Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 16 April 2007

• 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)

Tobias Conradi

I've lost my patience with Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs). The user is very rude, and acts very unilateral with his page moves without giving satisfactory explanations, or proposing the same on talk pages. He has been blocked numerous times , but strangely none of them for more than 1 week. The latest was a move from Indian Standard Time to Time in India without discussion, and edits to justify his move, in the process making a hash of a featured article. I strongly recommend a longer block on this user for:

1. History of acting unilaterally, and not willing to work on consensus
2. History of incivility, still not changed

Please see his talk page for more details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

please provide evidence for your unproven claims

1. History of acting unilaterally, and not willing to work on consensus
2. History of incivility, still not changed

please also read and respect WP:NPATobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a history going back probably a year or more of incivility, unilateral decisions, complete disregard of the concerns and opinions of others... I must have threatened arbitration against him three times, maybe it's about time we actually did it. The problem is, he IS a valid user - He has many thousands of good edits. In this regard - being a good editor, but being incredibly stubborn and disrespectful of others - he is very similar to Wik. Tobias seems to have a severe persecution complex; if you come to him with a concern about an edit, he takes it personally and begins insulting you. Just look at his 'list' on his userpage, and his short-lived jihad against the foundation when he came back from a break. --Golbez 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"complete disregard of the concerns and opinions of others?" You mean my long discussions with other users? "You must have threatened?" Isn't threatening forbidden by WP's owns policies? What is your bad talking about me leading to? "...he has a history of incivility going back a year " .... what DID happen NOW??"Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against a longer block because he is a very productive user, but an arbcom case might be a right solution. Would he agree on some sort of mentoring? Alex Bakharev 08:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He calls people who question his unilateral moves stalkers, and calls their concerns attacks. There is a severe personality issue here, and it needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. Should we start collecting evidence? --Golbez 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I called his stalking stalking. not him questioning a move. He should respect WP:OWN. He is not the owner of Karo people, which I moved there from Karo (people), a naming scheme not seen elsewhere in Category:Ethnic groups in Indonesia and not listed by WP Ethnic groups. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Productive? By what measure? In my experience he is a disruptive editor who destroys the productivity of other editors and whole Misplaced Pages projects. We are the ones forced to clean up the trail of mess he creates. Mentoring was suggested after widespread outrage at his some of his actions last year, but nothing came out of it in the end - see User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Interesting. I think Arbcom should look at his disruptive history and take appropriate action. (MichaelJLowe 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

please make a list of _all_ my edits and mark the ones that you _think_ have been disruptive. Any percentage in your mind right now? Maybe also mark the ones you think are _not_ disruptive. Any percentage? Please be so polite to back your words with a nice list. And then maybe look at your own edits. Do you think you ever made a mistake? Who edits more maybe makes more mistakes? Are mistakes allways disruptive in your valuation scheme? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not a matter of individual edits, its your whole approach to editing and to other editors. You could have first approached the Wikiprojects and editors involved in bulk list of articles you are planning to move and discussed the issue first. Instead you went on your usual unannounced and unilateral crusade. You could have fixed all the broken links you have created by moving articles and creating DAB pages in their place. Instead you suggest someone else should do it. You could have been courteous when people complained. Instead you accused them of stalking you. Time for you to change or for you to leave. (MichaelJLowe 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

You're not alone Nichalp. In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links. We have our discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Naming_conventions_for_ethnic_group_articles. If he has good knowledge about the subject, then it is okay for other members of the project that has been working hard to mantain the articles, but sometimes he assumes to have some knowledge about one ethnic group which does not exist. For instance, in the following AfD discussion of an article he created: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bengkulu people, which has somewhat unreliable sources about the subject's notability. — Indon (reply) — 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

please provide evidence for

In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links.

and cite the policy you think that was violated. Do page move rules ask that the move seeks permission from some kind of owners of a page? In the case of Karo people, who is the owner, WP Indonesia or WP Ethnic groups

please also respect WP:OWN. And please don't bother admins with stuff we are currently discussing, like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Naming_conventions_for_ethnic_group_articles - (yeah and at the same time people like Golbez make the false claim I have absolute disregard of other people opinions. I talk with the WP Indonesia people. Do you notice? But maybe they are not aware of WP:OWN, like MichaelJLowe wrote "our ethinic group articles" . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't talk first. I noticed you have made moves of ethnic groups articles without first mentioning with others. It left a mess in the project. You can see it yourself from your contributions. And when you give notification with other WP Indonesia people before making bulk of moves? Oh, and everybody knows about WP:OWN, but it does not mean you can unilaterally act without communicating with other editors. It is what I call a disruptive edit. And for Michael statement about "our" is because we are mantaining articles within our project. That's what WP:PROJECT is all about. — Indon (reply) — 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you explain how the move from Karo (people) to Karo people is disruptive? WP:PROJECT says what projects are for, but does not say other editors need permission to edit. BTW I was or still am WP Language member, an I am Project Misplaced Pages member - so what now? Do people ask me for every edit on Misplaced Pages? Do WP Indonesia ask at WP Language for every language edit? You could try to be more open to non- WP Indonesia editors. Respect WP:OWN - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Karo (people) to Karo people appear to be a sensible move. OTOH it appears that there was no urgency in this move. If the Karo (people) stayed for a couple of days no harm will be done. On the third hand reverting move require significant efforts in fixing double redirects, deleting redirects with the history, fixing links. Thus, it appear that announcing a proposed move on the talk page of an article and/or relevant projects, waiting for the feedback for say 24h and moving is a sensible thing to. Moving it without announcement is reckless and even stupid thing to do and if dome repeatedly may get you blocked Alex Bakharev 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indon, I repeat, because you did not answer

Indon, please provide evidence for your so far unproven claim

In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links.

and cite the policy you think that was violated. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE, that's said. Below, you simply said "I do not own the wrong links." Yeah right, that's what I call disruptive edits. Nobody owns anything here, but we give constructive contributions, not making the wrong links. — Indon (reply) — 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also WP Indonesia members should respect WP:OWN. Thank you. And furthermore: I did not make the wrong links. I only made them visible, so that they can be fixed. A lot of AWB users go around and fix them. Me too I fix them. But nobody is obliged to fix them. This is a volontary project. Please respect that. And respect community. thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias has made dozens (or more?) of moves, disambigs, directs, in the last few days - not just of Indonesian articles. we have asked him to consult and explain before (even has a general explanation) but these requests are removed immediately (see his talk page history) and he continues on his way. The scale and number of moves is particularly concerning to us. His standard question "which article in particular?" suggests he sees no need to work with others, and if we do question a particular one, he handle this (in my opinion) firstly evasively and then automically defensively. See Talk:Madurese and we end up with inappropriate moves like at Madura. Unfortunately moves cannot be reverted by non-admins and I believe Tobias is taking advantage of this. When I mentioned that a similar situation had happened last year, Tobias removed it describing it as an 'attack' in the edit summary.

these requests are removed immediately - this is a lie. Your move belief you can forget. Non-admins can revert moves. You come with bulk accusations out of nowhere - that's why I asked which particular edits you where concerned with. You did not reply, but repeated your former statements and I deleted it. At the end it is my talk page, User:Naconkantari already told you and I explained to you why I didn't want your statement Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, i think you misunderstood me. I was referring to requests to your talk page to be collaborative are removed. But while we are on it, I have never been able to re-revert a page move without a page move. Anyway, it seems that after all this here, you are making some efforts to at least inform others what you are doing. Thanks. Let's see how we all go from here. regards Merbabu 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, I think we already were in a good atmosphere on Talk:Merbabu. I told you some of my plans as you requested. And then I was surprised that the good atmosphere went away so fast. We have to exercise more good atmosphere. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, re my post above, i was simply pointing out where it appears we may have misunderstood what the other was talking about - but this is probably getting lost in the thread now and we should move on. There was certainly no 'lie', but possibly lack of clarity.

I'm not sure I share your views about a good atmosphere on my talk page, but i don't think we will reach agreement anyway, thus i suggest not talk about it further. But, recent posts on the indonesia project board suggest we are both happy to discuss future moves on the wikiproject board with other editors in a constructive manner. kind regards Merbabu 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - moves CAN be undone as long as you are moving it over a redirect to that article, and it has no other edits. That is to say, if ] consists of "#REDIRECT ]", and has had no other edits, anyone can move ] to ]. --Golbez 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a request to work together rather than as lone rangers is too much to ask (particularly if at the scale Tobias operates - others can't keep up). (PS, I may not be able to further reply for 12 hours or more - sorry). Merbabu 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think Tobias references to WP:OWN are particularly ironic given his contribs and "concede nothing" defence style with the word 'attack' peppered in edit summaries, over the last few days. HOwever, there is no reason why his style can't be viewed as 'enthusiastic' and this focused into a more collaborative mode. Merbabu 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest activity: He has been removing the Category:Time by country (see edits and ) from the relevant article pages, and placing it on "redirect pages" (see and ). Since a "normal" reader of[REDACTED] never sees these redirect pages, clearly the category serves no purpose there, while removing the category from the article page is a loss. Can someone please look into the conduct of this prolific editor ? I would have left another message on his talk page but he seems to be blithely ignoring the ones already there. Abecedare 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the cat is about time by country in general, it is not about specific time zones. At least the cat was set up like that until some other people without understanding changed it. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the time zones there is Category:Time zones, get it? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, (a) if a time zone applies to a particular country and covers the whole country, as in the case of South Africa Standard Time and Singapore Standard Time, the articles should also be included in the Category:Time by country; (b) placing the category on a redirect page serves no useful purpose since as I said above, a reader never sees it (I could see the justification if we were discussing a book-keeping category, such as the ones in Category:Redirects).

Time in India (as long as not redirected by some ignoring editors) covers more than only Indian Standard Time - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

However the larger point is that your history of uncooperative edits and making unjustified page moves, including those of featured articles (e.g. Indian Standard Time), without any attempt at discussion (let alone building a consensus) creates unnecessary work for other editors who need to clean up after you. Of course, it is perfectly understandable that everyone makes good-faith editing errors once in a while, but I personally would be more inclined to overlook your mistakes if you at least admitted them, expressed regret and changed your editing style so that it involves less confrontational and unilateral conduct. Abecedare 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

where is this history of uncooperative edits? Do you call every edit I do without asking you, Nichalp and the WP Indonesia members uncooperativ? What is wrong with Karo (people) -> Karo people, what is wrong with applying common practice to the WP Indonesia "owned" Madurese article. Also WP Indonesia people should respect WP policies and guidelines. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. But it would be nice if, in recognition of the fact that you work with a community that doesn't always know your intentions and/or rationale, these explanations were to appear in an edit summary, rather than an unsummarised minor-marked edit. Hesperian 02:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I should have done that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And I did it again: I unilaterally moved Sampang to Sampang Regency, turning the former into a dab for the regency and the Sampang language. The language article I just created by myself, without consulting any Wikiproject. IMO the WP Indonesia people should cool down a little and don't think they are the owners or gatekeepers for changes on all Indonesia related articles. Oh yes, I created a bunch of language articles the last days, and I think this was good. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's always everyone else at fault isn't it Tobias? Its really strange that its you who is reported to admins time after time. Its really strange that you are the one blocked time after time. When can you start working cooperatively and showing respect for others? We don't own the articles, but neither do you. Since you are making all these DAB pages in place of articles, why don't you fix up all the broken links for this (Special:Whatlinkshere/Sampang) and the hundreds of other pages you have moved? (MichaelJLowe 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

It's not allways everyone else fault. I know that I make errors. And I was unilateral again, fixing wrong link at a WP Indonesia owned/not owned page - and I think this improved WP. Madura the island != Madurese people. Do you understand this? Furthermore everybody can fix links, I do not own the wrong links. Last but not least instead of being xenophobe to non WP Indonesia editors, you could be happy that outsiders help you to fix wrong links from Indonesia related articles and to fix ambigous article names. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not think you don't have any responsibility to fix the mess of broken links you create when you move hundreds of pages? You are just shifting the work to other people, the same people you refuse to consult with about any of your changes. Its like a child taking his toys out of the cupboard and refusing to put them back and clean up when they are done. (MichaelJLowe 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Respect WP:AGF. This policy is also for WP Indonesia members. Thank you. And again WP:OWN: I do not own the wrong links. Not from the language project nor from WP Indonesia. And yes, I fix links, but some WP Indonesia people reinsert errors just in a run to revert me. They should be more carefull and respecting. Thank you for attributing hundreds of page moves to me - would be happy if true. And yes, maybe in this hundreds some were wrong. I am sorry for these. But then, this improved WP nonetheless. WP Indonesia will see much much more moves, because the regency articles were not set up carefully. BTW I was founder of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Country subdivisions - and I think every non-member has the same rights to edit subdivision articles as I do. Full respect of WP:OWN. - The Sampang links are all fixed now. What did you today? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What did you today?: tried to get an editor who is being uncooperative and disruptive to work with our project. If you announced your intentions instead of acting as a loner you wouldn't be raising the ire of people and we may even help you in your goals. (MichaelJLowe 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Statistics and proposal: Going through the users edit history I counted over 2000 articles (and talk pages) that he has moved since August 2005, including over a hundred so far in April 2007. Not once in making those >100 page moves in April, did he propose the move on the article talk pages or invite any second opinion before taking the unilateral, and in some cases ill-advised, action. On the other hand, I can see that Tobias Conradi is a prolific editor who perhaps makes many good edits on[REDACTED] and would hate to see him blocked or banned for his editing style. So I suggest he be put under probation, so that he is allowed to move a page only after he has proposed it on the article's talk page and given interested editors at least 48h to chime in. Is this remedy possible, or are the only options available to us to, (1) allow current behavior to continue unreined or (2) block the user for a substantial period (since previous short blocks for disruptions have not worked) ? Abecedare 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems Tobias Conradi did a lot of good work if he moved so many pages. Probably he is very experienced in doing so. Did you analyse on what subjects he made the moves in general? Out of 2000 moves how many are now in a moved-back status? How many are there, where he moved them to? Maybe the overall effect of his work is positive and it would cause more harm if for every little move he has to ask on the talk pages. Maybe talk pages nobody ever looks at? Of course if concerns are raised he should talk. But this is something he allways(?) did and currently is doing at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Regencies It is still not obvious what harm was done by movig Karo (people) to Karo people, since the former really was the only one with brackets in its category. No links were broken!!! At the end: The blocks mentioned by Abecedare are mostly related to him making public the abuses of admin rights. They were not related to page moves. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I would also suggest that a condition of his probation be that he help fix the links he breaks as part of moving pages and putting DABs in their place, say at least 50 links per move. (MichaelJLowe 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Just to point out that someone once complained that Tobias wasn't cleaning up the broken/double redirects, etc. caused by his moves; he stated, simply, that it was not his job to clean up his own mess, and the person complaining should do it. I'm sure I could find a diff if you really want one. --Golbez 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah Golbez. You may be sure, but it will be only one more time you are not right. ;-) I know you hate me, and now you will go and search half the night. BTW, do you remember your page moves without talking? Especially with abusing your admin rights? Acting against WP written down policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MichaelJLowe, I understand your frustration, but since everyone on[REDACTED] is a volunteer, I don't think anyone (including Tobias) can/should be compelled to put in labor that they'd rather not. The aim of the probation should not be punitive IMO , but rather directed towards preventing further harm to[REDACTED] and hopefully, in the process, guiding Tobias Conradi towards a more constructive editing process. But then again ... editors like you and me can only propose, it is upto the admins to enforce :-) Abecedare 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should approach the Arbitration Committee to resolve this dispute as I think an ArbCom enforced probation/page move ban would be better than a community ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe's 6 Month School Blocks

Netsnipe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just reverted several of my 31 hour blocks of schools and switched them to 6 month blocks. Ordinarily this type of change wouldn't be a problem, but I just took the time to check Netsnipe's block log. Over the past few weeks, he has blocked many school IPs, many with only 3 or 4 edits, for 6 months. These are IPs with little or no prior block history. Check out the following examples:

• 204.129.152.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 3 edits total, blocked 6 months
• 206.110.32.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including vandalism reversion, 2 31 hour blocks, blocked 6 months

* 66.194.72.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including fixing grammar errors, no prior blocks, blocked 6 months _{My mistake, linked the wrong IP alphachimp 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

You can find many, many more such examples in Netsnipe's blocking log. This matter was discussed in some brevity on my talk page, where I decided to bring it here.

I realize that no consensus exists involving blocking schools. Some administrators believe in only blocking for 15 minutes until the vandalism abates, while others (myself included) increment blocks in a similar fashion as non-shared IPs. This length of block though, seems like a completely unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

That said, I'm willing to start blocking schools for 6 months if the community wants it. Do you? alphachimp 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has been little or no vandalism at an IP, then 6 months blocks on them are absolutely not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, before I start blocking schools for a month or longer, I like to see a history of vandalism from the IP. Chances are these are just kids in the library or classroom who had some spare time and decided to vandalize Misplaced Pages. Its the ones that come back time and again and continue to vandalize that are a problem. I think blocking a school IP (or any IP) for 6 months after only 3 contribs (2 obvious vandalism and 1 could be interpreted as a "test" edit) is a bit much.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx and Nmajdan, and with Alphachimp, who is hardly a soft touch with respect to vandals. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that duration should be made on a case by case basis and that 6 months for a school IP would be rarely appropriate. I also agree that Netsnipe needs to stop issuing 6 month blocks until we can resolve this. Rklawton 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested that Netsnipe stop until this can be discussed in detail. alphachimp 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Netsnipe would revert your blocks is pretty disturbing. John Reaves (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If Netsnipe "reverted" the blocks in the sense that he replaced the initial block with a longer block, there is nothing per se wrong with that, and it would be the right thing to do if in fact the longer blocks were appropriate for these IPs, which I believe is the sole issue here. It is not uncommon that someone will do a quick vandalism block and then someone else might later find that a longer one is warranted. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a major issue with other admins undoing my blocks and placing their own, particularly when they leave a message on my talk page (like Netsnipe did). I freely admit that I block a lot of users every day. There definitely are times when I miss some redeeming or damning characteristic of an IP. In this case, like Centrx said, I'm frustrated by the underlying assumption of bad faith. Rather than wheel warring, I'm bringing the issue here. alphachimp 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

66.194.72.243 (resnetplp1.seattleu.edu) isn't blocked at all. Are you sure you have the right example there? Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Misplaced Pages. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on that IP. I've striken it from my original post. alphachimp 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are educational institutions and do have useful, mature contributors. While your reasoning applies to an IP that is a long-term source of problems, there is no reason to block an IP for six months when it has one day of vandalism. What you are advocating is a blanket policy of ending anonymous editing from all schools; we have no such policy and we ought not have such a policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You do claim above that you make sure it is a school IP before you do such a block. While not true hunting, it is hunting within the set of WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe has criticised long-term blocks of mine on IP addresses. Anyway, my opinion is that six-month blocks on school IP addresses, provided they are anon-only, are appropriate in cases of repeat vandalism. I believe, for example, that if this is the fifth time that IP address has been blocked, it is appropriate to give it a six month block. Do I believe it appropriate for the very first block on that address? No, probably not. In the end, a great deal of our vandalism comes from school IP addresses and I believe it is reasonable that these people need to create an account in order to edit. Or to do so from outside of their schools. The unblock-en-l mailing list regularly creates accounts for people who don't have access to other IP addresses. --Yamla 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not heard from one person agreeing with the 6 month block on the first IP with only 3 contribs, I was bold and went ahead and lessened the block to 12 hours, which is more inline with the blocking policy regarding new IP vandals. If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the block again as it will not offend me.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. _InBC 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and if you look at my blocking log you'll see that I'm not hesitant about blocking school IPs with a long term history of vandalism and blocks. Here, however, we're talking about issuing a single 6 month block to IPs with no prior history of blocks (or a tiny history), some of which have legitimate contributions. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of school vandalism, I just think that we should be careful that we aren't pushing out any legitimate contributors (such as the next Nishkid64). That's what assuming good faith is all about. alphachimp 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with this 100%. Long blocks on repeat IP vandals is completely appropriate for repeat offenders or especially destructive offenders (such as a high risk template). But the IP in question has not established itself as a repeat vandal. Two vandal edits and one test edit in a 30 minute span is not deserving of a 6 month block.↔NMajdan•talk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that long, anon only, blocks that stop school vandalism, once shorter blocks have failed, and if there is a history of at least, oh, 2 dozen or so vandal edits, tend to make sense. I support these long blocks if account creation is possible. That said I think a nuanced approach is appropriate, going with a long block as the first thing to do (on this wiki... elsewhere is elsewhere) may not be the best first step. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If a school has a different IP for each computer, then a school block would not make sense. However, I have never heard of a school that does not share 1 or 2 ips. _InBC 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block: Southern Hills Middle School: 161.97.219.0/24 --  Netsnipe  ►  19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried a different approach last fall and got positive responses: when I encountered a school IP that had 11 blocks over 12 months I e-mailed the district's IT department. They got back to me promptly and a polite phone conversation followed. They hadn't been aware that a problem existed, took the situation seriously, and liked my suggestion to assign student vandals to improve a Misplaced Pages article under teacher supervision. I could understand a 6 month block if a school is hostile or unresponsive, but why not be proactive about turning these long term problems into assets? After all, the computers are usually only a few yards away from the bookshelves. Durova 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The converse is also true. unblock-en-l has been contacted on numberous occasions by school IT administrators after a schoolblock has notified them of the situation. But when you're blocking 2 vandals every minute on WP:AIV, you just don't have time to fire off an email for every case. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do schools still have bookshelves? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on something netsnipe wrote: "Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to?"

This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Challenges of upholding WP:BLP continued

Everyone, please read Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Blanking of unsourced material. This entire WikiProject is under the impression that it is acceptable to leave unsourced material in tact pending sources, while the general consensus from the leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation says otherwise. I am now being harassed by this WikiProject with personal attacks ("happy BLANKING, bitch") amongst other intimidation tactics. I feel as if we're going in circles here. Burntsauce 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Burntsauce is on the verge of being blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user JB196. Jonathan Barber (banned user JB196 taking credit for vandalizing wrestling articles on WP. Burntsauce has had a sockpuppet already show up over on ANI trying to report folks for being mean to Burntsauce (and was immediately blocked as an obvious sockpuppet). Burntsauce is one of over 40 Sockpuppets in the process of being blocked. SirFozzie 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry aside, WP:PW is out of line. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not on the verge of being blocked. You are now disrupting my talk page in an effort to make a lot of noise, but that's about all. Burntsauce 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because they have one user with over 200 sock puppets in total blanking EVERYTHING in articles due to BLP (which states that UNSOURCED, NEGATIVE information should be immediately removed.. Nothing about uncontroversial material), and that same user who blanks articles, then immediately CSD's them? And then brags about how many articles they have deleted? And then when called on it, blanks the section and replaces it with images of male genitalia? You think that gets a little FRUSTRATING for folks, hmm? (and JB, the "But I'm not JB" defense hasn't worked for your last 150 or so sockpuppets, or when you got caught joe jobbing wrestling sites on Meta, and eventually banned from there as well.... SirFozzie 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, can you link to where this conversation about blocking Burntsauce is taking place? You've linked to some external forum. I'm concerned that something has gone wrong if there is any real discussion about blocking someone working this hard to improve Misplaced Pages. Jkelly 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're frustrated that your WikiProject has hundreds, possibly thousands of articles that violate WP:BLP, go fix them. The content remains in the history. I'm sorry that someone else is tagging articles for deletion, but that person is not me. Make a note, I do not appreciate your continued personal attacks here. Burntsauce 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that a request is up on WP:RPP to have Burntsauce's talk page fully protected due to their removal of sock suspect tags. Significant, perhaps, but I'm declining as it's too extreme a measure and blocks communication - Alison 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is all getting a bit silly. I understand it is frustrating for an project to see it's hard work being dismantled, but the solution is find sources and add the material back. It's in the history. We shouldn't be leave unsourced material sitting around waiting for someone to find a source. Remove, find a source, add back. Regarding JB socks, some are obvious and should be blocked (the TNA'ers particularly). The others should be sorted out by Checkuser.--Isotope23 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

JKelly.. Here's the checkuser with all the sockpuppets found from Barber's spree. Please note that the first half or so of them are from the Meta Checkuser that found that Jonathan Barber has been spamming wrestling sites across several foreign-language wikipedias in an attempt to joe job them onto the SPAM Blacklist after the site obsessedwithwrestling was thrown onto the blacklist due to constant spamming of Jonathan Barber (the site later removed the columns from the site, and was removed from the spam blacklist. Per User Talk:JzG, WP:RBI applies to ALL sockpuppets of JB196 (you may want to look at his Long Term Abuse report, his list of Confirmed Sock Puppets and this list as well Please note in the offsite linnk, Jonathan Barber is taking credit for User:Burntsauce's action, bragging that he had blanked several articles (and got into edit wars that locked them). SirFozzie 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like Nick and JzG got all of the obvious socks already.--Isotope23 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't consider 30 or so new users coming in and only making two edits each, to wrestling pages, blanking info, obvious? SirFozzie 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Please note that Burntsauce continues to remove the Suspected SockPuppet template from his page after being warned (by someone else, not me) SirFozzie 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (added: he's removed it again, and added a link to this page. I've probably already violated 3RR by putting it back, despite the fact you are not supposed to remove a sock tag from your own page unless resolved) SirFozzie 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce blocked, talkpage blanked and protected

Per WP:DUCK I have indef blocked Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of JB196. He's getting rather clever at gaming our system so editors who want to know why I identified this as one of our most prolific sockpuppeteers and long term vandals can discuss this with me by e-mail. Durova 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do please email me, because I think blocking this account, blanking and protecting the talkpage on the basis that someone cleaning up BLP problems is secretly a spammer is very questionable. Jkelly 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need more evidence. Durova 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection being made still isn't obvious to me. Perhaps some of the other admins who have dealt with JB196 before should take a look. Jkelly 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is well acquainted with JB196 I can say it's highly likely that Burntsauce is a sockpuppet. JB196's self promotion campaign came to an abrupt halt when Tommy Dreamer, Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Rob Zicari, Janet Romano and Extreme Associates were fully protected, to see the extent of the problem check the histories of those pages for the last few months. His attempts at Joe jobs have now been recognised on sight, so he's falling back on his last method of disruption, removing vast amounts of content from articles. Do the wrestling articles need improving? Without a doubt, but not by a community banned user. That said, I would recommend waiting for the results of the (still outstanding) checkuser to see if Burntsauce is linked to the other socks, or editing from an open proxy, and urge unblocking if proved not to be. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about tagging those. Thank you for bringing them back up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You had already looked at Burntsauce (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) a fortnight ago. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Does WP:BLP apply to professional wrestlers? Uncle G 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The users in question, register, blank material (although still leave some unsourced material), then stop editing. The Project is aware that there are a number of articles lacking sources, but an editor blanking 150 articles in six hours is not helpful, and the edits are not good faith, they are vandalism masquerading as Misplaced Pages Policy. Some pages get caught up in long discussions, and others are just in the queue for sources. If a new user was tagging the articles then this would bring them to the Project attention but blanking helps no one. Darrenhusted 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the talkpage blanked? DXRAW 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the flag of Spain? Input requested

Over on Talk:Gibraltar, a Gibraltarian user is objecting to the inclusion of the template for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spain on the grounds that it's a "foreign project" and that it includes an unacceptable "nationalist symbol" (i.e. the Spanish flag). In conjunction with this, he is attempting to remove either the template or the flag from the template. Bearing in mind that Misplaced Pages is not censored to meet particular points of view, I'd be grateful if previously uninvolved admins could take a look and provide advice at Talk:Gibraltar#Flag. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an image of the map of Spain on the Commons, so maybe if the Spanish Wikiproject doesn't mind, they could change it from the flag to the map (which can easily be edited to have the flag pattern). As for the "foreigness" of a Wikiproject, Spain is still trying to assert its claim over Gibraltar, so it is relevant to keep the banner there. Since it would be useless to project the page, block the user when needed. User:Zscout370 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real purpose of these wikiproject templates is to save typing. If the flag is a problem, subst the template and remove the flag from the result. This won't affect the usefulness of the boilerplate text significantly. Anybody who wants to know what's up on the wikiproject can find out by visiting it. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Re your suggestion, Tony, the flag appears to be a problem specifically in relation to a Gibraltarian nationalist POV (in the same sort of way, I suppose, that Greek nationalists object to the term "Republic of Macedonia" or Chinese nationalists reject the existence of the Republic of Taiwan). I don't think we should be encouraging local POVs to dictate content in this way... -- ChrisO 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar nonsense? Might be Gibraltarian, but I don't have enough experience with the user to say yes or no. ~Crazytales 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its Gibnews (talk · contribs). Gibnews, however, is not entirely NPOV, though not as POV as Gibraltarian. --Iamunknown 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown. I had a small suspicion that Gibnews was the same user or had relations with Gibraltarian. Must be that he just had relations with him. ~Crazytales 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is still regularly attempting to edit (or deface) articles through anonymous IP addresses, often on a virtually daily basis. Considering he was blocked in 2005, he's certainly persistent. However, he's definitely not the same person as Gibnews. In my experience Gibnews is (or at any rate was, until his recent bout of Hispanophobia) considerably saner and more open to reason than Gibraltarian ever was. -- ChrisO 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies 2007 Conference and Expo's agenda creeping me out

Please see the relevant part of the agenda here. I first searched for Misplaced Pages in Google News here trying to find out what the press was lately saying about Misplaced Pages. I found two articles relating to SEO strategies on Misplaced Pages. I then found more scary articles with this search. If I had known about the conference beforehand, I would have suggested that we send some moles to New York City pronto so we could learn about the tactics SEO types used so we could defeat them. However, the relevant portion of the conference is over. I think that it would be a good idea for other administrators and other people with time to fight link spam to try to dig up what went on in the conference on April 12, 2007.

I posted a similar message at WT:WPSPAM. There is now discussion of possible moles in WikiProject Spam that joined it to try to get our trust by removing other spam so that their spam slips through the cracks and a possible need for a mole hunt.

I am afraid that the conference may result in more spam in the coming months. Jesse Viviano 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"The growth of Misplaced Pages and its almost ubiquitous presence on search results pages means that search marketers can't ignore this important guide. This session looks at appropriate ways to interact with the service. It also examines if there's more that can be done to make Misplaced Pages editors more accepting of marketers and to make marketers more understanding of the Misplaced Pages community goals." -- Oh. Dear. Bubba hotep 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What? And you don't think that's a good thing? Maybe you're just too stressed, how about some nice Lipton ice tea. Don't forget, green brings the good in.  ;-) Dragons flight 16:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Making marketers "more understanding of the Misplaced Pages community goals" is a good thing, at least. Corvus cornix 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

oh wow. Check out the summary alphachimp 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

no new tactics there.Geni 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that a lot of marketing types are advising clients to violate site policies, without even explaining that those policies exist or the history of media backlash against such attempts. User:Durova/The dark side is one attempt to counteract that. I strongly urge more Wikipedians to populate the conflict of interest noticeboard. Durova 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW here's what Brad Patrick had to say on this subject last September. Durova 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, are you sure it's not a white hat SEO conference? --Kim Bruning 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All points of view are represented at the conference, just like Misplaced Pages. Jehochman (/_contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all. I was one of the speakers at this session, and am also an admin coaching student of Durova. Rather than reading the mangled, second-hand accounts of this conference, I would urge you to look at a copy of my presentation (1 Meg PPT), which is essentially a summary of Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization. There were three other speakers, and I had no right to control what they said, but I did my best to explain things accurately to them beforehand. For the most part this conference session was a good thing for Misplaced Pages, in my opinion. There were about 400 people in the room. We may have video available later. Jehochman (/_contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve looked at Jehochman’s slides and don’t have a problem with them. The only thing I’d recommend adding is that he add a chart to expand on RfC (which apparently gets mentioned only in passing on chart 9) and to advise them to be upfront and forthright about their potential for COI whenever posting on a relevant talk page. Getting “found out” after the fact will lose them good will among the other editors – if not worse outcomes. It would be a good idea, IMHO, for there to be a clear and explicit way in which SEO’s can interact with Misplaced Pages, instead of leaving them to their own, um, “devices”.

In fact, it might be a good idea to have an explicit area that SEO’s can go directly to – an “RfC (SEO)”, if you will – where they can raise such issues and post a link to on appropriate articles’ talk pages. (One thing these promotional guys can do is identify independent sources which have commented on their business or product.) If you bring the whitehats in in a constructive fashion, there will be less need for them to be tempted to “black”. (After all, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anybody can edit.) Askari Mark (Talk) 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. It certainly would address concerns about the time delays for review at low traffic pages. I'm on the fence about its potential for getting gamed, but on the whole I like it. Durova 02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A user who asks for this type of help is inviting a thorough review of their contributions. Although there is a risk of bad faith editors abusing the system, they probably won't because of the risk to them in drawing attention and leaving a trail. The page probably shouldn't be called "SEO" because there are some people who think all SEO is evil. How about RfC/COI? "A page for people affected by COI to get help with editing." Jehochman (/_contrib) 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images

The backlog on Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images is now almost an entire month old. Just asking for some help here. :) Part Deux 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion of any sort (slow, speedy, disputed, undisputed) automatically unleashes a shitstorm on any admin who touches it. The community won't support an admin caught in that shitstorm. Even admins won't support other admins caught in that shitstorm. In fact, admins are frequently to be found ringleading the shitstorm. It may have escaped peoples' attention that image deletes are undoable now... but deleting is still subject to threats, accusations of WP:BITE, complaints elsewhere, RfCs etc.

Until the community cuts people some slack over the issue of images, nobody's lining up to volunteer to do the job. All of the crap, none of the glory.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there's some pretty unambiguous ones on there. It would be nice if someone would at least tackle the obvious ones. Sorry, I've been on here a while, and I haven't seen this witchhunt you're talking about. They can take it to deletion review if they want. Part Deux 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Some shitstorm examples you may have missed: On this page someone suggests we delete a bit more often. Wikidrama follows. On my talk pages, just from deleting CSD-I3 images - failure to think things through, bemused despite several attempt to contact, a "justification" that makes no sense to anyone and my favourite fellow admin hasn't read the policy, assumes rouge intent. I'm happy to clear the I3 category, but for anything that requires fine judgement (==repeatedly defending Misplaced Pages policy)... all of the crap, none of the glory. I'm not alone in this experience.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There was glory? I thought anything an admin did was liable to incite a lot of controversy. I thought that there was no safe house. hbdragon88 23:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no safe house with deleting images for sure. :) I did a few days of the backlog, but there is still plenty to do. Garion96 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the backlog is gone. There are only a few images left on which I would like a second opinion. So any administrator reading this (this is the administrator's noticeboard after all) please have a look. Garion96 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson

DPeterson (talk · contribs) has been harrassing Grace E. D. Sample: and two harrassing threads on AN/I: and .

Grace E. D was a valuable contributor who voted on CfDs and a Tfd. This would be defending each other. --Mihai cartoaje 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

She had been acting in a very uncivil manner and what led her to "leave" was the actions of an administrator who was responding to her inappropriate behavior. See following diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGrace_E._Dougle&diff=110857263&oldid=110462902

In addition, she left in response to this and deleted all on her talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGrace_E._Dougle&diff=110864213&oldid=110857263 DPeterson

Personal Attacks by Mihai cartoaje against me

Mihai cartoaje continues to make Misplaced Pages:Personal attacks against me by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, and the above such comments. I have repeatedly asked him to stop and his only response is to remove my request from his talk page and then file various fruitless charges against me that only get dismissed or ignored. Please make him stop. DPeterson 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) As evidence see the following diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Schizophrenia&oldid=109788765
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASchizophrenia&diff=122828278&oldid=122780232
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct&diff=121844612&oldid=121719195

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Schizophrenia#POV_tag
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Schizophrenia#Vandalism_by_User:Mihai_cartoaje
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje#FINAL_WARNING
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-12_Schizophrenia
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29_Schizophrenia
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Schizophrenia#DISPUTED_MATERIAL
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Schizophrenia#Violence_and_schizophrenia

See RfC: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mihai_cartoaje DPeterson 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC) He also makes the same attacks toward me. JonesRD_talk 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FlagSteward

I've asked this user if he would consider a name change as I'm concerned that the name is a violation of WP:USERNAME, specifically, names which "Imply the user is an admin or other official figure on Misplaced Pages, or of the Wikimedia Foundation". --kingboyk 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not common coin (as much as "sysop", "bot" or "admin") but still has a potential for abuse if the human at the other end is so inclined. Endorse this course of action in hope user agrees.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As the user in question, I understand the problem, I'd prefer not to change if possible but of course will do so if something can't be worked out - perhaps a disclaimer on my User page? To answer Redvers' point, I'm not 'so inclined' - of course you don't know that, but I am one of the good guys, honest :-/ I honestly had no idea that Steward even 'meant' anything on Misplaced Pages, I used it because it's a name I use on a couple of other sites. In fact it's a reference to a scene in Some Like it Hot :

SUGAR    I quite agree.  Tell me, who runs up that flag - your wife?
JOE      No, my flag steward.
SUGAR	 And who mixes the cocktails - your wife?
JOE      No, my cocktail steward.

My Wikimedia username is CocktailSteward..... (which you could semi-verify I guess from timing eg edits made by FlagSteward to Penfolds Grange wrt the time that CocktailSteward uploaded Image:PenfoldsGrange.jpg ) Why that scene of that film? Well it's a long story, let's just say that it made sense at the time :-)

So no, the name wasn't chosen with malicious intent, quite the opposite in fact, and the fact that this is the first time anyone's commented on it in two months and a couple of hundred of edits must surely count for something. And I'm quite happy to put a disclaimer on my user page if that helps, I'm just kinda attached to this name ;-/ FlagSteward 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry, I have no doubt that you chose your name in good faith nor that you're a good user. Thanks for joining the discussion. --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment - You said on his talk page "Together these words almost lead me to believe that you were an official here" - I rather doubt that. You didn't come anywhere near believing anything of the sort. "Admin" is one thing, but I cannot for one minute believe there is any intersection between users who know what a "Steward" or, say, "Developer" is in a[REDACTED] context, and users who think that something appearing in someone's username mean they have an official position. Otherwise we might as well do something like SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE UPPER(NAME) LIKE 'OFFICE%' USERNAMEBLOCK --Random832 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're calling me a liar? I had to do a double take: "flag steward?!", "ah, no, we don't have such official names on Misplaced Pages".

The problem with this name AFAIC is that it juxtaposes *2* official sounding words. If it were (as below) "Steward of Gondor" that would be one thing, but this name sounds like a steward who hands out flags (permission bits). --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a liar as such - being disingenuous in such a way is quite a reasonable teaching method in some circumstances, but on[REDACTED] it's somewhat WP:BITEy. I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to think that what you _meant_ when you said that you yourself had been confused was rather intended as a way to illustrate the implicit claim that someone unfamiliar with the fact that usernames don't imply official titles might be confused. I just don't think that that sort of example is productive, particularly when the underlying claim is flawed. Sure, you know what a steward is, but you also know that putting it in his name doesn't make you one. My contention is simply that users learn the latter before the former, and thus there's no risk of anyone being misled. --Random832 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical for those adopting a strict interpretation of the username policy: if I were to register, for example, the username "Linux Developer", should that be disallowed? If I were to register "Steward of Gondor", should that be disallowed? --bainer (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to be constructive about this, is there scope perhaps for doing something at the username creation stage? So if UPPER(NAME) LIKE 'OFFICE%' then it is explained that this is a Wiki title, and that they can either change it immediately or accept that they will have to wait for an admin to OK it? FlagSteward 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything's possible but I doubt the devs would think that a worthwhile use of their time. No harm in asking I suppose! --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it would not be a waste of time, since such an extention was created in January. MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist. Note that steward is deliberately not on the list. Prodego 16:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• IMO, "steward" is rather a common word, so I don't see it as being that objectionable. I thought about a flag and a steward (particularly the first and second redlinks in the meanings) when I saw this... Titoxd 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• This should probably go to Request for Comment/Usernames for an actual community discussion. As far as I understand it, username issues are to be taken to WP:AIV for blatant issues, borderlines (such as this case) go to WP:RFCN after concern is expressed. CASCADIA/_Trail 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Not MySpace template?

User:Phaedriel hasn't made an encyclopedic edit since November, however she only has to breathe and her talk page gets a dozen "greetz" messages. I was wondering if there is a "Misplaced Pages is not MySpace" template I could affix to discourage this? --kingboyk 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Much though I sympathize with this, I rather think this would be doing a Canute, without the irony. Moreschi 11:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, maybe. My request has a serious purpose though. 1) I had this page on my watchlist, originally because Sharon was a great editor and wiki colleague, later on because the page was vandalised very nastily when she was away. I've now removed it because I'm sick and tired of all the off topic postings. 2) If Sharon really is going to return, it's surely better to leave her to get on with some work than to have to spend her time reading and replying to umpteem messages which aren't relevant to our goals here. --kingboyk 12:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then she can deal with that herself, can't she? This seems like a rather odd request. --Golbez 12:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. So it's odd than an admin would seek to remind other users that this is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site?! --kingboyk 12:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely zero, even less than zero, harm in allowing people to greet someone back after they have been gone for 5 months. --Golbez 23:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to let the kids have their fun. I would stake both the house and my kid sister's virginity on this: you can stick whatever template you like, wherever you like, and in this case it won't make a scrap of difference. The major monster when it comes to social networking on-wiki is dead, at any rate. There are some battles that cannot be won. This is one of them. It sucks, but it's all fnord anyway. Moreschi 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken, I concede :) --kingboyk 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• You folks don't have kids do you? I suspect that Sharon is giving 100% of her spare time to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly! - Alison 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New template at the Polish Misplaced Pages

- or rather, user blocked as disruptive. Part Deux 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the users created this template at the Polish Misplaced Pages. The user created also the proper category called: Category:User EX.

Immediately, the template and the category were permanently removed by the user known as Roo72. Roo72 did it with no explanation. He even did not nominate the template to be discussed by other Wikipedians! I think the action by Roo72 is a shame for the respectable Misplaced Pages project.

The creator of the template managed to place two messages ( and at the Roo72's discussion page before the creator of the template was blocked. For sure, you should read the latter words as: before the creator's mouth was closed because this user has got all the rights to create this necessary template and place it at his user page if he/she thinks it is proper and necessary for him/her. The blockade was commented with Roo72 with the following words: omijanie blokady ??? and this "respectable" user Roo72 placed the following words at the discussion page of the blocked user: .

The actions of Roo72 are another reason to hate Wikimedia projects and are another proof the created template is necessary both there and internationally!

Opinions are appreciated. --Annrex 12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my English is not so good. I would like someone of the English Wikipedians to translate the template info and the Polish words which were used in the discussions linked. Thank you! --Annrex 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If this was at the Polish Misplaced Pages we have no jurisdiction there. You should take your complaint to the admin board at that wiki. If you meant Polish WikiProject on this wiki, the template should be in English so we can all understand it. --kingboyk 12:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• In what way is this relevant to the English Misplaced Pages? administrators Guy (Help!) 12:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My mouth was also closed at the Polish Misplaced Pages because my ideas differ and are dangerous for the Polish and the international projects. I would love to present this thread at the Polish ANB page to be discussed - unfortunately, I am not able to do it.. I have placed this thread here e.g. to raise the consciousness of the Wikipedians all around the world. Bye! --Annrex 12:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The template reads: This Wikipedian permanently left the[REDACTED] project and he/she informs that they have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself. --Annrex 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not only the Polish wiki situation - I do not ask you to intervene - it is a dangerous thread, isn't it? :) --Annrex 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with the English wiki! If you feel there is an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, contact the office directly or try meta or Wikimedia wiki. This noticeboard discusses administrative issues on the English-language Misplaced Pages, no more no less. --kingboyk 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the English Misplaced Pages administrators

I ask you to create such a template (listed above in the New template at the Polish Misplaced Pages chapter) available in the language of English. I would love to use it myself. --Annrex 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I gotta know what it says... :) —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It translates into something like "This Wikipedian permanently left the[REDACTED] project and he/she informs that they have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself.", or something like that. — Moe 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• To Pilotguy and Moe: I've noticed you have problems with reading comprehension and with translating (to Moe, exclusively). :) Well, it may be typical for some Wikipedians (even administrators?). It is another reason I must have the template listed above at my discussion page.

As a reminder: I have placed the following words a few lines above the "statement" of these fellow users a long time before they started to speak: :) --Annrex 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*The template reads: This Wikipedian permanently left the[REDACTED] project and he/she informs that they have had nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself since the time of their leaving. --Annrex 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for the translation corrections - but now the translation is perfect) --Annrex 13:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Excuse the many (broken) languages I speak, which all of them are broken except English :) — Moe 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse granted. :) --Annrex 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Discussion FOR or AGAINST the template can be placed here:
• Template:Keep which is create, polish and keep. - --Annrex 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion Perhaps having a link to the meatball goodbye would be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I want to use the English version of the template at my English Misplaced Pages user page and, then, leave the same style with the very information. --Annrex 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But the attention seeking nature of this template begs for the clarification this link provides. Is there a polish equivalent? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to say goodbye on the English Misplaced Pages when as far as I can tell you've never actually contributed here? --kingboyk 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Fortunately I did not start to make greater contributions. I have changed my mind after looking closer at your discussions and ways here. Admins are like big trolls themselves. They are misleading, too. They cannot be trusted. That's all from me. I am waiting till the discussion over the template is finished and, then, I will decide what to do next. Bye (for now). --Annrex 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the meatball it is, then? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a template called {{User EX-WP}}. If you add {{subst:User EX-WP}} to your userpage, you can customize it to say anything you want. There is no need to vote on the creation of a template with your particular text. Once you have the template substed, you can copy and paste the code to your Polish page if you would like. --BigDT 13:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated by me above. --Annrex 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Roo72 is the Polish Misplaced Pages administrator - I wonder why he is so modest here because in the Polish Misplaced Pages he is the "shiny", "clever" and "brave" user: . --Annrex 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Annrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked per discussion at WP:ANI, as her only purpose here seems to be to rant about Misplaced Pages in general and specifically the Polish Misplaced Pages. --kingboyk 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with administrators? If you want a userbox, create one in your user space. Corvus cornix 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm, not a bad idea. Play with your space, not ours. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA/RFA2 help

I think either my nominator or I has made a mistake in processing my RFA with respect to saving my old RFA. It seems the new one has been saved over the old one. Is there a way to properly archive the old one and move the new one. I have tried to correct it, but the edit history ended up with the wrong version. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemme get this one straight. You moved your RFA from December to ...2, then wrote the new RFA over it at ...2? Is that what Imm seeing here? Metros232 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Should all be sorted now. Looks like the nom overwrote the original and you then moved that to the 2 version, restoring the original as a copy of the final state of that. You should have just reverted the nom and got them to create the new page. I've done the appropriate move/delete shuffles to split them up, so the histories should be correct. --pgk 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There seems to be a vandal participating in my RFA. It is probably a procedural violation for me to remove votes from my own RFA, but someone has voted for and against and in the against he stated neutral and that he hates me. Is this vandalism? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you accusing El C of being a vandal?--VectorPotential 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke it appears. The way the formatting of the RFA is, it has "oppose neutral" rather than "oppose *BREAK* neutral". So I think he's joking that he "opposes neutral" because he hates him, him being "neutral." Metros232 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:El_C is a fairly well established editor not a vandal, a friendly question on his talk page asking about what he means would probably clear it up. It looks like a joke since the "oppose" and "neutral" headings appear to have been combined. His statement is that he opposes neutral (i.e. as if there were and editor "neutral") at it is "neutral" who he "hates"... --pgk 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There really is an editor called Neutral, although that editor has not edited since 2002. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, I didn't mean that user! Alas, at least one person found it funny, vs. the ten who found it lame. What do(n't) I win? El_C 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay.  : ) Given that the editor has been gone for the last 5 years, I doubt he or she will mind. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

The arbitration case has closed. Billy Ego is banned for one year as the result of this case.

The full decision can be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ferr

This guy is a vandal, as shown e.g. by his contributions to Ernesto Che Guevara (a few minutes ago) and Steve Irwin. I know I'm supposed to give him a series of warnings and then report him to the the AIV, but I don't have the time or the patience, and being an anon myself doesn't help either. Could someone of you take the pains to warn him for Guevara, monitor his further contributions and finally get him blocked? I think that's important, because registered vandals are more dangerous to the project than anonymous ones - they are harder to spot, because registered users are usually assumed not to be vandals until the opposite is proven, rather than vice versa as with us anons. :) --91.148.159.4 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock block requested

It's been requested above, but may have been lost in traffic; User:Catworthy is a confirmed sock of Arthur Ellis, as per checkuser and needs blocked if anyone has a moment. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another redlinked editor, account created the same day as Catworthy, reverted to what appears to be Ellis' preferred version of Warren Kinsella. More eyes would be lovely. (Though I have suspicions that the article will never, ever see peace.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A trail of confused people

User:Morhange seems to be leaving quite a trail of confused people on their talk page. Could someone take a look at their edits?

--Kim Bruning 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, add one more confused person to the list. What is the issue? I did a hit-and-run of random recent talk page edits by this user and they don't seem confusing. I also checked his talk page and I basically see some normal talk page stuff, with some new-user issues like image problems. Are there diffs of the problem edits? Dina 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to second Dina. Natalie 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka should respect WP policies

Hi, can someone help to make admin User:Grandmasterka respecting WP policies? I think it is against WP policies to call someone who made a very normal statement a troll. Or is calling other people troll, now in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I see no need to get involved in this dispute. The complainant (Tobias Conradi) accused User:Danny of speaking rudely to him on the phone, and other users questioned the legitimacy of this accusation, and accused Tobias of trolling. Given the suspicious nature of the originial accusation against Danny, and the tone of the general discussion thread, I think the best thing to do is just to move on. YechielMan 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway calls the discussion rubbish , User:Newyorkbrad calls it trolling .... I do not understand how such way of talking helps WP. Also they should respect WP policies. Also admins should respect policies. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a provision of WP:DICK comes into play here. When multiple people call you the same thing, probably you should take a look at your own conduct instead of calling everyone else blind fools, hm? —physicq (c) 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutly right. And this belongs to section #Tobias Conradi. But here the talk is about admin conduct. Admins should respect the WP policies like others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and so should you, right? Following policies is a two-way street. —physicq (c) 21:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And do not tell me where to post. If you post here, your actions will also be under scrutiny here. —physicq (c) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like articles have sections for different topics, so it is usefull to seperate topics in other places. I do follow the WP written policies. The above metnioned admins should do so too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this guy? Did he not get that pony he wanted for his eighth birthday or something? HalfShadow 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:WikiLeon should respect WP policies

Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies? I received two threats of ban, latest here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a ban threat, it's a boilerplate warning suggesting that you may be blocked. There's a difference. Natalie 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See the diff, it says: "you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages". This for me looks like threatening. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, it's a template warning. Tobias, if you don't stop trolling and wasting people's time, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, threats inserted by a template are in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd call that a promise, not a threat... -- ChrisO 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies?' *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough* HalfShadow 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Temporary userpage backlog cleared

I have cleared the temporary userpage backlog. All pages that were in a sockpuppet category have been removed from the temporary category. All temporary user pages that have not been edited in over 31 days have been deleted. There are 2409 userpages left that are under 31 days since the last change.

No, I did not use a bot, but I did use some javascripting to fill in edit summaries and perl to get a list of urls. I will be deleting the temporary pages as they expire every few days. _InBC 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN backlog

Please help catch up with the backlog at this board. I can't do it all by myself. Durova 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIVIL

Name-calling, plus posting of rude and uncivil comments by Doktor Who - see this diff and this diff. Gene_poole 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you could stand to be more civil; accusing someone of whacky monomania doesn't reduce temperatures. The article you two are debating doesn't cite a single reference, and it doesn't appear either of you have even edited it. THF 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is part of a pattern of behaviour by Doktor Who that has been ongoing for several months on several articles related to Ambient music. They are simply the 2 most recent of many dozens of examples of out-and-out name-calling, rudeness and general incivility that I could put forward. I've ignored them until now, but it's getting completely out of hand. --Gene_poole 05:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why no response?

I'm somewhat disturbed to see that a week after I requested a user to be blocked on this noticeboard, , not only has no action been taken, but more disturbingly, not a single admin has yet bothered to respond to that request, on this noticeboard or personally, even to tell me that they didn't think it was worth taking action or even to say I was placing the request in the wrong forum. This is troubling, because while problems have not yet recurred, it hardly instills confidence that if they had, the[REDACTED] administrator community would have responded like the well-oiled machine one would expect of it. I'd appreciate it if an admin could explain why no one bothered to respond to the original request, and what the right forum fo filing banning requests is, since this clearly isn't the correct one. Simon Dodd 04:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Blcoks are preventive, not punitive. Admins will not block for infractions that are two weeks old. In order for anybody to be blocked, he or she must have been conintued to vandalize after being served up with a fourth-level warning (see WP:WARN for specific warning templates), and if that occurs, report it to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 04:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The request was intended to be prospective, to prevent future vandalism. I don't care about "punishing" past violations, and it's a mystery to me how Misplaced Pages can seriously maintain the idea of "punitive" sanctions for trolls (as compared to regular editors). In any event, the more important question is how, procedurally, I bring to an administrator's attention that a user should be sanctioned and/or blocked (third-level warning, fourth-level warning, people's front of judea, popular judean people's front, whatever). If this noticeboard isn't the place to raise that, where is? Presumably not WP:AIV if that, as you say, is only after a "fourth-level warning." What's the process for a first-level warning? A second-level warning? How do I avoid getting myself barred under 3rr for reverting this user's crap while filing for 1st, 2d, 3d, fourth and barring level violations? I mean, this seems absurd and overly complex. There has to be a more sensible way to deal with a user who is persistently determined to use wikiepdia as part of an ongoing smear attack against a Misplaced Pages:living persons.

Secondly, while I appreciate your swift response to this query, hbdragon88, and please don't take this personally, the question still stands: I regard it as a serious problem that it's taken any admin over a week - and only then when prompted by a third prod by me - to respond to the request, regardless of the ultimate disposition of that request. Simon Dodd 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, sometimes things get lost in the many posts to these boards. Secondly, IP addresses are never blocked indefinitely unless they are open proxies. So there is a good chance that by the time admins saw the request, there was no point because too much time is past. Thirdly, 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, so revert away (just make sure that the edits are obviously vandalism). Fourthly, people generally aren't blocked if they have never been warned, so you should have given them at least one warning before reporting them. You do not always have to start at level one; if the vandalism is particularly gratuitous or seems to show an understanding of Misplaced Pages you are welcome to start at level 3. There is also a level 4 immediate warning, which says something along the lines of "this is the only warning you will receive", which covers this situation as well. And finally, WP:AIV is a better place, because reports are cleared as they are handled, so there is no piling on of new reports.

As far as your frustration about the lack of response, please remember that admins are human and are volunteers, like any other editor. Most likely, this particular request got lost among other requests, and by the time it was noticed, too much time had past. Natalie 05:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The job is hard and the pay sucks. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the anonymous user stopped edit warring and instead took his/her concerns to the talk page. For serious violations, WP:BLP/N is the place to report such infractions. Removing info that violates BLP is technically exempt under WP:3RR, so in that case you should be covered. hbdragon88 05:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Overt personal attack, name-calling, profanity, rudeness, incivility, blanking of WP:NPA warning notice by Harvardy - see this diffthis diff and this diff --Gene_poole 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing Harvardy of being a sockpuppet of Wik or Johnski, edit warring on said user's userpage for six months, tends to do that to people. hbdragon88 06:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Particularly if the accusations are well-founded. He wouldn't be issuing so many shrill denials otherwise. Aside from which WP policies apply to all editors, equally, not some editors when it suits them. Johnski / Harvardy has been actively harassing, making sockpuppet accusations about, posting personal abuse about me and other editors, and causing massive disruption to WP, for well over 6 months, and yet those affected have somehow managed to maintain their composure. Are you suggesting that I can start swearing and saying what I really think of him whenever it takes my fancy now? I didn't think so - so stop making excuses for him. --Gene_poole 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my view, based on just this conversation. If Harvardy really is a sockpuppet, I assume that you have already gone through the official channels (ArbCom enforcement, CheckUser) and had him checked out. If he was a sockpuppet, I know I would be seeing {{indefblocked}} on his user page and a ban in the block log. I do not. Therefore, I assume that he was proven innocent or there was not conclusive evidence that he is a sockpuppet, and that your repeated edit warring over the inclusion of the suspected sockpuppet templates on his user page is causing him stress. I am not making excuses for him, but I am just wondering why you're being so aggressive over these accusations. hbdragon88 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the block has been enacted, therefore my original assumptions were incorrect. hbdragon88 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. Sometimes, when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it really is a duck. After 4+ years at WP I've developed a good nose for ducks. --Gene_poole 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclosing real IP – something a checkuser should not do

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

I have referred Marius to the Checkuser ombudsman. There is nothing further to discuss here. Thatcher131 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary (later adition at request of some readers)

In this edit checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that this anonimous IP edit from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Detailed explanation

I have a concern with the fact that checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed not only my real-life name but also my IP – something I know is forbiden by Misplaced Pages policies.

I’ve made a proposal for community ban of sockpuppeteer User:William Mauco - see

One of the many abuses of William Mauco I listed in that discussion was that he made an attempt to disclose my real life name, that he suspected being Marius Mioc

I told at that above discussion that „I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not”.

Many other editors considered that attempt to disclose real life name is a serious offence, who will merit even a permaban.

I mention that I know exactly how my Wiki-enemy User:William Mauco made research about my real-life name, as I disclosed in Misplaced Pages some time ago my participation at http://forum.tiraspol.net and I knew he will search at that forum and will be able to see the nickname and e-mail address I used there, from where he can suspect my real-life name: "I am not sure that I am doing a good thing, as Mauco will be able to search for my e-mail address that, for privacy reasons, I chosed not to be available at Misplaced Pages. However, I take the risk and give here an example of forum.tiraspol.net democracy: deletion of an article that I copied from conflict.md in both English and Russian"

Mauco indeed did the research and wanted a confirmation: “What say you, Marius Mioc?”

As I am concern with my privacy, I didn’t want to give to my wiki-enemy William Mauco a confirmation about my real name: “Mauco, Marius Mioc is a person from Romania who write articles about politics but why you believe is me?”

He never replied at that question. The situation was: my wiki-enemy has some suspicions regarding my real-life name, however he has no clear confirmation.

My disputes with Mauco at Misplaced Pages were about a region named Transnistria, which is the main subject of my and Mauco’s edits at Misplaced Pages. For real-life person Marius Mioc the main subject of interest is Romanian revolution of 1989, he wrote 8 books about this subject (the titles are listed at Misplaced Pages article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989), but never wrote a book about Transnistria.

Thanks to checkuser Dmcdevit all my wiki-enemies can now have the confirmation they were expecting not only about my real-life name, but also about my real IP address.

During discussions on the subject of Mauco’s sockpuppetry, User:Dmcdevit made an intervention considering that disclosing my real life name was not something such bad, as I anyhow disclosed it by edits where I included refferences at books written by an author named “Marius Mioc”

There were other things of smaller importance (personal attacks, untrue facts) in Dmcdevit’s message to which I already answered at above page - see see “Answer to Dmcdevit’s comments”

I want to comment here only the diffs Dmcdevit provided as a proof about my real name: , , , ,

Despite Dmcdevit’s impression, above mentioned edits can not be considered a direct link to real-life person Marius Mioc. In the tiny word of researchers interested in Romanian Revolution of 1989 Marius Mioc is a well-known name. Nothing abnormal that in a Misplaced Pages article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, where I added around 100 books, between them were included also books written by Marius Mioc; I would say that anybody who will write a list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 will mention also Mioc’s books.

What I consider extremely unacceptable is that Dmcdevit provided an example of an edit made 8 months ago with an anonimous IP in Romanian Misplaced Pages, pointing it as one of my edits and evidence about my real life name. The edit is: 13 august 2006 02:29 (it was repeated twice in Dmcdevit’s message).

I mention that in 13 August 2006 no User:MariusM existed at Misplaced Pages. In Romanian Misplaced Pages MariusM registered in 19 August 2006 and in English Misplaced Pages in 21 August 2006.

How did User:Dmcdevit know that the anonimous IP who edited 8 months ago Romanian Misplaced Pages is my IP? I guess, using his checkuser tool. I am editing Misplaced Pages from my own home, probabily my IP is the same today as 8 months ago. What want Dmcdevit prove disclosing publicly my IP? That 8 months ago, when I was a newbie who didn’t even know how to register at Misplaced Pages, without knowledge about Misplaced Pages policies, I made an allegedly abusive edit? What is the relevance of this thing in the context of debates about Mauco’s sockpuppetries? Anyhow, this is a problem of Romanian Misplaced Pages (where nobody seems to care and nobody reverted that edit in 8 months).

In Transnistria-related articles at Misplaced Pages I had a lot of heated debates (see talk pages and archives) and I am one of the main hate-attractors. I am plenty aware about this (see ). One of the reasons I attracted so much hate is that I discovered some cases of sockpuppetry, like MarkStreet case, Mark us street case, Pernambuco case. As I am editing from my own home, I have the concern that after Dmcdevit’s revelations all my “enemies” I aquired at Misplaced Pages will be able to trace not only my real-life name but also my real-life address. Long time ago I expressed my concerns that some of my Wiki-enemies are conected with inteligence services with bad reputation. Considering the high levels of animosity in Transnistria talk page I am worried about this.

I am sure that my opponent User:William Mauco was not able to make any conection between my real life name and the inclusion, among many other (almost 100) books, of some books of Marius Mioc in the list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989. He had only some suspicions, only with help of Dmcdevit he obtained confirmation (and I am 100% sure he was following the debates about his proposed ban).

O.K., Mr. Dmcdevit, you gave to all my wiki-enemies not only the confirmation about my real-life name they were expecting, but even more – my exact IP. What’s next – giving them my photo and my phone number? And all this for what? To “unmask” an allegedly abusive edit done 8 months ago at Romanian Misplaced Pages, while nobody there considered the edit as abusive (it was not reverted in 8 months), the allegedly abusive edit being done when I was a newbie not even registered at Misplaced Pages, without any knowledge about Misplaced Pages’s policies?

I believe Dmcdevit’s conduct is unacceptable, a checkuser should never disclose real IP of a wikipedian without a real good reason. I wonder if Dmcdevit should keep with his checkuser status after such a behaviour.--MariusM 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Not to belittle your concern, there are two things I must mention: the possibility of a layperson or even more advanced computer user locating an address via an IP is very difficult. Also, check with your service provider, they may be able to assign you a new IP address and thus remove any further concern. CASCADIA/_Trail 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Although I haven't had the patience to read the whole thing properly, I picked up something about "intelligence agents" or something to that effect. If this is true, then they would be the people who probably have the expertise to pursue this thing. On a side note, I've left a note on the talk page of the admin in question. Harryboyles 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw Transnistria and instantly lost all interest. I notice you never considered asking Dmcdevit for an explanation before, quite frankly, rambling on here. I doubt there's a case to answer here, and it might be best if you contact Dmcdevit in future before making any accusations. -- Nick 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With all due respect - you may have a good complaint - it might behoove you to read the comments in bold at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Part Deux 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Dmcdevit stated that a certain anon edit made on the Romanian Misplaced Pages was made by MariusM. So now the whole world knows that that anon = MariusM. This is a clear breach of the m:CheckUser policy because a) a check was not warranted (if it was, how?), and b) release of information was not warranted (if it was, how?).--Domitius 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this fuss is about, but that IP MariusM mentions belongs to a Romanian dynamic pool. Furthermore, neither Dmcdevit nor any other English Misplaced Pages checkuser has checkuser rights on the Romanian Misplaced Pages. If Dmcdevit surmised that said edit was made by MariusM (and I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding it in your post above), he did so based on behavior evidence, not checkuser. Nothing to see here, move along. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusgood. CASCADIA/_Trail 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What allegedly happened was that Dmcdevit checked MariusM's IP on the English Misplaced Pages (something he allegedly had no business doing) and found it was xxx.yyy.zzz. Then he checked the anon edits it made on the Romanian Misplaced Pages by going here ro:Special:Contributions/xxx.yyy.zzz; checkuser rights on rowiki are unnecessary for this. This is what I understand from Marius's post on this page.--Domitius 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few allegedlys in there. You can reasonably surmise from the diffs MariusM has posted above that he's either Marius Mioc or someone posing as him. All you can tell from that IP address (on the Romanian Misplaced Pages) is that he's in Romania–something that MariusM claims on his own userpage. Again, all of this can be worked out from behavioral evidence. It's a reasonable connection to make. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess: The big majority of edits made at Romanian Misplaced Pages are from Romanian IP adresses. Romania is a big country - 22 millions inhabitants.--MariusM 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how. As far as I know, Dmcdevit is not a habitual editor of the Romanian Misplaced Pages; how else could have have come accross that edit? Just brainstorming...--Domitius 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could always try asking him. Mackensen (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the plan, I don't jump to conclusions. Hence the number of "allegedly"s above.--Domitius 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we get more eyes on Transnistria; I'm at the point of exasperation. El_C 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with CheckUser. That would have been easily resolved if you had asked me before posting a screed to ANI. Try searching Google, and then checking the history of the articles. Dmcdevit·t 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Try searching google not only in Misplaced Pages , is giving 1270 results for "Marius Mioc". Only 7 from Misplaced Pages, but nice to see that in Polish, Spanish, and Nederlandish Misplaced Pages I am also mentioned, while I never edited there. How did you point that this anonimous IP edit was made by me, while at that time (13 August 2006) no User:MariusM existed in Misplaced Pages?--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW: At Transnistria there is actually a staged edit-war to prove that even without User:William Mauco there are edit-wars on that article. I already pointed to User:Dmcdevit my suspicions about User:M-renewal. I would do checkusers for all those involved in current edit-war to check possible socks.--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a habit of checkuser'ing everyone who happens to have a different opinion, Marius (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco#William_Mauco_.282.29, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alaexis). Stating that this edit war is staged to prove that there could be edit wars without Mauco is absurd. What about an edit war of 1-3 April, 2007? Mauco was already banned then. Was it also staged? And by whom? Alaexis 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I was also blocked in 1-3 April 2007, starting with 1 April 03:03. Check my block log.--MariusM 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this just be condensed?

This lengthy section has too much stuff that does not belong to this page. Let's condense it to the issues that really belong here. MariusM alleges that at some point user:Dmcdevit publicized the IP address obtained by checkusering MariusM. This is a very serious allegation. If MariusM seriously claims that this indeed is the case, please provide diffs and links that support such claim without lengthy list of unrelated grievances. If the accusation is false making this unsubstantiated claim is a serious offense. --Irpen 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased the summary at the begining of this thread, to keep it short and simple.--MariusM 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that this anonimous IP edit from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to stem from the fact that Dmcdevit is a checkuser. However, at no time did Dmcdevit claim to be acting as a checkuser, and as I'm demonstrated above you don't need to be a checkuser to make the connection. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MariusM, correct me if I am wrong, the info Dmcdevit provided in the diffs above can be obtained without the checkuseing you. While outing personal info obtained via the rigorous investigation of user's activity is frown upon, it is not the same as outing the information obtained via the checkuser run. The latter is the grievous violation and should result in an immediate revocation of the checkuser privileges. The former may or may not constitute a violation depending on the circumstances of the case, that is, how deeply the info was hidden, how much effort does it take to unearth it. In what I partially agree is that outing the personal info cannot be justified by how bad the user is. But if the user does not hide such info in the first place, there is no outing even to talk about. --Irpen 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and my point in making the post was that it took only a minute or two to see that Marius humself had made the connection, and then proposed banning William Mauco, at least in part, for using the name. He is being disingenuous. If you look at the history, you will see that Marius makes an edit 5 minutes after that group of IP edits , or I would not have had any basis for considering it was him. There is no need for CheckUser there. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we then can put safely the matter to rest. Just to be sure, could you me more explicit? You said "There is no need for CheckUser there." Could you just say "There was no CheckUser there" as well? --Irpen 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I didn't use CheckUser to discover this. How could I have, anyway? You can see from the multiple IPs in that article's history that it is a dynamic IP range. There is no way that I know of to check the contributions for a whole range of IPs. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with above comments and I want to show some points:

1. The fact that the anon IP is from Romania and I stated in my userpage that I am from Romania means nothing. Is normal that the big majority of edits in Romanian Misplaced Pages are from IPs from Romania. Also, is normal that for subjects like Romanian Revolution of 1989 or Laszlo Tokes (a person who played an important role in the begining of Romanian Revolution) the majority of interested people are from Romania, having Romanian IPs. Romania is a big country, 22 millions inhabitants.
2. I did hide my personal information at Misplaced Pages, I never made a clear statement in Misplaced Pages that my real life name is "Marius Mioc", even less I didn't made a statement about my IP. I explained the way Mauco was able to suspicion my real name but I told even when I reported him that "I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real life name is correct or not". This is a clear statement that I don't like to confirm suspicions about my real name.
3. Real life person Marius Mioc is not an unknown person in Romania for specialists interested in the subject "Romanian Revolution of 1989". A google test is showing 1290 hits , only few of them from Misplaced Pages, you may consider that in Romania internet is not as developped as in anglo-saxon world and the majority of Mioc's work is in Romanian language. I don't think that an anonimous Romanian IP adding a refference at one of Marius Mioc's books in Misplaced Pages is a clear indication that this anonimous IP belong to real person Marius Mioc. BTW, "Marius Mioc" appear also in Polish, Nederlandish, Spanish and Japanese Misplaced Pages, and in those cases it was not me who added refferences at my books there.
4. To summarize, I am convinced that Dmcdevit did use his checkuser tool to make the link between the edit in Romanian Misplaced Pages and my wikiname User:MariusM (and further to real name Marius Mioc)--MariusM 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   MariusM, please make your complaint to the Checkuser ombudsman if you feel you must. There is a log of checkuser requests showing the date and time that users were checked and the person making the check. The ombudsman will be able to determine with complete precision whether Dmcdevit used the checkuser tool on your account. Since accusations of checkuser abuse are a matter for the Foundation, and there is nothing that admins can do here, this thread is closed. Thatcher131 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Jack Glass

This article was created by a known blocked user. I placed a {{db-g5}} notice on the page, but the user keeps on removing it. Could someone please delete this page? I know it's up for deletion, but it was created under a troll account, and g5 purposefully exists in order to avoid feeding the trolls. Part Deux 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an AfD under way, with a clear "keep" consensus. Why do we wish to short-circuit that?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see that an administrator turned down the g5 request. Thanks. Though I do think it's a bit silly to keep an article that was by someone who not only was a sockpuppet, but made it incredibly obvious by his username (was User:Dog cicero instead of User:Cicero dog). Part Deux 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, here is how he got blocked, almost creative. _InBC 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis

Please see his block log Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now he makes again edit wars. He made now Meatpoppetry by asking his friends to come there and revert on the page of Transnistria--M-renewal 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked M-renewal for edit warring and attempting to game the system by forum shopping. – Steel 14:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and his familliarity with Misplaced Pages after only a few edits suggests the account is someone's sockpuppet. It might be worth upping the current 24 hour block to indef. – Steel 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complex Vandalism by User:Anacapa

User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.

• Project Gender studies,
  
• WP:GS again,
  
• on women's studies
  
• and on feminism
  

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2006 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago User:Cailil identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant.
See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Calil has put a lot of good effort into this report and I ask the participants at this board to give it an evaluation. Does this merit a community sanctions discussion? Durova 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the vandalism you (Cailil) wrote certainly shows a lot of disruptive editing by Anacapa (particularly attempting to unilaterally change the goals of a WikiProject). I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for here. Natalie 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To submitter--what exactly are you asking for? A cursory look makes me think a community ban is in order.Rlevse 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I am requesting a community sanction discussion for User:Anacapa. Apologies for not making that clear from the start--Cailil 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest reposting this to the community sanction noticeboard. Natalie 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature closings of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

This AFD has been prematurely closed twice, as I noted over on the incident board, but just in case that wasn't the right place, I decided to post here. The first time was by an admin who agreed to the revert, the second time by a nonadmin in violation of Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions which I have since reverted. To avoid this happening again, I ask that a non-involved neutral admin step up to take responsibility for closing this discussion at the appropriate time. Mister.Manticore 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe you were correct in reverting the early closure of that AfD. Secondly, an appropriate administrator will close that discussion at the end of the period, there is no need for a note here :-) --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, it happened not once, but twice, so I hoped to avoid it a third time, because frankly it's a bit of effort to go through. Just once, easily resolved, twice? Brings up some warning bells. Mister.Manticore 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This was crossposted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closings_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlekhine.27s_defense.2C_Modern_variation.2C_4...Bg4. --kingboyk 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

CAT:REFU needs help

We're getting on to a month of backlog there - I'm about to start on it, but we need a good number of admins acting there to get it done. Thanks, Martinp23 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May as well take this opportunity to mention NPWatcher, which can seriously help with orphaning these images. Martinp23 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request Admin Second Opinion on Unblock Request for User:The Behnam

The Behnam has been blocked by Dmcdevit for edit warring while dealing with attempts to insert material that, per The Behnam, were possible violations of WP:COI. The Behnam has requested unblocking, and this was turned down by Yamla. The Behnam has explaned the situation in detail on his talk page, the following is Copy/Paste quote from his talk page:

It is clear from the blocking reason above that I didn't actually violate any WP rules, such as 3RR. Furthermore, the reverts are completely sensible as the others were reintroducing non-RS, possibly COI sources, scriptural misquotes, and other OR into the article. Please see Talk:Iranian women for the discussions, which, by the way, the reintroducers haven't taken any constructive role in. They even introduce false references . The Iranica source says nothing about Iranian women. This kind of dishonest editing needs to be reverted to preserve the integrity of the articles. My reverts are what any objective and honest Wikipedian would do, and I didn't break any rules. These people blindly revert, saying 'seek consensus' but don't actually raise any specific objection. They ignore the edit summaries and talk page discussion. There is no justice in me being blocked. The Behnam 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance, The Behnam? (talk page watchlisted) CASCADIA/_Trail 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If he'd actually look into this situation he'd find that the reverts were completely justified. What is the point of setting a 3RR rule anyway if I'm going to be blocked on Dmcdevit's whim without any regard to the context? I see well-established editors (some admins) who revert like this all the time; the articles are compromised by the kind of dishonest editing seen from the other party. They work together to keep tripe in the articles. In any case he obviously messed up when it came to User:ParthianShot because somebody allowed that user to change user names and thus escape his past record. If anything that editor should have been blocked longer than me under Dmcdevit's personal blocking policy. Consider . There are serious issues put forth on that talk page that haven't been addressed by the restoring party, including possible COI. This block is ridiculous. Besides, if you look at my last (3rd) revert, I said that if they blindly revert again I will seek higher authority on the issue . Isn't that enough indication that I don't plan on keeping the revert fight going?

I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin please review the block, and subsequent denial of unblock. Thank you. CASCADIA/_Trail 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see a case for unblocking on this record, particularly in view of the edit summary for the last revert, as noted by the user. However, the blocking administrator should first be notified of this discussion and given an opportunity to comment. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see at a glance the opposite. COI issues aren't an exemption in WP:3RR, 3RR is quite explicit on it's intent and that 3 reverts aren't an entitlement. The final edit summary seems to be indicative of a willingness to just push the bounds of 3RR rather than actually work within the intent. --pgk 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There was at least soem attempt to discuss on the talk page. There was not an actual violation of the 3RR. There was at least soem indication in the 3rd revert of an intent to rpesume other emans, and not continue reverting, which is what The Behnam now indicates were his/her intentions. I support an unblock, perhaps with a limited time 1RR or 2RR parole. DES 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seemed that The Behnam was escalating the conflict to three reverts in quick succession. He ma very well have planned on stopping then, but this is problematic. As I said in my block message, this is the third time that I know of in a short while that The Behnam has made three reverts in 24 hours in an edit war. I agree with Pgk: "My 3 reverts are up, now I will report you if you continue"-type edit summaries are usually a point against you, not in your favor. Dmcdevit·t 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the user had written "everyone's reverts for today are used up and we end on my version so I win," but this was more along the lines of "I will seek wider attention if needed because I believe you are violating policy," which is quite different. I do acknowledge the prior block history, however. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a "Last defender of the wiki" problem. If there's a problem that you feel must be corrected, then communicate that problem to others. If you feel that you and you alone must insert yourself into the breach, you're almost certainly wrong and probably a couple of days' holiday from editing will be good for you and everybody else. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing everyone's comments, I have to second Pgk's remarks. Three reverts aren't an entitlement, and edit warring in itself is a blockable offense. However, I'd have given him a second chance (on the condition that he not revert the article until he has consensus), but while going through the edit history of Talk:Iranian women, I noticed The Behnam calling another editor a "hypocrite" in an edit summary (). IMHO, it's probably best that he sits this block out so he can cool down. Khoikhoi 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I ditto Tony Sidaway, in particular, in expressing my endorsement for the block. This user was being disruptive by not discussing the reverts on the talk page of the article and/or the user talk, and this was adversely affecting the project. Daniel Bryant 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Adversely affecting the project" is an exceptionally harsh judgment, but I defer to the consensus that the block stands. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just brought to my attention that ParthianShot, who was given a strong warning only, because I didn't see past blocks, is actually the new username of Surena, who has two blocks, the same as The Behnam. The warning was probably a mistake then. See Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Archive20#Surena_.E2.86.92_ParthianShot. Does anyone feel like blocking him as well? Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban discussion for Instantnood

Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on general probation by this arbitration case, for continued edit warring and misconduct, allowing a ban to be set upon agreement of three administrators. Since then, only more of the same has been happening, including the use of sockpuppets to duck the arbitration remedies and blocks placed for violating them (see the checkuser case), and has been blocked several times for repeated edit warring, stalking editors to edit war with them, and block evasion. Given his conduct and apparent lack of intent to change it, I believe it's time to set a ban. Seraphimblade 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been involved, but I reviewed what you have presented and I agree: the user seems more interested now in avoiding restrictions than in being a productive part of Misplaced Pages. We might as well make it official and set an indefinite ban. Mangojuice 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the circumstances, a ban would be a formality. Just up the block to indefinite, watch for socks, and ask the arbitrators to re-open the case if the block should ever be challenged. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the community sanction noticeboard? Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Figured it should go here given the circumstances (that admins would have to agree), it could go there too I suppose. Not sure what the exact procedure is for that, but it's not exactly a community ban. Seraphimblade 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this belongs over at WP:AE, not the AN. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AFD and conflict of interest?

Is it inherently a conflict of interest to relist an AFD and comment in it? Please discuss at WT:AFD#Relisting and conflict of interest. —Quarl 2007-04-16 01:07Z

Dispute at Shemale

Resolved – Actually a dispute resolution request... but resolved. Sancho 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. Would love a bit of insight from the admins and others here regarding a dispute at Shemale. User:Patrick80639 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a new editor and self-described pornographer) is seeking to establish that the term 'Shemale' is either not derogatory (or "not derogatory in a 'porn context'", whatever that means) and has edited the article to remove the reference to the term's derogatory nature.

It's been clearly established that the term is derogatory by numerous references (Wikidictionary and reference.com list the term as 'pejorative' and 'derogatory', respectively) but despite being relatively new to WP, User:Patrick80639 insists on reverting to a version 1, 2, 3 minimizing the derogatory nature of the term by trying to claim that the pornographic usage of the word is somehow 'not derogatory'. He avoids the Wikidictionary and reference.com links, pointing instead to 'WordWeb Online', which lists the term as 'sometimes derogatory', as justification for this artificial distinction. I don't edit war, would like to avoid edit warring on the article completely and so I would appreciate any and all insight into this area. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it 'resolved' per se (there's still an open issue or two) but I'm very grateful for Sanchom's help. Sanchom - can you chime in on the talk page regarding the issue I mentioned? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Dmcdevit method

We'll be trying some of Dmcdevit's thoughts out on Global Warming.

We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)

Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.

--Kim Bruning 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Appreciate the help, and the attention. However, I assume no one here is going to do something radical like actually find some way to propose a real compromise, or try to ameliorate some of these issues.

weird how this article keeps going around in circles, and people keep proposing all kinds of actions, but no one proposes any sort of solution, or even offers some slight objective insight on what is causing all this. Just my two cents. I know people want to stay neutral. However, I think some objective guidance might be useful. My own personal request would be (in case you asked) can someone please tell the status quo faction to occasionally let some new sub-topics in? Does that seem like a valid compromise? Please feel free to comment, of course. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This didn't last long. I've already blocked Jacob Buerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for performing a mass reversion without discussing first on the talk page. Naconkantari 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, can Jacob's right to use TWINKLE please be revoked? --Iamunknown 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any administrator can remove a user's rollback scripts by editing their monobook.js file. Naconkantari 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator.  :-( Although a warning should probably be given first. --Iamunknown 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone noticing that the article was unprotected that fast was most likely following this thread and knew about the repercussions of edit warring. Naconkantari 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Striking this per an email I received. The editor has been unblocked. Naconkantari 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic at the moment. I don't even know if it is possible to stabilize the article, until the situation in the real world also stabilizes. --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have give one-hour blocks to Tjsynkral (talk · contribs) and Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Admins should note that Nrcprm2026 has been banned from editing certain other articles by ArbCom (depleted uranium case) for disruptive behaviour. Physchim62 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A box-like message would be far better, a comment can be easily skipped by editing a determined section. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, I don't see any edit war like behaviour from Tjsynkral? He made a single edit this evening that doesn't even seem to have been challenged by anyone. Could we get some evidence of where he was "warring" cause I apparently have missed it? This block happiness NEEDS to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop. Naconkantari 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EW: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article."

I did not revert. Not once. Are we blocking users for edit warring or are we blocking them for editing? --Tjsynkral 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, point me at the edit warring that has caused these blocks? I'm seeing VALID edits and editors being blocked without reason. The blocking without valid reasoning needs to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral's edit was on a bit of the lead that's been intensively fought over the last few days, and arguably involved a tendentious misreading of the cited material. I do think the block was a bit too fast, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these blocks are coming much too fast. This is not a good solution, especially since a number of the editors involved in the "war" are administrators and can now block anyone who edits in a way they don't agree with and have the "edit warrior" excuse to cover their behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above pair of blocks were reviewed by Naconkantari who declined both of them. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a third party become involved in this, cause I don't see that their edits were obvious edit warring and based on the previous false blocking by Nacon I do not believe he's weighing this from a neutral POV. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There's no comment on the talk page supporting that new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do: eventually only one POV will be reflected in the article. -- THF 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did say be careful. The article merely needs to be watched. Only block if people are clearly edit warring. --Kim Bruning 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna feel my way around here, and maybe I will make a mistake and get blocked because it seems kinda random. Sort of like Russian Roulette. But reading Dmcdevit's article, I think this is a good way to go. Even if I run into a fan blade, I agree with the decision. --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the Dmcdevit approach (so long as there is adequate notice that 0RR applies), but I do object to the way it is being applied in the article, and apparently without repercussion. THF 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that only a few can edit. ~ UBeR 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Skyemoor is back to his usual nonsense. ~ UBeR 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born between 1995 and 1999

I haven't fully followed the whole "should we allow/disallow categories for children" debates, but I thought I'd bring this category to attention, as I recall similar categories being deleted in the past per related concerns. This category is specifically for 8-12 year olds. VegaDark 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honeslty, what's the point of these absurd range categories? 1990-94 and 1995-99? There's only about 10 users who have identified as being born in the 1990s. Just put them all into one category and let them state what year they were born on their userpage. hbdragon88 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, just delete the lot of those as they're not particularly useful to encyclopedia writing. Move everybody to Category:Wikipedians born between 1795 and 2199, problem solved. >Radiant< 10:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Gah, how often do we have to kill these things. These categories serve no use, except social networking. That in itself isn't a reason to delete ...perhaps. But the mere possibility that grouping child wikipedians might have a negative effect (on PR if not in reality) then the outcome must be kill kill kill. I can't find the diff, but I know Jimbo shared that response. Speedy delete and salt the earth - DRV has always endorsed that type of action, so we have a defacto policy here.--Doc 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kill with fire and salt the earth. El_C 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If the editors are living people and the information (age) is not sourced by a reliable published source then apply WP:BLP ? WAS 4.250 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply common sense. Dosen't matter if the the information (age) is sourced. El_C 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is common sense to me and you. But not common sense to those who are creating and populating categories like that. So what objective general rule can be agreed on that solves this and hopefully other cases as well? "Objective" so we are not merely replacing one subjective judgement for another and "general" so we have as few rules as possible rather than thousands of specific rules for specific cases. I believe that WP:BLP fills the bill. WAS 4.250 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply common sense. I don't think that WP:BLP applies here. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the US schooling system, but doesn't Category:Wikipedian high school freshmen raise the same issues? As might other subcats of Category:Wikipedian high school students... WjBscribe 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Return of a blocked user

User:CarlKenner, who was banned several months ago (and whose user talk page is still locked), is back making edits. His most recent edits are to the article International Vietnamese Youth Conference, adding biased and false information. These edits are discussed in the talk page, but he could not produce any proof of his assertions. He's been re-adding this information to the page every time it's removed, and putting the summary "rvt vandalism". He's reverted the page 3 times in a 24-hour period now. In the talk page, he's twice removed comments from other users DHN 06:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 24 hours on 5th May. If you're requesting a further block, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Waggers 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

Over at WP:COIN I see a fair number of accounts that exist for no other purpose than to promote some person or company. A representative example is Uibs. This account exists to promote the Barcelona Business School, an instution of learning which the only independent source described as a one room campus that was founded by the same individual who created its accrediting body. This account blanked warnings from its user talk page repeatedly, removed advertising and COI tags from the article under the guise of rewriting, and left a rather disingenuous message at the article talk page, particularly in light of subsequent attempts to promote the institution at Misplaced Pages.

Another example is Jeffrey Babcock, whose sole contributions to Misplaced Pages since June 2006 have been self-promotional. This editor has deleted warnings to his user talk page during his block and, via e-mail, has both accused me of vandalism for reverting his spam and announced his intention to violate WP:MEAT. Excerpts of his messages follow:

Your deletion of links for Jeffrey Babcock is inconsistent. There are other former personalities on the sites where I am listed who have such links. Your deletions are vandalism. Please refrain from well intentioned but misguided vandalism.

I can of course have a third party make an edit. Kind of a waste of time. You seem to be caught in a form vs function trap.

The real waste of time is supposing that such people would develop into decent Wikipedians. In light of Brad Patrick's statement on COI accounts, I ask the community to support the following approach:

1. For obviously WP:COI-only accounts, first leave a message at the editor's talk page advising the person of site standards.

1. If the editor continues acting in a solely promotional manner, treat the account history as a sophisticated breach of WP:VANDAL and indef block.

Editors who doubt the need for such an approach are invited to spend a week tending either WP:COIN or WP:SOCK. Durova 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes please. I've been thinking we should have stronger shoot-vanity/promotion-on-sight policies for a while now. Moreschi 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe this will cut down on the # of vanicruftisements that people who are trying to build a better encyclopedia have to deal with. SirFozzie 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I would wholeheartedly support admin action on this front. I know that no area is immune but wine articles get targeted quite a bit with these spam-only accounts and it really does get tiring. Quite a few link to Wine Library TV, which I just discovered has a Misplaced Pages article possibly created by a COI-SPA. Agne/ 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I belive that this would require a policy change (or at least clarifiction) in WP:BLOCK but I would support such a change. DES 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Misplaced Pages, its volunteers, and its readership? Durova 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably it does, but I think it is better to spell this one out. I have therefore proposed it on Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy. DES 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I doubt the need? By no means. But an indef block buys us at most 24 hours of autoblocked reprieve, and the spammer's back the next day with a less obvious username and no history of abuse. —Cryptic 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the single purpose soon shows itself. This is easier to spot and halt than garden variety trolling because the troll can be more flexible about methodology. We don't let the risk of future abuse deter us from necessary action. Durova 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but we should be taking the right necessary action. Indef blocks are only effective against accounts that try to integrate into the community. The net effect of blocking User:Spamsalot.com is that Spamsalot.com will be re-created by User:Innocuous in four days; for COIs inserted into other articles, we don't even get that long unless the article's semiprotected. After that, even the stupidest spammer will know to create accounts in advance. The only thing that blocking an unestablished user account does is delay, often indefinitely, use of our only effective tool: page protection. —Cryptic 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change proposed at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy DES 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this, but we should think about updating Template:uw-coi so it says something ominous like "Those who use Misplaced Pages for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warnings." Jehochman (/_contrib) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would generally support this too. In a lot of ways, spamming campaigns are worse than simple school-type vandalism, because they're tougher to detect. If someone's adding 20 lines of profanity to an article, it just gets reverted on sight, there's no valid reason for anyone to do that. There are a lot of valid reasons to add external links, so it requires more work to figure out if it's spam. Seraphimblade 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both proposals sound very good to me. Durova 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with teh template change, too. DES 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a simple rule that allows the blocking of COI-only accounts would give more teeth to our COI rules. Posting COI problems at WP:AN/I doesn't always give any concrete results because of the perceived complexity of these cases. If there's a simple rule, administrators would be more willing to take action. EdJohnston 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre

I have applied the Dmcdevit solution to edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several editors have reverted at least 12 times over the last 4 days over the insertion of the term "ethnic cleansing." The first step of the Dmcdevit solution is protection for 3 days (the article has not been previously protected). If the edit warring resumes I will enforce a 1 revert limit, and if that doesn't stop it, a zero revert limit. I would appreciate extra eyes on this when the protection expires. Thatcher131 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it actually work? I've been the victim of this, but the other users involved weren't properly affected due to an oversight caused by a block log obscured after a user name change, so now the other guy is just going around to a bunch of articles and RV, usually calling legitimate edits "vandalism." He is restoring copyvios, OR, non-RS (and possibly COI) sources. His 'discussion' on the talk page is usually just insults against other users and Parsis. Also, on ANI I have asked whether or not I can transfer his sockpuppets from old user name to his new user name to prevent confusion. I'd like an answer on that . Applying the method doesn't make sense unless it is applied fairly.

Also, how is 0RR a good alternative to full protection? There has long been an editprotected mechanism for requesting simple improvements. I don't see what Dmcdevit's 'thoughts' are adding aside from yet another arbitrary dimension to the system and something of a trap (in my first experience I thought it was 1RR for some reason and got hurt). The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While I probably couldn't win any debate over the topic since I am not expert here, I think that these 'thoughts' deserve community discussion before being applied as policy to the articles. Editors aren't guinea pigs (I hope); an actionable rule needs community consensus. The Behnam 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The general idea that, if one person edit wars, block him; if several people edit war, protect the article, has a significant downside. Protecting the article harms all editors as it prevents anyone from editing the article. There are too many articles that undergo a constant cycle of edt war--protect--edit war--protect--edit war--protect. This helps no one. It rewards the edit warriors (or at least lets them off scot-free to edit, and possibly edit war, on other articles), while driving away reasonable editors who aren't interested in edit warring. Protecting the article is supposed to give the editors a chance to work out their differences on the talk page. If the editors go right back to edit warring, then they didn't use the time well, and need stronger measures to convince them to work within the system. 1929 Hebron massacre has been a problem for a while, and even after banning User:Zeq from the topic, at least 5 or 6 other editors are edit warring without using the talk page to discuss their dispute. Now they have a chance to do that. If they can't come to a reasonable compromise and continue edit warring (protection having failed its purpose), I see no reason to protect again. I have taken this approach before (applied 1RR to an article) with no complaint, and it actually seemed to work. Dmcdevit's essay is a formalization of an approach that many admins have used from time to time and it is not at all a new policy, simply a different approach to enforcing the same policies. Thatcher131 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have any problem with 1RR, but basically this is 0RR, and I think it encourages sockpuppetry. Back at Azerbaijan (Iran) when I mistakenly interpreted "Repeat edit warriors will be blocked from now on" (from edit summary) as 1RR and forgot about the more 0RR-like wording on the talk page, I reverted an IP that was a possible sock and ended up getting a day's block. I think it is more of a trap that will encourage sockpuppetry. Also, it seems apt to allow people to add tripe but not remove tripe. The Behnam 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting off with 1RR. Dmcdevit's essay is an essay, not an instruction manual, and every admin has to use his or her own discretion. I don't think it will lead to adding tripe unless there's a tripe pile-on; if one user adds crap twice, it can be reverted by two different editors once each and the crap adder gets blocked. Also, editors should use the talk page, if there is good discussion and consensus about an edit but actually making the edit would be a technical violation for someone, then of course I'll overlook it. Thatcher131 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I think 1RR is much more reasonable of you. But really this should go to community discussion if its going to start getting applied to articles, though I do agree that testing is necessary to see if there are loopholes or other possible problems. The Behnam 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User User:Alastair Haines moving articles incorrectly

User:Alastair Haines seems to be on a biot of a spree, moving articles by cut-and-paste. A lot of these are disambig articles that (IMHO) should take preference over his prefered article to begin with. I'd ask that someont give him a bit of a talking to, and that his changes be reverted for now. Artw 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I was hasty posting this to admn - the user has asked to see the relevant guidelines and I've given them to him. Still some help with the cleanup would be appreciated. Also it's possible that a firm indication as to whether moiving the articles in the first place was appropriate or not would probably be beneficial (my take would be No). Artw 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User Elsanaturk diverted a whole section into bombarding me with personal attacks and making POV and OR statements: He implies that I am uncivlized and uneducated, amongst other things, and also tries to dictate what pages people should and should not edit on Misplaced Pages.

Some lines of interest:

Les Absents ont toujours tort, they say in the civilized world, those absents are always wrong

He implies that I am uncivilized.

your imperial dreams which are and were only the dreams

can you ever make a good thing and contribute something positive to[REDACTED] that it would not create dispute?

and as i see you liked my previous comments, so i think you can also like my this one and i strongly appreciate to report me on civility, or something various, but remember that sometimes you must also know that that there is something called morality, for which[REDACTED] forgot to make an appropriate page.

Here he implies I am immoral and he is just asking for a ban or a block. This user clearly knew what he was doing, as he even knew that his comments would get reported to the admins noticeboard. This user clearly should get blocked for these comments and have some time to cool down, in fact, he is basically asking for it by asking me to report him for comments that he acknowledges are uncivil.Azerbaijani 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You should ask him to apologize, and forgive him. The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted pages

Is there any reason that we shouldn't move these pages to Misplaced Pages:Protected titles? Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

75.84.156.180 and Fertility awareness

I was in a content dispute (if you can call an external link 'content') with 75.84.156.180 (talk • contribs) over at Fertility awareness. The editor has refused to talk things out and was edit warring (and I was reverting maybe a bit too much as well). That, however, is not why I am here. The editor has added a comment directed towards another user (a personal attack, if you will) that has inflammatory and racist language. I reverted it on sight and warned the user on talk. However, the user has simply reverted the questionable content. So I am asking for admin help in analyzing the situation, and recommending a course of action (if any is needed). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards