you should wait because WP:BLP explicitly states that you must". Ratel again edit warred, inserting the disputed material at 03:40. Between 04:25 and 04:30, agr blocked both Ratel and WMC for edit-warring and BLP, and reinstated the version which had no disputed BLP issues. Several minutes later, the above discussion began.
• I hope that covers that major bits. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More:

• After this discussion began, I removed the link from Plimer's BLP with the comment this is still under discussion in multiple venues, and it has BLP implications. Why don't we just leave it out for another day or two until the discussion comes to a close?
• WMC, after being unblocked, added the link back in with Why don't we just leave it in for another day or two until the discussion comes to a close?. BLP policy clearly indicates that questioned material is to be removed while being discussed. ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note, when I re-inserted the disputed See also link to Climate change denial, I was doing it in order to allow readers to follow the accusation levelled at Plimer in the edit:

Lyn Allison, leader of the Australian Democrats from 2004 to 2008, called Plimer the "pet denialist" of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and accused Plimer of "happily cashing in on his speaking tours and his book".cite

Now please explain why, when a book or person is accused in a RS of something, that topic may not be see alsoed? Thanks. Note that many people have accused Plimer of being a denier, because he is, and his book has been called The Climate Change Denier's Manifesto. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Many people accuse Obama of being a socialist. Do we include socialism in Obama's "see also" section? ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? If it is raised throughout the article on Obama, then yes, we serve the readers and help them expand knowledge. The entire book under discussion is a long diatribe of denialism, so really, the See also to Climate change denial could hardly be more apposite. ► RATEL ◄ 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we have to be careful about impugning or casting aspersions in biographical articles. A link to socialism in the appropriate section of a politician's article where that criticism or point of view is discussed would be fine, but a see also isn't reasonable. It would be like adding a see also to "torture" for Dick Cheney or "Manslaughter" for Ted Kennedy. And part of the problem is that the denial article is so one sided. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I found two more instances of Climate change denial being included in see also sections for BLPs and removed them , plus in a documentary movie . Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: (a) Saying that See Alsos are "purely navigational links", or that the layout guideline says subjects may be only "peripherally related", does not somehow magically make BLP concerns disappear in terms of the implications the average reader may draw from unannotated links. (b) in response to this dispute which I saw at WP:BLPN, I BOLDly added a section on See Also Sections to WP:BLP , because I thought it helpful to clarify how the spirit of BLP applies to See Alsos; no policy extension was involved (unlike the BLP "External Links" section which refers to a "higher standard"). This has now been reverted and is under discussion. (c) I confess (oops) that I'd only read the BLPN discussion, so it's only now I realise in this case we're talking about a See Also link at the top of a section, not a See Also section. I don't think that invalidates my BLP addition, because it was motivated by this issue having come up before; but a See Also link is somewhat different. In this case, it seems like an attempt to "have your cake and eat it": a section title that says "scepticism", and a main article See Also which links to denial and not skepticism (which would be Global warming controversy). If denialism can't be justified in either the section title or the body text (from what people are saying, it would be justifiable in the body text - but it's currently not mentioned), it's hard to see its use in this way as BLP-compatible. Rd232 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See Also clearly means "related". It is clearly possible to defame by adding "See Also" (See Also "Lying" for example), but adding a nearby topic does not imply that the individual comes under the category in any way, it just implies adjacency. It implies there is a relation and if there obviously is a relation, discussed that way in the article this is not a defamation. See also to groups to which the BLP might commonly be mistakenly included is completely ok. In this regard I think that edits like by Cla68 are somewhere between misguided, vandalism or opportunistic agenda pushing and this notice board should not be used as a justification for them. --BozMo talk 09:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Valentine de Saint-Point

"Valentine de Saint-Point" Should Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/Valentine_de_Sainte_Point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acr8tiv (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to correct name. ↪REDVERS 07:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards