Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:07, 9 May 2008

• 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)

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Possible new sockfarm in the process of being created

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

--Snigbrook 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone is going through and creating new accounts using single random nonstandard unicode characters such as these few: and . If you go thru the user creation log, there a dozens of these created in the last hour or so. Just something to keep an eye on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking him; some of his socks have had unusual Unicode in their names. Keep note of all the names created; if one of them shows symptoms of Potteritis, see Thatcher immediately for an IP check. -Jéské 04:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He's definately active RIGHT NOW. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger&action=edit&redlink=1. Anyhoo, in good faith, I greeted them all with a friendly "please change your username". Thus, I can keep an eye on them. As usual, Grawp is a quick block if he starts getting outta hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That username was flagged and blocked instantly. -Jéské 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just saying that it shows he is active right this second. Is there enough for a checkuser yet on these new unicode names? BTW, there have been 5-6 more since we've been chatting here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, if you point out our mistaken phone-caller and all the accounts were made in the same time period, then point out his checkuser case, where a lot of unusual-Unicode-containing usernames were fluched out.-Jéské 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

By the by, East718 has called in the Devastators. -Jéské 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So far, they're all on TOR, and they're all Grawp. east.718 at 04:45, May 2, 2008

I had a feeling they were Grawps based on the Unicode. -Jéské 04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And they've all been blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk · contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:ԣ
• User:׳״ֽ
• User:؟
• User:٪
• User:ۨ
• User:ۨ٪
• User:܀
• User:܁
• User:܃
• User:܄
• User:ܑܐܑ
• User:ܞ܂ܗ
• User:ޮ
• User:இஇ
• User:ᐁ

is the full list AFAIK... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User:ℋ for Hermy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Funny since, _I_ blocked that one... hmf... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more (neither blocked right now):

• User:ޮ ޮ
• User talk:܀܀܀

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done - all the above checked. Blocked a bunch of TOR nodes as well as some more accounts - Alison 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New batch that showed up shortly after we blocked all of the above. Some of these may or may not be related:

• Obviously same:
  • User:ԯ
  • User:윤지용
• Not obviously same, likely related, or may be a different sockfarm:
  • User:Ἄτλας
  • User:Κρόνος
  • User:Άργος
  • User:Κύκλωψ
  • User:Κύκλωπες
  • User:Kyklops
• Maybe related, or maybe not:
  • User:குறோணி

The second sockfarm is all Greek myth characters(Atlas, Chronos, Cyclops), rendered in the original greek (except the last one, which is transliterated to Latin characters, but still the greek name). All created in a very short period of time. These may be need to be checked out as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 윤지용 could be legit, and checkuser doesn't work for me with User:குறோணி (maybe a font thing) but the Greeks are more tor sockfarms. Thatcher 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If checkuser passes the username in a URL parameter, try replacing it with exactly "%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8B%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%BF". And it may not have been the best idea to suggest that a given username cannot be examined with checkuser. --Random832 (contribs) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

for would-be vandals who like BEANS, I can say that the above name, குறோணி (talk · contribs) works fine with checkuser for me :), so  Confirmed again. Also, the other accounts under there were already blocked by Thatcher - Alison 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I would suggest that if any more pop up, lock down their talk pages immediately. Blueboy96 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More usernames from Greek mythology have been created:

• Polyphemos (talk · contribs)
• Πολύφημος (talk · contribs)
• Steropes (talk · contribs)
• Στερόπη (talk · contribs)

then some Celtic mythology names:

• Fachen (talk · contribs)
• Peg Leg Jack (talk · contribs)
• Fachin (talk · contribs)
• Direach Ghlinn Eitidh (talk · contribs)
• Dwarf of Glen Etive (talk · contribs)
• Fir Bholg (talk · contribs)
• Fomorian (talk · contribs)
• Fomóiri (talk · contribs)
• Fomóraig (talk · contribs)
• Balor of the Evil Eye (talk · contribs)
• Eochaid Bres (talk · contribs)
• Eochu Bres (talk · contribs)
• Buarainech (talk · contribs)
• Cethlenn (talk · contribs)
• Cethlion (talk · contribs)
• Ethniu (talk · contribs)
• Ethliu (talk · contribs)

more Greek names:

• Geyron (talk · contribs)
• Γίγαντες (talk · contribs)
• Gigantomachia (talk · contribs)
• Alcyoneus (talk · contribs)
• Alkyoneus (talk · contribs)
• Enkelados (talk · contribs)
• Ἐγκέλαδος (talk · contribs)
• Klytius (talk · contribs)
• Hekatonkheires (talk · contribs)
• Centimani (talk · contribs)
• Briareus the Vigorous (talk · contribs)
• Gyges the Big-Limbed (talk · contribs)
• Cottus the Striker (talk · contribs)
• Cottus the Furious (talk · contribs)

All these were created yesterday between 20:40 and 23:20; most are names of giants. --Snigbrook 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Another: Cottu (talk · contribs), an alternative name of Cottus the Striker / Cottus the Furious and registered around the same time. --Snigbrook 13:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there were 5 other sock accounts under there. The IP is an open proxy and has now been blocked. There are too many socks to detail here, so I'm going to checkuser and block them myself here. Anyone who's interested can see them in my block logs ... - Alison 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I think we're done. Checkusered / blocked / TOR'd. My block button has melted :p - Alison 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks I strongly believe User:குறோணி is Malaylam text. Malaylam and Mediawiki do not work well together. This is in bugzilla. -- Cat 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I can still run it thru checkuser with no problems at all :) - Alison 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which makes you more talented than mediawiki. -- Cat 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, the alphabet is Tamil. --Soman (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For a moment I thought குறோணி was our resident Ayyavazhi troll back again. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Permanent move protection for articles on countries

Some of you might have noticed this persistent vandal who's been moving articles on countries to "HAGGER" every single day. Since articles on countries are unlikely to be reasonably moved to a new location (and definitely not without a proper listing at WP:RM, lengthy discussion and adequate closure of the move proposal by an admin), perhaps they should be granted permanent move protection. That way we would avert any move disruption including this HAGGER pest. Please provide feedback. Húsönd 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support that, even in the face of WP:DENY. Rudget (Help?) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me in. Both Irpen and I mentioned the general idea in the thread above (see Grawp). - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. We ought to move-protect high visibility articles (which have no reason to be moved). Hut 8.5 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Really bad idea. Block the abuser (s). Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Let's not go down the slippery slope of prophylactic implementation of page and move protection because they 'might' be vandalized by lots of people. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing, but it does stop high-profile articles from vandalism from an extraordinarily prolific vandal. There is no reason to move country articles without discussion on the talk page. In the odd chance of a page move being decided through consensus (see Burma), an admin can make the move. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection policy states that pages can be move protected under three circumstances: "Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism; Pages subject to a page name dispute; and Visible pages which have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard." Articles on internationally recognized countries meet two of the three criteria, the first (thanks to a certain persistent vandal) and third (because they're all vital articles). In the unlikely event one of these articles does need to be renamed, an admin can take care of it at WP:RM. This seems quite logical and shouldn't be harmful in the least. Hersfold 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no point. S/he will just move to some other set of articles. States, cities, actor bios, etc. It's just moving the problem from one place to another. It's not practical and it's not helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I support permanent move protection for countries. This is not anticipating a possible future problem, it's responding to an actual problem. Blocking the type of vandals who are listed in Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse is an endless task, and may never be finished. By comparison, move protection is easy. Leave things movable where the likelihood of a good-faith move being needed is higher. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless, for the same reasons I do not allow semi-protection on my talk page - he'll just move elsewhere. It's an endless shell-game when protection is involved; the only pages that deserve a move-prot are articles he particularly favors and userpages he hits. -Jéské 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he'll move elsewhere. But since he seems to be sticking to country articles for the moment, I think that it will be an effective solution at least for those articles, which are by the way among the most viewed on Misplaced Pages. Articles on countries shouldn't be moving anywhere without lengthy discussions so why having them with the move tool enabled for all? It's a blatant invitation to vandals. Furthermore, move protection is certainly better than leaving everything just as it is (not unless some of you would find any joy in reverting Hagger's moves every day). Húsönd 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No point, per Wassupwestcoast and Wknight94. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the HAGGAR/Grawp bullshit to stop as well. However, as already noted by many, arbitrarily protecting one class of articles will only cause him to bounce to other articles, not stop him, and only restrict legitimate edits to those protected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Preventing articles like Australia from being moved doesn't "restrict legitimate edits", because there is no way a unilateral move of that article can possibly be legitimate. So we prevent move-vandalism with no downside. I support this, so long as we don't move-protect any country articles with disputed names e.g. East Timor/Timor Leste. Hesperian 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I move-protected a number of country pages that were vandalmoved before seeing this discussion. The main objection to this seems to be that he will move on to other articles. Ys, obviously, but he is clearly going for high visibility pages, where his vandalism has the most impact. If we can drive him to less visible pages, it may become less fun (best case scenario), and not so many readers will see his vandalism before it gets reverted. I don't see the downside to this move-protection (obviously not edit-protection), but people are free to undo it of course. Fram (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The HAGGER/Grawp nonsense hasn't been just countries, so protecting the country pages will only move the vandal(s) to other pages.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support move protection. As noted earlier, this does not restrict editing of the articles, nor does it adversely restrict editors as the pages should not be moved without extensive discussion. Like it or not, we have to accept that certain high-profile articles require extra protection to avoid disruption. --Ckatz_spy 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support move protection. There are a few possibilities here:

1. The protection is done and he stops (unlikely, but the best case scenario)
2. The protection is done and he moves on to other topics he can move (likely, but since those articles won't ever legitimately be moved without consensus it won't harm the articles so there is no downside and the upside is that at the very least his edits will effect less important articles. A better scenario then we currently have)
3. We do nothing and he continues doing it until we can argue more strongly that it's "persistent"

I think #2 is what will happen, but will still be better then the status quo. Also, I think it might be useful to do a long term move block, but not permanent. A month perhaps? Then test the waters again. Chris M. (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Related issue - damage to watchlists

I think my watchlist may be suffering as a result of these page moves. Today a couple of countries, American Samoa and (I think) AntiguaAnguilla appeared on my watchlist. Is this because other articles, articles on my watchlist, have been moved to or from these names? If so, there must now be two other articles that are no longer on my watchlist, and I have no idea how to figure out which ones they were :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, articles only get added, not removed, by pagemoves. This means your watchlist will tend to grow as a result of pagemove vandalism. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That's a relief. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

Why does this list exist? I though it was quality over quantity, but this list seems to be comparing users by the quantity of their edits. iMatthew 2008 11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmless data, in my view. I don't think the list is there to provide useless comparisons, but a simple display of users' productivity. Húsönd 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a list, and can provide insightful help for those looking for help immediately. Rudget (Help?) 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It may display the breadth of a users productivity, but like all statistics... It gives no recognition, for example, of an entire evenings input on one or two articles, with very few "saved" against preview edits, whereas as some gadfly who gives a lot of opinions on admin noticeboards, does a bit of AIV work, and a little wikification of a few articles, gets quite a few "ticks on the scoresheet". I like to think that both types of contribution are helpful, and such a list is far too simplistic to provide a proper evaluation of "worth". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So the list is to notify a reader of active editors? Because I believe plans are being made for this list to go into mainspace soon. iMatthew 2008 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the list has any actual purpose. It's just trivia: Useless, but interesting. --Conti|✉ 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it takes up a lot of the database doesn't is? iMatthew 2008 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's anything that we need to bother about. This data already exists, I can't imagine compiling it like that takes any more space than another long page- absolutely minimal. The list is used, and a lot of people have an interest in/make use of metadata. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, deleting it won't remove it from the database. A short edit war on George W. Bush would probably take up as much disk space. Sam Korn 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire editing history of that page is using less database space than a single day's vandalism to George W. Bush. --Carnildo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a distracting waste of time, so in that sense it is harmful -- these people should be contributing to the encyclopedia rather than coming up with useless lists. Plus, it distorts incentives to encourage people to make more useless edits, which actually clutter up page histories and distract from meaningful content contribution. If we want to track activity, we should do it by the number of kilboytes added and taken away -- summing those up, ideally. I don't see why this is difficult. Somehow I was under the impression that this was done manually, which does seem like a big waste of time. Since its not, it's not a big deal. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

there are many different ways to be useful here, and its reasonable to have multiple ways of tracking activity. This is one of them. Theree are many ways of using this data in studies of Misplaced Pages, and in less formal ways also. DGG (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this brought up to this noticeboard? I think it is a bit misplaced. -- Cat 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. The purpose of this page is to offer a bit of harmless positive feedback to contributors. A nod towards community-building, if you will. No one will seriously argue that this is the best way to judge the contributions of editors, but to do so would require complex number-crunching & a dedicated server to do it on, so lists like this will have to do. Oh, & the amount of effort maintaining this page is only a fraction consumed by real time sinks like IRC. (I'm stopping here because every sentence I add after this ends up becoming a vicious rant over how Misplaced Pages culture has changed that would likely get me banned.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be willing to bet more of the database has been taken up by talking about the list than the list itself. --Kbdank71 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmless data. Weren't there pages with editors by DYK, GA, and FA counts? Stick those in the see also of this one, and we're done. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice: ArbCom granting Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights

Given that the Arbitration Committee has promised to inform the community when they intend to grant people checkuser and/or oversight rights, this is notice that there is currently a discussion ongoing to grant User:Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights on the English Misplaced Pages.

He previously served as an Arbitrator, and was a checkuser and oversighter. However, when the identity confirmation system was implimented, he did not confirm his identity and voluntarily requested that his rights be removed. As such, they were not removed controversially. He has recently asked that we grant him his rights again, as soon as we recieve confirmation of his identity. At present, it seems the Committee will be granting him checkuser/oversight rights, since his rights were not removed controversially and he now wishes to have them back.

Any comments regarding this discussion may be sent posted here, or mailed to the Arbitration Committee private mailing list if privacy is preferred. Contact details for the Committee mailing list are here. Please set the subject of your e-mail to "Comments on granting rights to Sam Korn", to let us easier sort the comments together. Although the Committee will take any and all comments into consideration, please note that the final decision resides with us.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as he did not abuse or misuse it, this decision is fine with me. Welcome back. <spam>For future reference you may like to post on Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard for general notices like this</spam> Majorly (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's a redlink. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board was probably what he meant. It is transcluded at Misplaced Pages:Community Portal. Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard was (briefly) the name for what became Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard (it got moved there). It then got turned from a redirect into a noticeboard by User:Al tally, but then got deleted after a brief amount of discussion. The deletion was probably an over-reaction, as the discussion hadn't really finish. The discussion should probably continue elsewhere. Also, there are now a lot of redlinks for Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard, most of which should probably point at WP:CSN. Accordingly, I'm recreating it as a redirect to fix those redlinks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I restored the history, as the reason given for deletion wasn't really a reason. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. I requested it to be deleted. Maybe I should use a new sig for my new identity? Al Tally a.k.a. Majorly 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He's a good admin, and frequents #wikipedia-en-unblock on IRC a lot. He seems trustworthy, and the fact that he gave up the tools voluntarily says a fair bit in his favor. No argument here. Hersfold 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn is one of the few individuals that I can recall having a disagreement over interpretation of some policy - although I don't recall which one it was, since it was some time ago... This likely means that they are eminently suitable for CU and Oversight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely trust this user if he were to reacquire the tools. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he has had them before, and had the rights removed in an uncontroversial manner, I don't see any reasons why not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would as well. For the record, I have an outstanding request for Oversight with ArbCom that I made some time ago. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections, I don't see any reason to believe that he will misuse the privileges. Seraphimblade 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections, and taking note of Lar's comment I think it is logical that checkusers who are admins on enwiki should have oversight as well. Looking at the list of checkusers, out of about 30 enwiki checkusers there are only four who don't have oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Well, I certainly trust you - you've an excellent reputation. Welcome :) - Alison 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. MBisanz 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I approve. User:Zscout370 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I trust him. <spam> Incidcentally, I would not mind the community also granting checkuser rights (in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation)</spam> NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a travesty. The Arbitrary Committee has no legitimate authority granting any sort of access of this type. This is properly the purview of the community at large. I urge everyone to do everything in their power to keep his use of these tools from having any practical effect. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Al Tally (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is having issues with reality (again). Raul654 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion in the matter, but there are people that feel that ArbCom doesn't have any legitimate authority. It's not limited to Kurt, here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with Kurt on this, but I am not at all certain why he is rolling Sam Korn into a policy problem. I would suggest, at least as informally as this thread indicates, that the community has no objection to Sam having these rights. Resolute 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there have been no objections from anyone in the community, nor any objections from any Arbitrators, Sam Korn has been granted CheckUser and Oversight rights. For the Arbitration Committee, Deskana (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "no objections except from Kurt" :) ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"No objections except for Kurt" is a redirect to "No objections". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop singling Kurt out, please? Deskana should apologise for the implicit snub that Kurt is not part of the community. I presume that was unintentional. Raul should apologise for what he said. And Lar and Relata refaro should think about what sort of culture they are promoting when they send the signal that it is OK to make fun of a single objector. I have no objection to Sam Korn being granted these rights, but that is only because I don't know Sam Korn well enough to judge whether he should be supported in this or not. I certainly don't have a problem with Kurt objecting. He is making the perfectly valid point (which others have also made) that some community input is desirable. I think that was the point of this thread, in case people have forgotten that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• It has been pointed out to me that Kurt insulted the Arbitration Committee by calling them the "Arbitrary Committee", thus my public remonstrance of those commenting on Kurt was unbalanced. I'm happy to set the record straight and say that Kurt should apologise for calling the Arbitration Committee the "Arbitrary Committee". Deskana has also confirmed that no slight of Kurt was intended. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt hasn't objected to Sam, he's objected to the idea that checkuser/oversight rights aren't given by the community, but rather a tiny group of individuals with no accountability to anyone. However, since Sam lost the rights voluntarily in good standing, it's hardly an issue. It could have been an issue though. I have had issues with promotions by ArbCom in the past but my concerns were brushed aside as unimportant. If there is a single objection the right should not be granted, as this is seriously something that needs everyone's support, and any opposition means that there are checkusers out there not trusted by the community. Al Tally (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, the same should be true for the Arbitration Committee and Adminship, since we shouldn't have arbitrators or admins that aren't trusted by the community, either. --Conti|✉ 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins can't see people's IPs. There's a big difference. Al Tally (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point I was trying to make was that you will find not one (1) person who will get no oppose whatsoever nowadays, no matter what it's about. Especially considering there are certain people *cough* who oppose people on principle alone. --Conti|✉ 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, RfAs do still passed unopposed. 21 in 2008 so far, and that is not even including the ones where there are no opposes and some neutrals. It might be interesting to see how many of the single-oppose RfAs are due to certain patterns. Of the five single-opposed RfAs this year (that's over four months worth of data), there was one single-oppose by Nick, one single-oppose by Appletrees, two single-opposes by Anwar, and one single-oppose by Kurt Weber. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And one single oppose by Iterator12n, not that I'm bitter. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking at the single-opposes with no neutrals. I searched for "/1/0". Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of unopposed RfAs. Still, an RfCheckuser would be an entirely different matter, since they'd gather much more attention, and therefore should probably be compared to RfBs instead. And the last unopposed RfB was in August 2004 (according to this). --Conti|✉ 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's also been pointed out that we (the community) should consider thanking the arbitration committee for seeking our input on those that are appointed checkusers and oversighters. Do we approve of this and do we want them to continue doing this, is, I think, the simple question (I had been under the impression this was how it was normally done). Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22

User:LemmeyBOT a bot operated by User:Lemmey for the purpose of restoring named references whose content is lost. The bot is currently undergoing a BAG approval process to gain approval for use of the bot in automatic mode. However the bot is currently operated in semi-automatic or confirmation mode. This usage requires no approval from the BAG as specifficly stated by the BAG in questions listed here and here, bottom of the page I specifically asked this question several months ago.

Certain admins seem intent on trapping this tool in a perpetual Catch-22 claiming first WP:USERNAME and then that it is not an approved bot, despite being shown the discussions above. These blocks started before the tool even made a single edit. The discussion can be seen User_talk:Jmlk17#Bot_Policy here and here Now the admins are claiming that the account does not meet some kind of flag. This mentioned flag is not listed in the qutoed policy WP:USERNAME and the Accounts infobox specifically states and always has stated that it has no flag.

With 24 fixes of articles with mis-aligned references this bot has clearly demonstrated that it is non-malicious. It has made corrections to articles with multiple lost references and long edit histories . Its edit history demonstrates it is operating at such a low edit rate that it is not a factor on Misplaced Pages Resources. Furthermore it is doing a rather tedious neglected by most editors. A missing reference is a determent to article quality.

While these admins have their hearts in the right place they are creating a Catch 22 situation by applying[REDACTED] policies incorrectly and enforcing guidelines for guidelines sake with no emphasis paid to individual editor intent. --Lemmey talk 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait until its trialed to show its non-malicious. Then it can be removed to ensure that and given final approval. There is no deadline to finishing WP, therefore there is no need to run a tedious process on an account with a BOT-like name until it is approve by BAG. MBisanz 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain elsewhere, WP:USERNAME says Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.. This is not an account with bot permissions. Same as we would treat LemmeyADMIN. You were unblocked, in lieu of a bot trial, or passing a BRFA (and, you chose to violate those terms, I should add). When one of those conditions is met, we can unblock the account. Not doing so could create the confusion that you are running a vetted, approved bot, which you are not. SQL 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no argument over ADMIN accounts or time limits here, so I'm failing to see what that has to do with this. Clearly this is a BOT account that does not require approval for the mode it is operating in, its mode does not require approval and there is no violation, as I have discussed this with the Bot Approval Group you keep mentioning. As it is operating in semi-automatic mode the onus is on the blocking admin to show that it is malicious, not on the user to defend itself from preemptive blocks. --Lemmey talk 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've each made our cases. I eagerly await an uninvolved party's opinion. SQL 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note, there was an oldid diff given to disucussion on my talkpage, which has seen further discussion, it's presently here, and, will be moved to my talkpage archives, should it receive no further comment in 24 hours. SQL 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which policy determines bot permissions? Antelan 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOTS and the WP:BAG --Lemmey talk 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Permissions pretty clearly means the permissions assigned to flagged bots by MediaWiki to me. SQL 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As per Misplaced Pages:BOTS#The_.27bot.27_flag mediawiki only involves technical permissions, not an editors right to use a bot --Lemmey talk 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, refers back to being approved as a bot, which, that account is not, either. SQL 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the name, I don't see any part of policy that explicitly deals with this situation. On the one hand, Lemmey is operating a bot, approval of which he presumably thinks will be forthcoming. On the other hand, he doesn't yet have approval. I can see where there is disagreement, but again, I don't see the solution for this precise situation spelled out in the policy. Regarding the usage of the bot, the policy states, "Bots must be approved before they may operate.", but then immediately goes on to state, "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox." So operating this bot should be noncontroversial provided that the edits are infrequent, and are to test pages. Antelan 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I asked the BAG in the question linked in the first paragraph. --Lemmey talk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Misplaced Pages edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." If it's not a bot, then it shouldn't have bot in the name. If it is a bot, then BRFA is where you should go. You said:

This bot is Currently Operating in Manual Confirmation Mode and as such does not require a BOT approval.

So you basically said it wasn't a bot, therefore calling it FooBOT would be the username violation. Q 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No I said it was a bot that didn't require approval as I was told by the BAG. --Lemmey talk 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If it's really an issue, couldn't you just run the bot under a different name until it gets approval, then move the script to the preferred bot name at that time? Antelan 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". Oh no I'm not going down that road. --Lemmey talk 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, ask for (which you did) trial approval (used to figure out the bot), and, wait for trial approval (which you did not). Heck, had it stayed in userspace, I doubt anyone would have cared. SQL 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The request as stated above is inteded so the bot can run in automatic mode. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BOTS: "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox. Such test edits may be made from any user account.". Antelan 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

and that includes the LemmeyBOT account. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. But the LemmyBOT account is not allowed, because only bot-accounts may contain the string BOT, and LemmyBOT doesn't meet the definition of a bot-account, at least not on Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages definition is "an account with a bot flag or an account being used in line with a BAG trial process", and your account isn't. So it's against the username policy, it's so simple! —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:BOTS the flag is not fundamentally linked to the BOT account. and as per my conversations with the BAG approval is not needed. It is a BOT is requires a BOT account, but it does not require approval. --Lemmey talk 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. If the consensus here is that only flagged bots are bots, then that's the decision. Please read through the page I linked carefully. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you intended to link something to the work 'here' you have not shown consensus. I don't appreciate the panderizing as I have shown two separate discussions with BAG officals over the fact that there can be BOTs that do not require approval (and therefore don't get flags) --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You had the bot edit the mainspace prior to getting approval on the bot account. these edits were not in a sandbox of any sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not disputing that, Ryulong. I'm following the advice of the BAG as you will read in the top of the section. --Lemmey talk 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The way that I read the policy, this bot-to-be should be (1) editing only non-mainspace pages, and (2) named a non-BOT name until it is approved. At that time, grab it a BOT-name and turn it onto the mainspace. Am I missing something obvious here? Antelan 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do these tests outside of the article space then there is no problem with that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not tests, they are corrections of complex errors in the references of articles. --Lemmey talk 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Make a page in your user subspace with these very errors, and then use your bot code to fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And what would be the point of all that? The BOT searchs through the history of the article inorder to fix its references. I couldn't fix a page that started with errors. --Lemmey talk 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Statements from the BAG (since nobody reads the links)

:The things you described don't need bot approval as long as you keep your editing rate low and are authorizing each edit individually. If you want to edit in a sustained way (e.g. 6 edits/min average for twenty minutes or more), then you should consider getting a bot flag. Someone will probably let you know if your editing rate makes you look too botlike. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any script which is either 1) used to edit "fast", or 2) used to do "a lot" of edits in total, or 3) does not involve a Yes/No for each individual edit, should in my opinion be reviewed for technical and policy compliance. Exactly what "fast" and "a lot" might mean is unclear, but I think if you're planning to use a script to modify 10000 articles, you ought to have consensus and not use a buggy script. Gimmetrow 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My guideline is "Anything which decides on the edits to make itself" needs bot approval. That is, a mass-deletion script that takes a list of pages as input does not, but a bot which decides which pages to delete does. — Werdna talk 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is completely ridiculous.

• Of course it's OK to use a script or bot to propose edits which are manually checked and submitted.
• No, no-one needs any approval for this, and running in a non-bot-flagged account is entirely appropriate.
• The user name issue is a silly over-reading of badly-drafted policy.

In short, I see nothing wrong with Lemmey's use of a semi-automated script to make helpful suggestions to himself, as long as it's human-checked and not done at too high a speed as to be potentially disruptive (though a less tart turn of phrase might help ;-)). People, please AGF and remember IAR and common sense. :-)

James F. (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. What we have here is essentially a manual trial of a proposed bot, something which is entirely sensible. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• where is my trout and cluestick? Lemmey is mainly correct here, he should have waited for an approved trail, but a few test edits are also OK, those BAG and admins who say otherwise need hit with cluestick. where has common sense gone to nowadays? β 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like this bot highlighted its limited test role in its edit summaries. Perhaps all admins are suspicious of rogue unverifiable bots. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• What in the world? When the bot was blocked it had made only 4 edits. It clearly wasn't a vandalbot. Personally, I think a good-faith bot account doing something useful (and not something routinely denied bot accounts) should pretty much automatically get a 10 or 20 edit allowance for testing. That way, when they come to BRFA, there is something for BAG to look at. Gimmetrow 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why was this bot blocked a second time? Per this it should be unblocked. Since the blocking admin apparently has no objection, I intend to unblock unless someone else complains fairly soon. Gimmetrow 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that people follow the spirit, not the letter of the laws? The spirit of the law here is that usernames should not contain 'bot' when they're not bots. The letter of the law is that usernames should not contain bot if it's not approved to run as a bot. The user here is a bot. Therefore, there's no problem with having 'bot' in the username. — Werdna talk 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Making it clear that you're developing a bot is an act of pretty obvious good faith, and caused no harm. We should never punish people for that, and I see no reason to make the guy jump through extra hoops just to comply with a stretched reading of a username rule intended to increase clarity. William Pietri (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. The bot owner seems to have been operating in as close to fully open good faith mode as one can. Something we need to encourage and support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bot, it's using an account labelled as such, surely it's less confusing this way. The bot's obviously being watched by a range of users and being kept on a very short lead, if there are problems it will be quickly blocked/shut down if it's improving the encyclopaedia then it'll be approved. Keeping the bot edits in a separate account makes sense for the purpose of reviewing those edits, having the account labelled as a bot only account makes sense as those viewing the edits will recognise the edits were made by a bot. It might be an idea to have a box on the bot's userpage mentioning that it has not been approved but otherwise I don't really see the problem. Guest9999 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sceptre and User:Undead warrior abusing rollback and Twinkle

Yesterday I got into an incident with Sceptre in which I proposed a recreation of Encyclopedia Dramatica on Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review and he unilaterally closed my review as "disruptive" despite not being an administrator. Though this is off topic, I am aware that I am going to immediately attract attention for having admitted to be in favor of the article's recreation so I will explain my rationale. Please ignore the center paragraph if you are only interested in hearing about the incident.

First off, I believe that the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes) gets 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches presumably due to its offensive content. Second, I believe that the site is covered by reliable sources. Third, I believe that much of the controversy that centers around the proposal of recreating the article comes from editors who dislike the site because of the personal attacks it has made (I have had my photo uploaded to the site and placed in an article without my consent myself), but I believe that Misplaced Pages is not censored and that ED should not be excluded from the encyclopedia because it offends people. Also, it's worth noting that I find it strange that many editors do not want the article in Misplaced Pages presumably because it offends them (until recently, the reason given for the "protected against recreation" status of the page "Encyclopedia Dramatica" read "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreaded. Ever." If something offended me I would want it exposed in broad daylight for what it is to as many people as possible. But this is irrelevant and I'm not here to argue about whether the site should be recreated or not. I'll save that for deletion review. I am posting it here to satisfy curiosity as to why I would want to see the site's article recreated. I will also mention that I have written a revised version of User:Shii's draft.

As I was saying, I created a new deletion review for Encyclopedia Dramatica and Sceptre immediately closed it as "disruption . Ironically, he was the one being disruptive by closing a nom despite not being an admin and without giving a clear reason. "Disruptive request" is not a clear reason. I reverted this, and Sceptre proceeded to use rollback and eventually Twinkle to continue to revert my edits to the page, marking them as "vandalism" with Twinkle . He also reverted two comments I placed on his talk page asking him to stop and even a report I placed on WP:AN of our dispute., My final revert of his edit was reverted by User:Undead warrior using rollback , another non-admin who had no business closing a legitimate deletion review. As result of the incident, I was blocked for disruption, while Sceptre and Undead warrior were not, and I will point out that I was never given a clear reason for being blocked, and as a result I have permanent record of having been blocked for "disruptive editing" in my block log. The only violation of policy I believe I could have been possibly held responsible for is breaking the 3RR, though this was never cited as a reason for my block, and in the context I do not believe I was violating the 3RR, as Sceptre's edits were clearly ones he had no business making. I have emailed both users informing them of what they did and that I would file a request to have their rollback and Twinkle privileges suspended if they continued such behavior in the future, and have received two responses from Undead warrior (I will forward these emails to a user upon request) which basically claimed that my edits were "vandalism" and cited WP:SNOW (which isn't policy) as his reason for unilaterally closing the nom despite not being an administrator. I will leave notices on both their talk pages of this thread. I don't recommend a block for either one of them, as that would be punitive, but I do believe they should both be given a stern warning by someone other than myself.--Urban Rose 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, Sceptre does seem to have been grossly abusing Twinkle/rollback, mis-labelling vandalism and removing a thread from ANI - very naughty. Your request didn't seem disruptive to me. But let's hear what he has to say. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The disruption was in the numerous requests you were making, despite being told that this wasn't going to happen. I have seen you on another site taking your above argument (in itself pretty vacuous) to the extreme of "if an article offends people, Misplaced Pages should doubly have it". Now, you were not blocked for 3RR -- I don't know where that idea came from. You were blocked for clear disruption when it should not have been hard to work out what was reasonable behaviour. To call Sceptre's actions "abuse" is a major exaggeration of reality, though perhaps his actions could have benefited from further reflection. Sam Korn 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason the article was created multiple times is because the first time the closing admin requested a draft. I returned with a draft and created a second review so it may have looked like it had gone through a legitimate review and that I was reposting it out of frustration, but I wasn't. There is no policy that says that an article cannot be proposed for recreation on the grounds that it offends people. And why I mention the 3RR is that that is the only violation of policy which I technically violated. You cite me as having been disruptive yet fail to make clear any specific violation of policy on my part. And no, I don't believe that calling Sceptre's behavior anything less than abuse is merited. Reverting well intended edits as vandalism, acting as an admin when he isn't and removing notices of our dispute from WP:AN is clearly abuse.--Urban Rose 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also advised you against redoing it as it had already been rejected before. You seem determined to force the point on ED and this is undoubtedly disruptive. Look, you don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing - offering youtube as a reliable source for recreation of this article is never going to wash. I also advised you to read the last DRV understand why it failed and not bother unless you could address all the issues. You clearly didn't do this so let me be blunt. If you carry this on any more you will get blocked again because no-one wants to play. I'm not calling you a troll but your actions are undoubtedly trollish. Please stop before it escalates. Spartaz 12:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, being disruptive is itself against policy... Sam Korn 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV has been clear on this topic: a new draft must be written first. The article will not be undeleted or unsalted before that happens. Creating a second DRV right after the first was closed does seem rather disruptive, especially when you made a virtually identical argument. Scepter's reversions were not abusive. If you really want an ED article, write a new draft in your userspace before continuing. -- Kesh (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a revised draft. And in my second review, I listed a link to the draft. And also, Korn, you say that "being disruptive" is a violation of policy in itself. Define "being disruptive". That can mean basically anything you want it to. If you can name a specific policy I violated, I will accept it, but just saying that someone is "being disruptive" is not giving a straight answer.--Urban Rose 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a draft. It's a collection of links. As for behavior, check out WP:DISRUPT. -- Kesh (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not policy.--Urban Rose 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please call me "Sam", if you will.

Of course being disruptive is in and of itself against policy. It can be seen by anyone with a hint of common sense. It is not defined for precisely this reason -- that users who are being disruptive can be prevented from skirting round the edge of the rules and avoiding sanction. Sam Korn 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Use common sense isn't policy. Basically what you're saying then is that a user can justly be blocked for any action which an admin dislikes for any reason even if it is not a violation of policy on the grounds that it is "disruptive". And basically what you're saying is that the real reason I was blocked is for proposing the recreation of an article that some users find offensive. Blocks should only be handed out for clear, specific violations of policy, not for vague reasons such as "not using common since" or "disruption" in which no specific violation of policy is cited.--Urban Rose 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Use common sense" is just about the most important policy we have, even if Misplaced Pages:Use common sense doesn't have precisely the right tag at the top. No, you were blocked for the disruptive manner in which you advocated the recreation of that article. Blocks should be handed out with caution and only for good reason. This one was for very good reason, regardless of the behaviour of others or the absence of a description of your precise behaviour hidden in some obscure "policy page". Sam Korn 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then explain what about the manner in which I advocated the recreation of the article was disruptive. That I had already posted one and was posting it again? I've already told you, the reason I posted it a second time was because the first time I posted it, the closing admin requested a draft. I created a draft and posted it again, providing a link to the draft. If it had gone through a legitimate deletion review once and I was posting it again immediately after, that could have been disruptive, but the only reason it was closed the first time was because I didn't have a draft and I came back with one. So once again, no legitimate reason has been given for calling my behavior "disruptive" or saying that I didn't "use common sense".--Urban Rose 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No one's behaviour looks great in that edit history. If Urban Rose had an issue with a non-admin close of the DRV, she should have asked an admin to review it. Edit warring over the close was disruptive and I think a block was valid. That said, Sceptre was not justified in using rollback - Urban Rose was not vandalising the page. I agree that in this case, the rollback tool was used inappropriately. WjBscribe 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Urban Rose is being clearly disruptive and is borderline Wikistalking me (see her WR posts as 'Pussy Galore'). Why are we even having this conversation? Sceptre 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You revert my post on WP:AN and then wonder why were having this conversation? The posts I made to the deletion review could have been justly reverted as disruptive, but your reverting my posts on Misplaced Pages:AN was blatantly disruptive. And what ever I said about you on Misplaced Pages Review isn't stalking, how ever rude it may have been. And no, Sceptre, having tried to get the article Encyclopedia Dramatica recreated (something which I'll probably never do again) is not stalking either.--Urban Rose 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with WJBscribe here. I get the general feeling that these two users have had bad relations both on and off-wiki and now that has resulted in the two enduring a strained relation over the course of this DRV event. Some diffs that may be helpful are , etc. Saying that, Urban Rose seems to have reflected and repented on her actions here.Rudget (Help?) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: Users have both been warned That's nice and all, but how many times do we have to warn Sceptre to stop abusing rollback before it's taken away? I warned him twice in February, as did Sam Korn,, and Stifle warned him again in April.. Now, we've added Twinkle abuse to the mix, and we give another warning? - auburnpilot talk 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with AuburnPilot on this. Even if UrbanRose was being disruptive, there is no way Sceptre should have deleted the W:AN report which concerned his own actions. No excuse. JodyB _talk 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AP, stop being so restrictive over rollback. If this was an admin who did the rollback, people would say "never mind". Besides, rollback was justified in all three cases (it's allowed on BLPs, and it's standard response on Doctor Who episode lists - ask Edokter). As UR pointed out on several occasions, I did get 11,000 edits in March, 5000 of which are rollbacks. That's a good enough reason for me keeping rollback. Rollback is, and I quote someone on IRC, "undo on speed". Sceptre 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're not an admin. If you'd like to demonstrate admin-type authority, then please submit an RfA. Barring that, please ask for admin assistance when you need it. AuburnPilot is right. Kelly 18:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship is a technical switch, not a position of authority. Sceptre 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong, Sceptre. There is no exemption for use on BLP issues or a " Doctor Who episode clause". It is blatantly unacceptable for you to use it on edits that are anything other than vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that says rollback must not be used to get rid of anything but vandalism. It can be used for reverting any unconstructive edit. Sceptre 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{ec)That's precisely the thing I would expect a de-sysopped admin who wants the tools back to say. I still believe AuburnPilot is right. Kelly 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Voluntarily, mind. Ask your namesake. Sceptre 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the deadminship request was voluntary, but how did the requests for readminship go? Kelly 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that ArbCom had pretty much concluded that there is no encyclopedic value in having an article on ED, and that links to the site were not permitted under WP:EL (I think that was part of the BADSITES arbitration). Recreation of this particular article subject at any time is a pretty POINTy exercise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO did initially prohibit creating an ED article, but this was revised in March to say that it wasnot explicitly prohibited. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just woke up, but I'll put in my two cents. I did not abuse rollback. I saw a large deal reverted earlier, and I reverted it back. I honestly thought that Sceptre was an admin, so I reverted the text back to his version. After I did that, I recieved a harrassing email, and now there is a thread about me that basically pokes fun at my ways, name, and methods. I don't know why this even became a problem. Undeath (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Situation normal. Some people are absolutely intent on having an article on ED, and regard any resistance as inherently abusive, which was actually the problem in the first place since it was the work of admins removing an article with zero reliable sources that started them down the path of putting up attack pages. As far as I'm concerned this one can stay gone until Jimbo himself re-creates it. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And some people are absolutely intent that there never be an article on ED, and regard any resistance as inherently abusive. There's irrationality on both sides; you don't really help things by looking only at one side. In the words of the great Lisa Simpson on tonight's Simpsons episode, "There's drama and inspiration everywhere I look!" *Dan T.* (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have to admit that as I was reading this thread, I was getting more and more horrified, the more I read. I have no opinion either way on the re-creation of the Dramatica article, but Sceptre reverting another editor and accusing them of vandalism? Multiple times? Then when that editor complains at AN, Sceptre deletes their message? Sorry, I think Sceptre does a lot of other great things on Misplaced Pages, but he is way out of line on this one. Just a couple days ago I was looking into another Sceptre-related incident on ANI, where one of Sceptre's enemies, Pixelface, was blocked. My uninvolved view was that the block was inappropriate, because both Sceptre and the other editor were at fault, especially as Sceptre was going to Pixelface's talkpage while Pixelface was blocked, and telling him to "shut up". Don't get me wrong, I think that Sceptre is usually a fine editor and a great writer, but evidently when he gets angry, he thinks he has the right to "silence" people he disagrees with. This is compounded by him accusing them of "vandalism" or "trolling". But the final straw for me is that Sceptre felt that he could do this at AN as well, and delete someone's complaint about him. That's far past what's allowable. At a very minimum, Sceptre's rollback privileges should be removed. And if others felt that Sceptre should be blocked to stop this disruption, I would not oppose. Sceptre, read WP:VANDAL. You must stop referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Even when they're disruptive, they're still not vandalism. You have to learn the difference. --Elonka 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Given the above, Sceptre's access to rollback should probably be removed until he demonstrates better judgment regarding its use. Kelly 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have growing concerns about Sceptre's behavior in general. He seems to revel in kicking his enemies when they are down and is constantly condescending and hostile to anyone who has a different opinion about almost anything. He has a habit of going out of his way to escalate disputes. His inappropriate use of rollback is really just the beginning of my concerns. I regretfully believe that the rollback privilege should be removed as this user shows no indication of learning from past mistakes. I would urge Sceptre to consider more carefully his behavior in general and his approach toward other Wikipedians. --JayHenry (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't support the recreation of ED, but it doesn't mean that I therefore support any tactic of anyone opposed to an ED article, and my concerns are in no way limited to this situation. --JayHenry (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always found Sceptre to be perfectly decent. Has anyone tried talking to him? There's no doubt that Urban Rose has stepped well over the line with her attacks on Undead at Misplaced Pages Review. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, while I'm deeply appreciative of so much of the work that you do, I'm afraid that we have intractably different understandings of the word "decent" when it comes to Misplaced Pages conduct. I'd actually be really happy to have a polite dialog about that, but my previous observations suggest that this is a fairly unlikely scenario. At any rate, Auburnpilot did provide diffs of Sceptre being approached about this in the past, and his non-receptiveness to past approach is what's gotten us here today. I don't read Misplaced Pages Review, and so I'm unfamiliar with the particular events you're alluding to. My concern with Sceptre is hardly limited to this particular incident, so please do not read my comment as some sort of endorsement of attacks. I will reiterate that I don't support the recreation of ED, but it doesn't mean that I therefore support any tactic of anyone opposed to an ED article. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG2. When it comes to comes to judging user conduct, something is fundamentally broken with JzG's judgment. Kelly 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think ED's treatment of Sceptre should give him a LARGE dose of leeway where recreation of the ED article is concerned. Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised people are "horrified" when Sceptre made a valid rollback, and then when the editor in question continued to attempt insertion of DRVs and AN complaints to push for an ED article, Sceptre stopped what was clearly disruptive behavior. People seem to be looking for… well, drama. -- Kesh (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but please tell me where the hell the "valid" rollback was, because I don't see it. You never, ever use rollback on anything except obvious, simple vandalism. You provide a reason, and Sceptre provided no reason other than to tag Rose's edits as "vandalism" or treat them as rollback. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be a "ripened sock" of User:!!. Should be blocked immediately. </sarc> Kelly 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Only for obvious vandalism? yeah. I've seen non-admin rollback used for anything from vandalism to simple editing disputes all the time. There's zero control over rollback, and I don't see this as any more abusive than what goes on every day. -- Kesh (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the case of admins, we really can't do anything about that. The ArbCam issued a warning to not use it for other purposes other than vandalism. For mere rollbackers, however, we can revoke their tools. But it isn't cool to use it in that way. It isn't a "valid" use. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The minimum step to take with respect to Sceptre is for rollback to be removed. With respect to his attempted disruption of AN, I'm at a loss as to appropriate action--this goes to the core of the WP process. DGG (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←I think this conversation has centered a bit too much around use of rollback. Edits like this are simply unacceptable, no matter which editing function was used to perform them. I don't know about recreation of the article, and the reason stated by Urban Rose at AN may or may not have been valid. It really doesn't matter. You don't remove someone's complaint about yourself at AN, ever. It doesn't matter which tool was used, but if removing rollback from Sceptre's account is the best way to convey the message that what he did was wrong, then that's reason enough to do it. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Sceptre's abuse of the rollback function, and the concerns noted above, I have revoked his access. - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RickK would've loved you. Sceptre 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, I have a great deal of respect for you and your dedication to the project but I do think, like Equazcion, that reverting someone's comment about you at AN may have went a bit too far. I think maybe in future, given how you've been abused by the fine folk at ED, it might be a good thing to recuse yourself from matters involving ED or articles about it... there are plenty of uninvolved editors that can do what needs doing. You may want to, in general, consider slowing down and asking for advice if there is any doubt at all in your mind that something might be misconstrued, no matter how certain you are that you are right. For the record, for now, I think you might want to avoid use of rollback and Twinkle and other high speed mechanisms, even if rollback is restored to you at some point. I hope that advice is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)Can't say I'm at all surprised by this thread as I've had concerns about Sceptre's behaviour for a while now. I understand his attitude regarding ED and can cut him some slack for being snarky with that particular issue but it doesn't give him freerange to be abusive and snarky in general. Perhaps Sceptre should consider his personal feelings for ED a reason for staying out of ED issues and leaving it for others to deal with. However, using rollback to revert a users complaint about himself to AN is totally out there and abusive. I appreciate Sceptre's contribution to the project but I endorse removal of his rollback for now since it's clear that warnings from multiple admins have been ignored for months now. Sarah 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe it was a mistake to revert UR's post, but, seriously, anyone who is giving her clemency in this situation needs to get a sanity check - given her contributions to my talk page and the two ED DRVs in six hours (and her contributions to WR), I saw it as pure trolling. Even though today is the respective bank holiday, there's no reason to dance around the maypole and allow her to continue trolling. And AP seriously exaggerated the claims of abuse - in all the cases that have been brought up here, they were used to get rid of clear policy violations when warnings had not been heeded. Sceptre 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, if it makes you feel better to claim that I misrepresented the warnings that were given to you, or your clear abuse of rollback, then do what you wish. But I'm not the only admin who believes your rollback access needed to be removed, I'm not the only editor who has noticed your abuse, and I'm not the only one who has warned you. Simply read the posts above, from numerous people who stated they independently have had concerns regarding your behavior, prior to seeing this post. Again, do what makes you feel better, but don't drag me down with you. - auburnpilot talk 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And I explained them perfectly well. Sceptre 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

← If anyone wanted to close this discussion as archived I wouldn't object. The issue has been dealt with, Sceptre admits that he shouldn't have removed UR's post, and he knows where to go when he's ready to request rollback again. There's nothing more to discuss. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod. For the record I offered to restore Sceptre's rollback rights if he agrees to confine use of it to reversion of clear vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with that, if he would also put into his own words a definition of "clear vandalism" which matched with WP:VANDAL. Because currently Sceptre's definition of vandalism, seems to differ sharply from policy. --Elonka 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am noticing that Sceptre immediately re-requested rollback access, which was rapidly denied. For reference, the (denied and archived) discussion is here. I would also like to say that I continue to be disappointed with Sceptre's attitude on this. Sceptre, I strongly encourage you to work harder at listening to the good faith concerns that people have been expressing here. --Elonka 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration

I have blocked DOI bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours, and intend to propose a permanent ban pending a full policy discussion. The first problem is that it appears to be broken, resulting in edits like this, which broke the reference and left a mess, but more importantly because it is implementing a major policy change in the way Misplaced Pages makes web references, without large-scale community consensus and buy-in. (I'm aware that the bot received approval, but I don't believe that its full impact was understood.) That is not something a bot should be doing. Basically, the bot appears to be editing URLs in citation templates and replacing them with a DOI scheme that relies on an external private organization (doi.org). In some cases the URL is left alone, but a DOI is added, and what is rendered in the article is a DOI that if clicked on, will take the user to the link indirectly via the doi.org site.

This raises all sort of issues, and , among other things, violates WP:EL because it promotes an external organization (doi.org), and drives huge amounts of traffic to that site, by Wikpedia readers who think they are going to a particular cited source, and then are taken to doi.org. Regardless of the noble aims or promises of the organization, that is completely inappropriate. In addition, routing the traffic through a private site allows that site to collect the IP addresses and search terms of all the traffic, a very serious privacy and data collection issue. Furthermore, it is a single point of failure for potentially every online cited source in Misplaced Pages. If doi.org goes away in the future (lack of funding, lack of interest, squabbles, who knows what), Misplaced Pages would suffer immeasurable harm. If doi.org is taken over by a faction with different aims and values, Misplaced Pages would suffer immeasurable harm.

This is a very, very, very bad idea. --MCB (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WP:EL guideline applies here; it explicitly does not apply to inline citations (section 1, point 4, as of this writing). ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a permanent ban that prevents manual execution of the bot. DOIs are a useful tool that permanently identifies journal articles; they are now essentially universally used in the academic publishing industry. DOIs are much less likely than URLs to rot in time. To the extent that the bot adds DOIs to existing citations, it's a very useful tool for aiding in a process that I often do manually and that improves the permanence of references to academic sources.

I also like the behavior of removing the url parameter when (and only when) it is identical to the URL that the doi resolves to, although I can see the arguments against that action. It is something I do manually when I notice it. Removing non-identical URLs is certainly not a good idea and is not something the bot is designed to do, although it has bugs that sometimes do remove non-identical URLs.

However, the automatic, unsupervised running of this particular bot has had a number of troublesome bugs that may or may not be resolvable; I won't make a strong statement either way about (dis)allowing that. ASHill (talk | contribs) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This bot has been nothing but positive when it's come across my watchlist. DOI has very wide acceptance in online publishing. Removing these very useful links with the concern that it promotes an external organization seems akin to me of deleting CC images because they promote the Creative Commons. In other words, it's a widely accepted standard and we're basically just following best practice in using it. Thus I'd also be opposed to banning this bot, but agree that it's preferable to leave the previous url when adding a doi, and other improvements should of course be considered on a case-by-case basis. --JayHenry (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note about this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Discussion about DOI bot. It's certainly possible I'm totally wrong about the merits of DOI and, if so, these people will be able to set me straight. --JayHenry (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am very happy with the changes I've seen DOI bot make, and oppose permanently blocking it. The short explanation for DOIs is that (with rare exception) they are permanent links to the official repository of an academic paper, while URLs often point to copyvio sites and, even when they point to the publisher's official site, are often invalidated when the publisher changes their addressing scheme. I find DOIs very useful as a way to reliably access papers referenced here. Also note that some respected non-commercial academic societies such as the Association for Computing Machinery and the American Mathematical Society have extensive bibliographic databases in which DOIs are used for all external links to copies of papers; not only do they provide an example that I think we should follow, but the fact that they use them makes it easier to also use DOIs here when using those databases to research article content. I very strongly object to any suggestion that DOIs should be seen as violating WP:EL. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Most of the complaints I've seen with regard to this bot seem to involve the removal of URLs, something that doesn't seem to have been directly addressed in the original bot approval discussion. I think it might be a good idea to just disable that feature: the only disadvantage to doing so is that we'd sometimes end up with two links to the same page in one reference, while the advantages would include both the reduced likelihood of bot bugs as well as the retention of alternate resource identifiers in the unlikely event that the doi.org resolver service ever breaks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• It needs to be manual or more subtle or modified . DOIs are indeed the accepted academic standard, and not using them would be like not using ISBNs or OCLC. I would certainly support an automated bot adding them. However, since the doi goes to the publisher's usually subscription version, and there is often additionally a link to an acceptable convenience version that, pace David E, is generally not copyvio, but a author's version in a legitimate repository, etc., the link should not necessarily be removed. The only links that should be replaced by the doi are those going themselves to the publishers version. Otherwise, the doi should be added as an additional field. We need the doi as the reference standard to the official electronic version just as we have references to the printed version when available. But we do & should always give links to a legitimate free version in addition if we can find one. DGG (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the discussion above misunderstands some of my concern. To take some of the points individually:

1. I'm not sure what is meant by "manual execution of the bot". Bots are bots, and manual edits are manual edits. We don't consider Twinkle or AWB to be bots; they are software assists for manual edits that an individual editor is accountable for. I have no objection to people using a tool to add DOI or other information to citations, but those edits should be reported as by the individual editor; these are shown as edits by DOI bot, which implies it is running in an autonomous fashion.
2. There is no comparison with Creative Commons or GFDL or anything like that. Misplaced Pages does not rely on Creative Commons or its organization, it merely adopts its suggested language for a particular set of copyright licenses. If CC disappeared tomorrow, Misplaced Pages would be unaffected; the licenses would still be in force, and could continue to be used: there's no dependency on the organizaton or its web site. With DOI bot replacing URLs, however, if doi.org disappeared, there would be immediate, significant harm to Misplaced Pages. It makes us dependent not merely on the DOI scheme itself, but on the operation and maintenance of the DOI.org web site. Even if it has a short outage, all the munged URLs will be dead until it comes back up. Not a good policy.
3. Simply because an organization is nonprofit, or its aims are laudable, or it is well-respected or well liked, does not mean that its URL and web site should be added to thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. The effect, even if well meant, has the effect of promoting the organization and driving web traffic to it.
4. The privacy and data collection concerns have not been addressed. Are we willing to, in essence, send the IP address and subject matter of the reference of every Misplaced Pages user who dereferences a DOI-modified citation, without notice and consent, to a third party that is not under the control or scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation? Also, not a good policy, and deserving of exceptional scrutiny. --MCB (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The analogy to CC is that we do not store copies of their licenses (the legal text, I mean), but rely on their repository to both provide it and keep it stable over time. Likewise, every CC licensed image includes a http link the CC site and as far as I know no one has every suggested that this raises privacy or data collection fears. The answer to the rest of your points is simply yes, it is appropriate. The DOI system in an internationally maintained and recognized ISO standard that has become a fundemental standard across the scientific publishing industry. That standard relies ultimately on a single, distributed database accessed through dx.doi.org. In using the DOI system, you can't avoid dx.doi.org any more than one could effectively use the internet without using DNS. The usefulness of the DOI system outweighs your hypothetical risks. Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re point 1: This bot can either be told to run on an individual page by a user (manually) or set to run automatically on all articles that use Template:cite journal. Manual use implies that it's immediately supervised by the user who ran it, so that user implicitly takes responsibility for any inappropriate removal or URLs or other inappropriate action by the bot. (That responsibility could be made more explicit.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re point 4: There is at least one other DOI resolver (http://hdl.handle.net/) which we can switch the templates to use if dx.doi.org goes down or has (or in the future adopts) a troublesome privacy policy; because we're using templates to construct the URL to resolve the DOI, it's (comparatively) very easy to change all the DOI links on Misplaced Pages. ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More re point 4: The DOI system was designed by the publishing industry largely to serve as a universal means of linking to their papers, so if we're linking to the journals, it doesn't seem terribly different to link via DOIs. In fact, at least the Astrophysical Journal (chosen just because it's the journal I read most) uses DOIs resolved by dx.doi.org for links in references in its papers—even references to other Astrophysical Journal papers. Moreover, every external link on Misplaced Pages, including DOI links, has the external link symbol, which implies that the link points beyond the control of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Foundation; a concerned user can check the URL before clicking. The external link symbol seems like notice to me. ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit unclear on the scope of the privacy concern. Are you suggesting that a) all DOIs should be removed from Misplaced Pages, b) all DOI links should be removed from Misplaced Pages (keeping DOIs as text information only), c) only humans should add DOIs to citations, or d) something else? ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a DOI bot, but it shouldn't remove a URL just because the URL happens to resolve to the same resource as the DOI. It's fairly common to supply doi= for all citations, and to use url= as well for freely-readable papers. That way, a reader can easily see which papers can be read without a subscription. A bot that removes url= simply because it happens to resolve to the same location breaks this common style convention. This point is discussed in a bit more detail at User talk:Smith609 #DOI bot problem with issue=, pages=, date=. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides. It is a common convention, esp. on medical articles, to provide a direct URL only if the text is free. Removing that URL loses information, even if the DOI ends up at the same location. Colin° 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the above:

1. The "manual mode" of the bot is a bad idea, since it makes it completely unclear who made an edit, since the edit is recorded as having been made by the bot. An automated tool like this needs to make sure that the edit is recorded as having been made by the user who invoked it, with the edit summary noting the use of the tool. This is what is done with Twinkle and WP:AWB and is needed for accountability of both the user and the bot.
2. I'm surprised to learn that copies of the CC licenses are not kept on Misplaced Pages. That is unwise and should be remedied. The full text of the GFDL is kept on Misplaced Pages.
3. Supposedly the DOI bot is only dealing with actual journal citations to journals whose publishers are involved in the DOI project, but that is clearly not the case, and the bot indiscriminately edits all sorts of citation which happen to use {{cite journal}}. Besides the policy issue, the bot appears to be broken and I have changed the block to indefinite pending, at least, repairs. Consider these recent edits:

• Tiki Barber/Reader's Digest
• Frank Crisp/removed URL from The Spectator, munged citation
• broken citation
• broken citation
• broken citation ... in fact, I don't think the bot is working at all, looking at today's edits before it was blocked.

In addition to the other issues I raised, DOI URLs are totally opaque, and give no clue as to the actual host of the material, or whether the host matches the citation. We do not use "TinyURL" or "SnipURL" URLs in citations (or other services which redirect URLs and conceal the actual host server). There's no reason to encourage them in the case of doi.org; like TinyURL and SnipURL, we are depending on the security of an outside organization for the integrity of our references. --MCB (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Dedent) While I don't like the idea of the bot removing the URLs of sources, I am strongly oppesed to having an admin to block an approved bot because they don't like its purpose. The bot messed up an edit, but if it is approved and is performing tasks in the method descirbed in its approval-request then the bot should not be banned. It should be debugged and returned to service.

That said I don't like the idea of removing urls and I would have objected to this bots request. We can build cite tags (titles, publishers, dates) using an external database but don't build a Rosetta stone I have to look at every time I want to read a source. --Lemmey talk 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as blocking the bot - the bot is not doing what it was claimed to do in the approval process. The specification given in the approval was to add DOIs. It was not stated that it would remove URLs. User:DOI bot/bugs#Current issues Since it is making changes that it was not clear it was approved to make, stopping it until it can be fixed or pending approval of its extended changes seems appropriate. Zodon (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides. Axl (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

So, in order to try to come to some resolution in this, and balance the usefulness and wide acceptance of DOIs with the privacy, security, transparency, and data integrity issues for Misplaced Pages, I'd like to propose some changes to DOI bot that would have to be implemented before it is restored to operation (in addition to fixing the current problem with malformed citations).

1. The bot may only edit citations where the reference is to a publication included in the DOI system.
2. The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL.
3. The bot may add a DOI reference to a citation.
4. Ideally, the DOI should be rendered to display after the anchor text of the URL, with "DOI" as the link text, or (as with PDFs) a symbol indicating a DOI link.
5. If the bot is used as a tool in "manual mode", the resulting edit must be attributed to the user who invoked the bot, with an annotation like "(using DOItool)" or similar.

I think these answer some of the policy concerns while maintaining the usefulness of the tool. --MCB (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example how of #4 would look?--Lemmey talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would amend this to allow the bot to remove urls of the form (doi server)/doi (where doi server is dx.doi.org or doi.acm.org or another of a small list of known doi servers), since urls of this type do not provide any useful alternative to the doi, but to leave any other url in place. And your "Ideally, the DOI should be rendered" has nothing to do with the bot, is out of place in this proposal, and should be taken to Template talk:Cite journal and Template talk:Citation. I have no particular objection to your other points. In fact, I was under the impression that your other points were mostly how the bot was supposed to behave in the first place. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MCBs proposal. Also agree with David's modification (formatting should stay out of this, removal of URLs to known DOI servers is acceptable). JFW | T@lk 07:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck out #4 above, which, as David Eppstein and Jfdwolff note, is beyond the scope of this discussion. The intent is that where there is both a normal URL and a DOI link, the user would have the choice of which to follow, but that is an issue with template rendering, not with the bot. I'm unclear on "removal of URLs to known DOI servers"... does that mean the case where the only URL already in the citation is to a DOI server? --MCB (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Three points as the bot's operator:

1. The erroneous edits last night were a result of a faulty patch to address issues of "messiness" in the code; I got distracted for 30 minutes when I thought I'd fixed it, and when I returned to check the edits realised I hadn't. I thought I'd reverted all of the erroneous ones, and apologise for those I missed!
2. If there ever does prove to be a failure with dx.doi.org, the {{Doi}} template can be amended accordingly;
3. It's going to be about a week until I get time to fix the patch, so there's no need to rush to a verdict!

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point #1 seems overly restrictive, and redundant given the other points. Before going haywire, the bot was making good edits where it e.g. fixed PMID syntax () or filled in missing details even if it couldn't locate a DOI. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I could see adding PMIDs to the list of permissible citations to edit, since that's a similar system. What I was getting at was that the bot should not attempt to edit citations where there is no actual journal reference (even if the citation happens to use {{cite journal}}), and that that should be enforced in the software. You would think that might be redundant, but how else can edits like this or this be explained? The bot should not be editing citations like that, even if invoked manually by a user. So I would like to see that limitation in the software. --MCB (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you mean. Yes, the bot shouldn't try to reinsert citations it hasn't changed back into the document (even if this wouldn't make make any difference in the absence of bugs like the recent one). But that's more of an implementation detail, really, rather than a substantive restriction of the bot's scope. In any case, it should take at most two lines of code to fix. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to request some clarification of point #5: do you mean the bot should list the invoker's username in the edit summary, or do you actually mean it should make the edit using the invoking user's account? I was going to say the latter isn't possible (without extra software installed by the invoker), but having thought about it a bit more, I think it almost is: while MediaWiki will refuse to save an edit without a valid edit token, it should still be possible to provide a button the sends the user to a prefilled edit form (in either preview or diff mode), which they'd then have to save themselves. This would, in effect, completely separate the manual interface from the bot, except for them using the same DOI-finding backend. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the edit should be made using the invoker's account. That's how Twinkle and AWB work, as well as the "undo" functionality in MediaWiki. A prefilled edit form, as you mention, would be fine. If somehow that can't be done, listing the invoker's user name in the edit summary would be a bare minimum. --MCB (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing about TWINKLE and AWB is that they're not bots per se; they're programs, akin to user scripts, that everyone who wants to use must first install for themselves. You can't use them just by clicking a button (although, with the recent availability of TWINKLE as a gadget, it does get close). A closer parallel to DOIBot's manual mode, as currently implemented, would IMHO be what Sandbot does. But yes, the prefilled edit form trick could be a nice solution, assuming it actually works like I think it should. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal seems reasonable.

• I don't think that it should be allowed to remove URLs of the form noted by David. Removing these URLs might make the entry less usable by other tools, or by editors who were not familiar with the DOI system. There may be other tools that use URLs, but don't use DOIs. Also it means editors would be pushed towards using DOIs over URLS. (Most people working with the web knows how to use a URL, most people don't know off the top of their head how to resolve a DOI - e.g. you can't necessarily just copy it and toss it in another browser tab to see where it goes when you are in the middle of an edit.) In some cases there could be reasons why editors would prefer some DOI server over another, for instance to work around problems in the DOI system, etc.
• The item about removing or altering an existing URL might be softened a little. It might be reasonable to allow the DOI bot to do copyediting of URLs to known DOI servers. (i.e. if a URL to a doi server is misformed it might be permissable to correct it. But not change it so that it used a different DOI server, or change an item that doesn't use a DOI server to one that does.) If there are identical URLs it might be permissable for it to remove duplication. (However if this is too difficult to codify clearly, no objection to leaving it as proposed.) Zodon (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't mind a bot adding document identifiers, this is the only function for which DOI bot was approved, and the bot is going beyond that mandate. By not restricting itself to only adding document identifiers (and doing so without barfing), it has revoked its approval.

Further (slightly OT but addressing some of the points mentioned above), I recommend a consolidation of doi handing such that...

a) DOIs not turn the title into a link but instead appear just like ISBNs and OCLCs at the end of a citation.

b) that {{citation}} and {{cite yaddayadda}} not link to doi.org directly but instead use a template ala {{doi}} that could then generate links to one of the doi servers (pseudo-randomly, so WP would not appear to favoring one or the other).

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a principled reason why it's bad to turn the title into a link, in the case when a direct url is not also listed. "We send traffic to a commercial site and commercial = bad" isn't convincing. What is the rationale for making the DOI visible, rather than just hiding it and letting it work the way it's supposed to? However, I would support changing the templates to use an interwiki link ] instead of a direct URL, if someone else will undertake to do the template hackery and thorough testing needed to make this work. I'm less happy with {{doi}}, though, as it has complications with DOIs that have angle brackets in them — it needs to be given two differently-encoded versions of the DOI in that case (which is I believe why it still uses a direct URL instead of the DOI: interwiki). Possibly the same issue would make it difficult to program the templates to use the interwiki. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm... the subject is DOI bot, not linking or how DOIs are formatted. My previous comment (which you appear to have also misunderstood) was in response to earlier remarks and carries a plain-text OT warning. So, lets not take the OT to the point of not mentioning DOIBot at all, ok? -- Fullstop (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Back with bots, I've summarised a more comprehensive list of DOI bot's current capabilities at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DOI_bot_2. I would welcome constructive comments related to the tasks the bot would perform there, in the usual fashion. To summarise: the bot will add missing parameters to any instance of the cite journal template, where it can determine beyond reasonable doubt that the parameters are correct. This includes adding a URL parameter, since consensus here suggests that this will at worst cause no short-term harm. It will also remove duplicate (but not blank) parameters. Smith609 Talk 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan

Following a WP:AN thread a couple of months ago, DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) was placed on a topic ban on British Raj related articles. This followed a RFC and a a previous editing restriction confirmed here. On the last thread it was stated that the restriction would be reviewed in two months time, now. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion on whether the topic ban can be lifted, or should remain. Thanks. Leithp 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contribution history shows very little editing since the topic ban anyway, so lifting the topic ban shouldn't be troublesome - unless they return to the previous editing problems (in which case it is re-imposed longer/pernanently). I would point out that I was involved in some previous discussions - and may be included in some of the links, but haven't bothered clicking them - as a fairly neutral party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic ban could be lifted if DemolitionMan is willing to express willingness to follow policies and abide by any community restrictions. One of the links above suggests he never recognized the 1RR as actually applying to him. In the thread about the topic ban he does not seem to recognize any problems with his editing or any desire to cooperate in the future. For a recent nationalist POV edit on Kashmir see , for which his edit summary was 'rv vandalism.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And on the talkpage: I don't think that he's quite ready to acknowledge that changes in his editing are required. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

His response to the review is here. Leithp 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care if my ban is continued or lifted as I don't see myself editing articles on[REDACTED] except for correcting grammatical errors. I take "facts" expressed here with a pinch of salt and usually double check them in another resource now. The views expressed here are more subjective than objective and I think that is a humongous shame. To elaborate further on what I said to Leithp - I personally think that this board is a sham - despite there not being a consensus last time, the ban was upheld on basis of comments by POV pushers. And I think Leithp was the plaintiff, judge and jury last time around - he will be one this time too. The ingrained racism masquerading as political correctness is painfully obvious to me and I am not going to bother civilizing him or his cronies. Honestly, they are not worth my time and effort. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of local images already on Commons

Attention, all Admins.

When deleting an image, such as Commons:Image:Magdalen-cliffside.jpg (previously at Image:Magdalen-cliffside.jpg), with the reason CSD I8: Image exists on the Commons, please make sure that, when the source is given as the English Misplaced Pages, all the required information has been transferred to the Commons image. If not, please do not delete the local file until the Commons file has all the necessary information. This will prevent many cross-wiki headaches and ensure that many free images do not end up getting deleted because of poor image descriptions. (The example given is just an example of an image that was uploaded to the Commons from en.wp, not necessarily one missing required info.) Anrie (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Full instructions here. Make sure you RTM. :) GDonato (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, but some admins here seem not to, so I thought I'd mention it here again. Anrie (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

People should use WP:MTC it maintains all needed information and is very effective. β 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Community-imposed revert limitation?

Miyokan is currently blocked for 10 days. I suggest he post his comments on his talk page and someone can copy them over to here.

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This chap's an incorrigible revert-warrior, with eight blocks for edit-warring under these 2 different accounts, and a good deal more edit-warring in his contributions that he has not been blocked for. He can write ok content, but when it comes to disputes goes completely haywire in a manner both tendentious and disruptive. These disputes are usually related to recent Russian history and contemporary Russian politics, due to his intense Russian nationalist perspective. I suggest we, as a community, formally limit him to one revert per page per day for a period of a year, excepting obvious vandalism. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support generally in any cases like this. This is the best way to keep people that would or could otherwise be decent content editors from being totally booted. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Always better to try to reform than ban, so I support. MBisanz 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice to give this user some time to think about himself. This user has been doing the same thing on other articles and with other users. I have been watching him for some time now, so I think this should do some good. — NuclearVacuum 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Object - too strict. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support As a person's history of problems gets longer and longer, there is an expectation that something will be done. Proper enforcement of the policies may have a beneficial effect on a number of intractable disputes, especially those that involve strong national feelings. This revert limitation seems rather innocuous compared to blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds quite logical. Qst (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Why not hit them gently with the carrot, rather hard with a big stick? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems logical based on his constant conflicts, users that edit war over politics are usually the harder to convince otherwise. Carrots? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - A year is a bit much, and might as well be permanent. If this is to be a temporary injunction in an effort to teach a lesson (and it should be), it should be a month or two at most, for now. The user can then be blocked or the time period stepped-up if they still don't seem to be "getting it". Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concern that it would do more harm than good. I've interacted with user:Miyokan on South Ossetia where he was a very positive force in that article to add much needed neutrality. From what I can see from Turkey it looks like Miyokan was in the right however he did make more than three reverts in 24hrs. Eventhough he's not a new user he might not understand the whole dispute resolution process as it is complicated to figure out. I suggest someone explain the dispute resolution process to him and let him know how to deal with situations where he is right without repeated reverts. My concern with moving the electric fence to 1RR might just mean more frequent crossing of the electric fence. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution is not that hard to learn. He's had eight blocks in just under a year. That's enough time to get to grips with the rules. Moreschi (talk) (debate)
    • If the longest he's been blocked for is ten days, I would rather see more stepped blocking first, rather than resorting to this exotic sentencing idea. The logistical complication this creates just isn't worth it yet. In other words, I'd rather block someone for 2 weeks and then a month and then 2 months, rather than create a "special situation" for an entire year. Imposing 1RR on someone for a year is in a way a punishment for everyone else who has to uphold that restriction. Again it's not worth it yet. He hasn't had to sit through any substantially tough blocks yet, so let's see if one of those gets the message across first. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Plus: I think the point of the suggestion is to be more lenient with this user, but I think the method is somewhat misguided. I have a feeling that given the choice, he would rather take even a month block than have to walk on the eggshells of 1RR for an entire year. I know I would.Equazcion •✗/C • 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Unlike the longer block, 1RR is a good measure, because it exactly addresses the problem - RR warring. This does not prevent his positive involvement in the project if he can improve his style. And I think he can really improve a lot. I know him well. He can exercise self-restraint and discipline. Biophys (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Too strict. While I agree that he does seem to engage in a lot of edit warring, and that isn't the correct way to solve disputes, I know first hand that he is a good faith editor and puts a great deal of effort into his work. Put yourself in the shoes of a (proud) American trying to edit American/history/cold war related articles on the Russian[REDACTED] and I think you might have a better perspective of his situation. I don't think that just looking at a number (of blocks, reverts, whatever) and deciding a punishment based on that is appropriate in this case. I think this highlights one of the most obvious and inherent flaws of[REDACTED] policy as a whole, the fact that it alienates those without a western conformist point of view, and promotes the "friends backing friends" aspect of edit warring, which goes hand-in-hand and allows some people to get away with edit warring while not others. All I can see this resulting in is the eventual permanent block of a positive and well informed contributer. Krawndawg (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What "Russian shoes" and "western conformist point of view" are you talking about? I am a Russian user, and I edited a lot of political articles. I had absolutely no problems with "western bias" and with good Russian users. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but rules are the same for everyone. Let's not bring nationalist feelings here.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, this has nothing to do with nationalist feelings. I said point of view. Please pay more attention, I am discussing content not feelings. The fact that you contribute exclusively negative things about your country to[REDACTED] does not help your case that you "have no problem" with western bias (note, again, I didn't say anything about bias in my post, nor did I make any comments or inquiries directed at you to warrant such a reply.) Krawndawg (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Iantresman

Iantresman was indefinitely blocked after 5 hours' discussion at WP:CSN last July. The ArbCom declined to hear an appeal of the block. However, a syllogism:

• Major premise: A user is considered community banned as long as no uninvolved admin is willing to unblock them
• Minor premise: I am willing to unblock Iantresman (talk · contribs · count)
• Conclusion: Iantresman is not considered community banned.

As such, I propose to unblock Iantresman under the following conditions:

1. Iantresman is subject to a 1RR restriction on pseudoscience-related issues, which is to be considered broadly. He may make no more than one revert on any such page in any 24-hour period.
2. Iantresman's probation instituted at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation is reinstated until 2008-09-23, the remainder of the one-year period after deducting the time from that case until the indefinite block.
3. Iantresman is placed under the mentorship of Stifle (and two other users to be determined), who may, by unanimous agreement, terminate this arrangement and restore the indefinite block if it is determined that the arrangement is not working.

User:Coppertwig has agreed to be a second mentor; open to suggestions for a third.

Bearing in mind that the worst that can happen is that Iantresman restarts the conduct for which he was banned and is then reblocked indefinitely, I would hope that we can give him a chance to continue as normal member of the community. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• While the subject may no longer be considered ban, by the fact that you would unblock the editor, I suggest that you do not have consensus to perform that unblock. To unblock without consensus, or otherwise the agreement of the blocking admin, would be to Wheel War. Since consensus is required, I would support unblock as proposed by you on the basis that the third mentor should be a neutral third party - not familiar with the editor concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ian was a major edit warrior and all-around headache. Arbcom would have us believe "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work." If past experience is any guide at all, Iantresman's renewed participation will make that aspiration more difficult to achieve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly, but that experience is nearly a year ago. What is to say that he has not changed? If his behaviour simply carries on where he left off, then he simply gets reblocked. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I think you need to get consensus to overturn in order to unblock, if the last consensus was to ban. Seems like there has been a few admins of late that disregard this concept. Maybe I've been reading the banning policy wrong all this time, but I thought there was a difference between a community ban (brought about by discussion) and a de-facto ban (an indef block no one is willing to re-consider). The latter can be overturned by an admin willing to do it, but the former needs a new consensus of the community (or those willing to weigh in) to make a change in the status of the user. R. Baley (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) BTW, I oppose lifting it at this time. R. Baley (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I would object to Coppertwig being a mentor for any kind of contentious or aggressive editor as he already has shown an inability to control such difficult, abusive editors in his support of such an editor who took over the Che Guevara article during and subsequent to its FACR, an editor who still owns this article with Coppertwig's support. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We really need to update WP:BAN policy. I'm not casting any aspersions on this situation, but it's getting rather obvious that the definition of a ban as "something no other administrator would undo" has become completely unwieldy. There are what? 2,000? More? administrators on en.wp. Again, no aspersions on anyone in this thread, but getting 2,000 people to agree on ANYTHING is nigh-impossible, even the obvious. Therefore. this definition is one that is not completely clear and gets in the way of the functioning of a smooth-running encyclopedia. Ban appeals should be reviewed by ArbCom. If they decline to take up a ban appeal, then I say that is the final answer on the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am going to have to agree with Fozzie on this one. Iantresman has had two separate ArbCom appeals rejected. That says a great deal more about this case than I feel Stifle or Coppertwig will acknowledge. Clearly, this is an editor who has proven to be disruptive and has shown little hope of changing his ways. The articles he used to frequent are better since his absence. I know I am not an admin, but I am strongly against an unblock. Baegis (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am all for giving users a chance. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Iantresman is a rather good example of a civil POV pusher, who has long history of tendentious editing on Plasma Cosmology and related or similar articles (Eric Lerner, Redshift quantization etc). Some of his project-space contributions also suggests he views policy discussions as an extension of his promotion of pseudoscientific topics. I fail to see any how he as an editor or Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit from the proposed mentorship. Neither would a topic ban on science and scientists be a workable solution, as he has shown no interest in editing articles outside the domains of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Therefore, while he no longer can be considered banned, he should remain indefinitively blocked. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are going to take that approach, we need to ban everyone, and work out a way to only let back in the people where "Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit" if they were editing. That would not just include POV pushers, but also those who over-zealously guard particular areas and fail to work with other editors while doing this, with predictable consequences. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• The CSN discussion is archived at Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman. Remember that the community killed off CSN because it was frequently used by teams of partisan editors as a votes for banning exercise, often without waiting for uninvolved participants to comment. That discussion was flawed from the outset; we've since learned that the multiple editors the opening statement described him as disputing with were all sock-puppets of the same user. When we eliminate the opinions by the rational skepticism meatpuppet team, all of whom are involved editors, not uninvolved; we realize that there never was a consensus of uninvolved editors in the first place. I said in the more recent ArbComm case that they should accept the case because they could impose topic based restrictions more readily than the community could. However, I think Stifle's proposed 1RR restriction is good enough, and thus I support the unblocking on those conditions. GRBerry 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you name the specific editors in the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team" so the rest of us could take this information into account when reviewing the evidence? From the CSN discussion, presumably it includes User:DGG, User:JzG, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Tom harrison, User:SirFozzie, User:Durova, and myself, among others. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm quite interested to hear your response myself, GRBerry. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't forget User:Mangojuice, User:Shell Kinney, User:Starblind, User:WAS 4.250 and User:ElinorD. That's quite the team of meatpuppets - one might almost consider some of these editors uninvolved and experienced enough to have a meaningful opinion. In the meantime, the above perpetuates an incorrect though widely held belief about the fate of WP:CSN. While a number of editors expressed concern that it had degenerated into "votes for banning", it was not in fact "killed off by the community" on that basis. A reading of the actual MfD makes clear that it was explicitly closed as "keep, but merge role and functionality back into AN/I, at least temporarily" (not "delete"). MastCell  20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• No thanks. Iantresman's editing was tendentious and his debating style characterised by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. His main function on Misplaced Pages was to inflate fringe topics. As for GRBerry's "rational skeptic meatpuppet team", that is semantically equal to "community of editors who support the dominant scientific conesnsus" - known where I come from as WP:NPOV. We have absolutely no need to let Iantresman back in in order to address any kind of lack of balance in article space, his contributions were entirely to unbalance article space towards the fringe. The last thing we need is yet another endlessly insistent promoter of non-mainstream views, we've got at least two dozen too many of those already and far too few people with the patience and time to hold them back. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and even more, the members of the team have radically different ideas of the course to pursue towards this NPOV--cf. my comments on some of Raymond's suggestions--and in various degrees for any other pair you may choose. Of course, we could be a alternating circle of good & bad hands in some sort of complicated plot, presumably to destroy the very mention of pseudoscience at Misplaced Pages. DGG (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

shhh... they might catch on to us... Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm against unblocking User:Iantresman, though my opinion is presumably moot as I am apparently a meatpuppet. Stifle states: "The worst that can happen is that Iantresman restarts the conduct for which he was banned and is then reblocked indefinitely." Actually, the worst that can happen is that Iantresman once again consumes massive amounts of volunteer time in an attempt to bend Misplaced Pages to the purpose of promoting a specific minoritarian agenda, and efforts to deal with him result in another yearlong trail of wikilawyering and process wonkery. Among other highlights, this editor used a checkuser-confirmed sock to evade his block and disrupt an ArbCom case. I don't see much evidence that there's been a fundamental change of heart here, and there are plenty of users ahead of Iantresman in the queue for a fifth chance. MastCell  20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Iantresmen was given a scad of chances and guidance before the ban (me being one who tried to help him); I have no confidence that continued mentoring would produce a different result. At best, the mentoring he did get just allowed him to be more sneaky about his behavior instead of changing it -- that's just not something that inspires confidence in his ability to abide by community standards. He has a very clear POV and instead of avoiding those articles he felt very strongly about, he did his best to skew articles in favor of fringe science; his behavior was classic tendentious editing. The fact that he later socked to disrupt an ArbCom case on the same topic should be the final nail in the coffin. Shell 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• As I am not on the meatpuppet list, I presume that I have good standing and will comment here. Iantresman is a good example of a civil but agenda-driven editor. I don't propose that we keep him banned to make an example of him; instead, I propose that we keep him banned because doing so, in itself, is good for the project. It minimizes wasted time, reduces wikidrama, and keeps, at most, only a modicum of useful contributions from this site. On balance, this ban, at this point in time, still improves the project as a whole. Antelan 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• The argument that we can simply just play whack-a-mole with editors who have repeatedly been disruptive and detrimental to the project ignores the very important fact that to do so requires a concerted effort on the part of editors to police them and then mount the politically charged process of getting them banned again when they stray. In the meantime, they are fee to consume the time and energy of productive contributors — especially when, as in this case, they are accomplished Wikilawyers. Given the testimonials, above, I don't think we should be playing this game with this user. --Haemo (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the above consensus not to unblock Iantresman I am not going to continue with this proposal. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I'm On Base

I'm concerned that this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather user it as a MySpace. His contributions show that he spends all of his time in userspace, and none in mainspace. He has started giving a challenge on his userpage. When I asked him about this challenge, I made a point that instead of telling other users to edit an article as a part of a challenge, he should work on the article himself, and ask for help if he needed it. He responded by telling me he is not a good editor, and telling me to be bold and edit the article (which were my words in a comment to him). He has since blanked his page, but you can see my comments in his talk page history, and his comments on my talk page. He recently has had his IP blocked, and I believe been accused of sockpuppeting, I think. He also had an RfA, which he tried to re-open a few minutes ago, and opened an RfB for himself immediately after he tried to re-open the RfA. King iMatthew 2008 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: He added a fair-use image onto his userspace, and I removed it, explaining that a fair-use image is not allowed on a userpage, and twice he reverted. I gave him proof that it is not allowed, he asked me if I'd like help editing an article to "make up for it." I then politely said that I was fine, but he should edit the article he used for his challenge. A few minutes later, he changed his challenge from editing an article, to creating a "cool" userbox by Sunday. King iMatthew 2008 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Has this user done anything specifically against any policy or guideline? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The stated goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia; people who join but do not contribute meaningfully to this goal potentially take time away from those who do. A review of his edits will show that he has not contributed to this goal; so yes, he has been acting against established policy. Various editors like iMatthew have been encouraging him to contribute, because the alternative is to block the account indefinitely. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So should any actions be taken? King iMatthew 2008 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is getting worse. King iMatthew 2008 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IINAA, but I advise you, iMatthew, to let it be. I'm On Base is not yet making much of a contribution to the encyclopedia, but nor are his actions threatening it. Who knows; when he gets bored with his userpage navel-gazing, he might blossom into a useful editor. There's little except friction to be gained by continuing to keep him under the microscope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a pseudo-precedent for this: User:Nothing444, though Nothing was being a bit disruptive in addition to not contributing much to the encyclopedia. Nousernamesleft 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Could a previously uninvolved administrator review the discussion found here and close it out? Anyone taking the task may also wish to review the discussions found here and in the sections below it. Thanks!!! Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage:

I just added my name to the applicants' list there. I also noticed that User:Guerilla In Tha Mist did too more than a week ago, but no decision in either way has been yet made for him, while another user has already been approved. Since the page says If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN, I thought I'd do so. Just wanted to let you know. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A reply from someone really wouldn't hurt... --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Urgent

I need to speak with someone, anyone on email immediately. This is urgent.--Urban Rose 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How can we help you? Tiptoety 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just sent Ryan an email.--Urban Rose 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your email Urban. I've dealt with the issue and it was certainly a very important email. I've responded to you with further details. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikifun

Any complaints to marking this as historical? It hasn't had a substantive edit in nearly a year, and has had only 15 edits in more than two years. Plus, this doesn't exactly help the encyclopedia, and if it were created today would probably end up as a WP:SNOW delete at MfD, or at least a userfy. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it up on MfD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikifun. If that fails, then marking it as historical seems like a good idea. -- Kesh (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

After being notified that the article Pheo-Con‎ was put up for AFD, Jack Cain (talk · contribs) copied a pre-AFD version of the article into his userspace, which also included linkspam and WP:BLP violations that has been removed from the original article. Is this appropriate for Misplaced Pages, especially since he is preserving the original version of the article? --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, so go ahead and remove the violations ASAP. --Haemo (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's a GFDL violation, among things. You can't just do that. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I blanked it for now. It should be deleted really (the GFDL violation) and notified him of this thread. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that userspace was "open" for storing things like this. I don't see what the problem is. Jack Cain (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a GFDL thing - I've explained it on your talk page. Neıl ☎ 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the original author is now slamming me on a webforum for placing the article up for deletion. *smirk* I find it funny because he has to go so far out of his way to lie about me when my activity on Misplaced Pages doesn't even support any of his claims. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

removal of RfA comment

Since the community has repeatedly upheld Kurt Weber's right to comment in RfAs as he sees fit, I'd like to draw admin attention to the following: KojiDude (talk · contribs) had opposed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig like this.

Tiptoety (talk · contribs) first replied to KojiDude's oppose, and in turn supported the RfA here. He then went on to remove KojiDude's !vote instead, while Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) decided that the !vote and the entire conversation doesn't even belong.

Now back to Kurt Weber: Either, or. All, or none. Which is it gonna be? Dorftrottel (talk) 04:37, May 7, 2008

The user clearly stated that their !vote was a joke, and they were going to remove it in the future. It was in no way constructive and was disrespectful to the candidate. And as such I saw no harm in removing the !vote from the RfA. Tiptoety 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We've established many times that people are entitled to comment however they want but it's hard for me to get really upset over the removal of a joke vote. I wouldn't have removed it myself since we usually don't even remove sock votes unless they're extremely disruptive but rather just strike and indent them with a note explaining it was a sock for the closing crat. Unless they're really disruptive or violate policy, I think comments should be left and the closing crat can ignore it or weight it as they wish. But I find it rather ridiculous that people are even arguing over a joke vote; seriously, it seems like a pretty trivial thing to be bickering over. Sarah 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur the vote was tasteless and inappropriate. Humor is welcome at times, but not in the form of an oppose, which, quite frankly, was confusing and of course lead to an unnecessary clutter of commentary, hence why I choice to remove the conversation and place it within the discussion page. I did not simply delete it. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that I did not remove the !vote, but instead just striked it. I found it tasteless and inappropriate in that venue. No harm done, now lets move on? Tiptoety 05:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Kurt's opposes and Koji's is that Kurt makes his opposes in seriousness. I don't care either way if Koji's oppose stays or goes but I do know that it's definitely not worth opening an AN thread about. -- Naerii 05:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Naerii, Kurt is making a serious point, the joke is a poor one and disrespectful of the candidate. It was correctly removed. Dean B (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with this "all or nothing" wording. One is obviously made as a joke, and the other is a serious point. I strongly support the removal of the vote. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So I trust that we can all move on then. There seems to be general agreement that the analogy to Kurt's oppositions is wholly inaccurate. Shall someone mark this as resolved? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is worth opening an AN thread about, there are issues at RfA, this lack of decorum and respect for a serious process has continued on to RfB where jokes are entered among opposes, and I respectfully ask that Sarah analyze further and reconsider her position. There's a discussion on my talk page that barely touches the tip of the iceberg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are contradicting yourself with that statement, you feel that the issue should have been brought to AN, but you disagree with the reason it was brought here? You think that the removal of joke comments at RfA's are a good idea, but that is not why this thread was opened. The right place for this type of discussion would be at WT:RFA. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Tiptoety 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE

I don't know if this is a policy violation or not, but User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE has created more than 90 (and the list is growing) new articles in the 2 hours with only the content

'''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a ] in Bangkok, Thailand. ] {{thailand-stub}} {{museum-stub}} {{asia-struct-stub}}

see his contributions for more.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep that is quite normanl for User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE. Normally he does towns and villages though. There is usually a few people working around him to fill the rest. As far as the notability of museums is concerned it might be worth revisiting the articles in a couple of weeks. Agathoclea (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he's helping out The Museums Project with a giant backlog of articles that need creating and then we're expanding when we can to demonstrate notability. _{TravellingCari} 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

USER:Drstrangelove57

• Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, long time no see (ha). Several months ago (1 March 2008) I trimmed the excessively long plot summary at A Simple Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), per WP:PLOT, via one edit. Apparently the user mentioned above (Drstrangelove57) started edit warring and issuing personal attacks once this was done (I didn't pay much attention). I returned yesterday to find the excessive plot summary reinstated, which I again removed. I'm again on the receiving end of some nasty personal attacks. Some highlights:

• this guy is an unrepentant scumbag with an axe to grind
• thought that since you lobbied to have the detailed summary destroyed...
• This edit supported by this one.
• Rant.
• Another rant.
• Final rant.
• Rant & attack re: RFC
• ...some wiki-thug like Blaxthos, a proven subversive that only edits when it is in his own political or personal interests...
• Trashy!

Other really interesting stuff

• Changes others comments! Unbelievable.

This is long term and completely unacceptable. Any help is appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user about personal attacks, citing the two diffs from this past week in the warning. I concur that there is a long pattern of incivility here, but I don't think a block would prevent harm to the project at this point - it would be punitive, at least in the absence of further shenanigans. No comment on the content dispute regarding A Simple Plan, but more eyes there probably wouldn't be bad, either. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent further edit warring until the disputes can be settled amicably. Edit warring never solves any issue, especially when they are peppered with personal attacks and character assassinations. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected, now that user Drstrangelove57 has used his right to vanish. Fram (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried other forms of dispute resolution yet (e.g. a WP:RFC on User Conduct)? If not, I would suggest you look into them as they might help. Sasquatch t|c 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy by proxy, one editor counting as 2 for consensus?

I'm baffled by this, where User:Hiding has apparently named User:Kim Bruning as his voice in policy discussion, and claims Kim now counts twice (???). Is this even remotely allowed? So if 100 editors name me their proxy I can roll into an RFA or AFD and wield supreme power? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRX would appear to have been rejected, so no they shouldn't be doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this comment was intended to be taken seriously, so don't panic. — CharlotteWebb 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because Hiding says it, doesn't make it so. I doubt anyone trying to judge consensus on anything will take this into account, so it's meaningless, and therefor harmless. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca is speaking for me as well, so his comment counts twice. In fact, he is also speaking for my 100 abusive sockpuppets, so his comment has the power of 102. Since his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure, that makes his total score 1020. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an intriguing situation indeed. I'm going to have to think very carefully before I respond. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You think you have to think carefully before responding? You're only thinking for two; I'm evidently thinking for 1020 1021. The pressure, oh the pressure... Not that it isn't what I've always secretly wanted. --barneca (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd situation, yes, but it appears PRX and this idea have no popular support... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Does that mean that I'll now have to look up every page where e.g. User:Walton One commented and throw in a per Walton, only to have people tell me it's not a vote? Lame... Dorftrottel (ask) 16:14, May 7, 2008

• Seems silly to say, but Barneca has captured my thoughts perfectly on this so. . .(no need for me to repeat). This strikes me as kind of funny, am I allowed to have an "anti"-proxi? That is, suppose there's an editor with whom I usually disagree. . . everytime they comment somewhere, the "consensus talliers" could add in my minus 1 !vote. But then we might need some kind of board to keep track of all the proxies and anti-proxies. . .seems complicated. Well anyway, agree with Barneca. Bemusedly, R. Baley (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I delegated my proxy to you?
2. More interestingly, what would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I chose to have an ANTI-proxy to you? --barneca (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I would then file an RFAR against myself (then again, I did AFD an article I wrote once, giving myself a notification via Twinkle, and I MFD'd an AFD another time, so stranger things have happened...) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• <coughs>Kim is male. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then neither one of us would have to comment . . .no wait, that's not right. I know, we can make this all go away if one of us designates Kim as our anti-proxy, thus bringing her non-vote back to one -as if none of this had ever happened. :-) R. Baley (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest for others to be very careful as well. Hiding has put us all in a bit of an interesting situation with this declaration. If you just respond without thinking, you might find yourself shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not going to say more now, I'm really going to think about this for at least 24 hours. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering this viable, that your voice now carries Hiding's authority as well in discussions? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to just comment for Lawrence not to take this seriously as no admin or editor will in any discussion needing consensus. However, I'm confused as to what Kim Bruning wants us to be careful about. I am not in an "interesting situation" from Hidings actions, I don't know who else here is. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's your choice. :-) I'd like to point out that this comment was made (by someone ~in support of the consensus model) in a discussion on the topic of terminating the consensus model, which was originally started by 2 arbcom members. So things are a little twisted, and I'm going to keep thinking. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean Hiding is still thinking about it, thus negating his outright acceptance of it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, please don't hurt my brain further than it is already hurting. ^^;; The simple diff is torn out of a very very twisty context. Hiding could actually be saying the opposite of what they're saying... or something. Argh... <goes to get paracetamol > --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) things get twisted when people start to invoke the system they are attempting to overthrow ;-P OR I'm reading too much into it, and it's really just very simple. But... ok, I'm really going off to just think about this now and come up with a properly sane comment. Have a nice day!

Hiding can call leader till his... well, let's just say I agree with Barneca. Although I'm wondering if I gave an ANTI-proxy to Kim, would it cancel out Hiding's proxy? Screw it, WP:TINP. --Kbdank71 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could do that, but you would likely end up rejecting consensus. The discussion where this occurred is long and twisty. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so (theoretically), If I named Hiding as my proxy (which leads back to Kim), but also named Kbdank71 as my proxy, would I end time as we know it? : ) - jc37 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion is making my head hurt. Who's my proxy for that? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Kim B already took a dose of paracetamol for you...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why each of them still has half a headache. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good editors count for an infinite amount of people when they are correct. Bad editors are worthless. That is, consensus is defined by the strength of an argument, the quality, content, and context of the argument, not by the mere quantity of arguers. Only appeals to reason and evidence are sufficient for consensus. Appeals to popularity (often mistakenly referred to as "consensus"), tradition, bureaucracy, etc., are irrelevant. The fact that questions like this come up is silly. Lawrence sounds like he's accusing him of voting fraud. If Kim Bruning and Hiding are both hypothetically making the same bad argument, it doesn't really matter that they're both making that argument. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:81.134.13.35

For some reason which I can not understand (Despite my best communication efforts) to ask this user what I have done to upset them. They still persist in a personal hate campaign against me, he/she false warns me and constantly on a regular basis edits my userpage. Please help me sort out this matter its something that I am considering leaving Misplaced Pages because of. ] (] · ])☺ 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through every single one of the IP's edits and every single one of them is valid - including the two edits (not a "persistent campaign") to your userpage. — iridescent 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, every single post on their talkpage appears to be abusive and invalid warnings posted by yourself. — iridescent 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this in any great detail, and can't at this time, but just noting in passing that there may be more to this. It appears, for example, that the IP editor also edits as User:62.60.123.90. This could be a longer-running feud than would be readily apparent. As such, PMJ, I suggest supplying more information. --barneca (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:149.254.200.220. --barneca (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that last one might be confusing. I'm just looking at PMJ's user page history, and listing IP's that have been making the exact same changes to his user page for at least the last couple of months. They appear to have found one of PMJ's buttons, and keep pushing it. Maybe semi-protecting the user page is all that it will take to make PMJ happy? --barneca (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

149.254.200.220 at any rate appears to be either an open proxy or a public terminal - unless one user is really responsible for Tourism in Japan, Bristol Beaufighter‎, Pork and Beans (song) and Conundrum (Star Trek: the Next Generation). 62.60.123.90 traces back to a public terminal at a David Lloyd Leisure Centre. (Not to say the user in question isn't among those using these IPs.) — iridescent 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Next time I wont be bothering to take it here when will real editors be valued over vandals I dont know, but yes I would like the page protected if you would please. ] (] · ])☺ 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 2 months; if it restarts after that let me know & I'll make it indefinite. — iridescent 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Iredescent, appreciated. ] (] · ])☺ 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with wikipedia?

I really wasnt sure where to bring this up, so point me in the right direction if needs be. Is it me or has[REDACTED] become really slow in recent months? I often find that im not allowed to edit until the server catches up, pages an locked, the site is down etc. Is there something wrong or am i the only one having this problem, cheers. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. No idea why that is. Dorftrottel (ask) 18:04, May 7, 2008

It was just shut down for the last ten minutes or so. Pretty sure it wasn't just me because nothing on my watch list was edited in that time period. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That would've been due to an upgrade that caused a database failure. The general slowness I can't explain and wonder as well about. MBisanz 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Server just went down. Everything went nutso in #wikipedia-en. Nuts, I say! Bstone (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget this, I'm going back to Brittannica, who's with me? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I couldn't get any of my socks logged in. Er, I mean....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, i could never. ;-) , but seriously, its getting worse and worse. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been around long enough to remember the really bad days when the site would be down for hours at a time and error messages were common. Things have been pretty good these last 2 years or so. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, reference m:February_2005_server_crash and one in 2006 caused by hurricane activity. You think the channels were bad now, the overflow crashed freenode IIRC. Keegan 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I once 1 crashed teh Wiki for 45 seconds. Woot! Keegan 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2005 was bad? That year was far better than the ones before it -- have a look at this archived page for the days when the servers sucked so badly we were never sure if the servers were running. Yes, once all of the Wikimedia projects ran on 3 servers (one was broken, the other was unresponsive), & we hated it. Weren't no "good old days" in that regard. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And back in 1998, we wrote out Misplaced Pages in spiral notebooks with scratchy Rolling Riter pens, and whenever someone made a change we had to scratch it aaaaaalll out and start over. (And the only time we had to do THAT was when we weren't walking fourteen miles to work in three-foot of snow, uphill both ways--BAREFOOT.)Gladys J Cortez 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Luxury!! Orderinchaos 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to donate cash so we can buy more servers. :) -- Cat 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If wiki needs money then maybe we should start accepting advertisement offers lol. --Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 18:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, please don't start that thread again...(not that you have yourself, realist, just, OMG dont. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OOPS!!! ;-( Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New feature

Bug 13950 was fixed yesterday and rolled out to Wikimedia wikis. Now on Special:Blockip, there's a box to automatically watchlist the user/user_talk page of the person you're blocking. Just letting fellow admins know, in case there's any wondering what this new button does. ^demon 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Now I need to find someone to block....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No way! That had better be a double confirm plus a following "Are you quite certain?" button, as I patrol AIV and can block up to a dozen or more ip accounts per session. I really don't need my watchlist grow that fast! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While on the subject of Special:Blockip, just another reminder to admins: E-mail should not be disabled as a default. It should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. I'm seeing a growing number of admins doing this preemptively, so if we've changed our opinion on this, we need to change the policy. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. and LHvanU, it's a box to check, not defaulted to check. You have to manually check it if you in fact want to keep your eye on the user/talk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

but.. but.. but... it is a new button! It wants to be pressed. It needs it...LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I only do it when it's a named attack account, User:Redvers doesn't like kittens or the like, or when it's one of a run of socks attacking a single user or group of users. Or when it's Wayne Smith or Dereks1x. But otherwise, best to leave email on until proven otherwise. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Increase autoconfirm

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll (talk)

This is a discussion and poll for whether the requirements for autoconfirmation should be increased. - jc37 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User Peter Napkin Party

User:Peter Napkin Party's block should be reviewed. It was claimed that his account was a vandalism-only account and so was blocked indef. It is patently obvious that his account was NOT a vandalism only account as claimed by the blocking admin. In light of the constructive edits he brought to the project, it is my humble opinion that he should be reinstated into Misplaced Pages, his blocking time should be lowered to a week, and we should pat him on the back for all the good work he has done, especially the contributions concerning Mother of the Forest and my personal favorite author, Jim Haskins. Thank you for considering my input. Signed--A concerned and anonymous editor. 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me. . Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think an indef block is a bit extreme.I don't want it to be the case where we turn away a good editor because of this. The way I see it is: he could never edit[REDACTED] again, in which case everyone loses because Peter won't be able to enjoy the thrills of editing and other editors loose because they will not have the joys of collaborating with him, and all the world will loose because the insights and information he brings to the project will be no more.134.53.15.58 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History&diff=next&oldid=210871534 looks like someone fixing things up to me. 134.53.15.58 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fixing things up that he vandalized first. Corvus cornix_talk 21:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your complaint would be more valid if you weren't actually Peter Napkin Party yourself (but you are), and if you hadn't created 5 new sockpuppet accounts just before going on your little spree today (but you did). Your request, with suitable apologies and promises to never do it again, can be handled on your talk page (if you can remember which one to use). Thatcher 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh. I think the word "resolved" springs to mind here. Black Kite 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good one134.53.15.58 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You all should be prepared. 134.53.15.58 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • For what? Is that a threat? Should we notify the University of Miami that a user from there is violating their Internet use policies? Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Miami University (the one in Ohio, not in Florida). Deor (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I always get those backwards.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing location of edit button back to right hand side

I just wanted to drop a note of thanks to whomever changed the location of the edit button back to right hand side. It looks much better that way. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical glitches cause the edit button to appear on the left every once in a while. It's not intentional. —Remember the dot 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For advice: Putative anti-wikipedia-"porn" campaign probable

Admins may wish to be advised that the one Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues of the Concerned Women for America, a Biblically principled organization, is currently fulminating in the press at sexually explicit images on Misplaced Pages, and his press release has turned up on the Christian Newswire as "Misplaced Pages Peddles Porn to Kids".

You may want to anticipate some incoming flack from this - we've had a first inquiry on the reference desk this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, somebody nobody has ever heard of is attempting to use Misplaced Pages to generate free press for themselves then? Resolute 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement "Children will be exposed to this destructive material if you fail to protect them." sums it up pretty well. Of course, so does Raul's comment here. - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG think of the children if we don't BAN THIS EVIL FILTH it's a VICTORY FOR THE TERRORISTS</sarcasm>. We survived Daniel B & his chums, I assume we'll survive this. — iridescent 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it odd a man is in charge of making policy for a religious woman's group. Hypocrisy much? -Jéské 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and religion? Those have never crossed paths before, have they? Regardless, if mommy and daddy are going to use religion as an excuse to hide natural functions of humanity from their kids, better Misplaced Pages teaches them than most anything a google search would turn up, imo. Resolute 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A women's organisation founded by Christians as part of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Quite. — iridescent 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certian[REDACTED] articles stick to natural functions.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does google, heh. Resolute 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmp wikipedia.com again.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary, dont these people have jobs? Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's minds of their own they lack, not jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we prepare a statement with our site's disclaimer, a selection of family-friendly mirror sites, and some suggestions about parental control software. Durova 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any open source parental control software?Geni 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, when even WR thinks they're a pack of crackpots, I think we're probably safe (note to the badsites police - that link is permitted as it it's directly relevant to the topic and not to ED) — iridescent 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Foundation's job, not the community's. As for wikipedia.com..._sigh. Keegan 05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone show me where the "hundreds, if not thousands, of hardcore pornographic images and online sex videos" are available here or on Wikicommons for, ur, my research into this terrible obsenity? Seriously, haven't responses centred around WP:NOT#CENSORED been the standard response to these kind of campaigners in the past? Nick Dowling (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zee only video would be Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg. Only hardcore photos (we have a lot of softcore tends to pick a lot of copyvios mind) would be commons:Category:Pornographic film.Geni 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some fairly dubious photos here - anyone want to explain exactly how NudeSamStripper.jpg, Model in bondage.jpg or my all-time favourite ridiculous image (and Jimbo lookalike) Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg are encyclopaedic? (Warning; all three are NSFW!) — iridescent 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the first image, but the second & third are used to illustrate the article Hogtie bondage as any fule kno. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons isn't concerned with 'encyclopaedic value', it is a repository of free media. -- Naerii 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically "encyclopedic value", per se, but images on Commons do have to be potentially useful to current or future Wikimedia projects. Powers 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!, i mean , its all in artistic taste obviously. --Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was really conservative. Not that much, apparently. I don't think this will turn out to be anything big. I still think, however, that a parental control option would be good. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think it falls under the usual CENSORED argument, ive fallen victim to that thing a number of times, yet i respect it. Misplaced Pages is not censored, we shouldnt give in to the political/religious ideology of ANY group. It will be bad for the community, a lot of people are already tired of this sort of pushing.Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But not one[REDACTED] will support. Of course if some third party were to develop one we could hardly object.Geni 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They also say "With great power comes great responsibility." Good thing to keep in mind in case you get bitten by a radioactive spider. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a boilerplate message as outlined by Durova would be quite handy, both in this instance, and in the future, and to me personally. I know I, for one, would be interested in the location of family-friendly mirrors (if any exist) that I could feel comfortable sending my kids to. I seem to recall hearing about a CD version for school, I wonder if there's also an online version. No need to make fun of people who want to take advantage of the best online encyclopedia in the world, but don't want to expose themselves, or their kids, to images or subject matter they find objectionable. Delicately pointing out that they are responsible for what their kids see on line, not us, but giving them other options would be quite magnanimous of us, I think. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Online version of the Misplaced Pages for Schools CD at ]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you have a valid question - but I wonder why parental controls for pages aren't being used? After all, most of our images that are objectionable are on the body part and pornography articles. Setting parental controls to filter for certain key words would take care of many of these articles. --David Shankbone 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So a teenage boy couldn't read about testicles, but could read about testicular cancer? A teenage girl couldn't read about breasts, but would be able to read about breast cancer? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we also have something for article that link to hate sites aswell then? There are a number of articles that provide URL's to some very hateful places. Do we need something for that aswell? I find thinks like that more worrying than a few naked bodies. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

& if no family-friendly mirror sites exist, we should certainly encourage CWA or anyone else interested to create one. If someone wanted to create a 99% mirror that specifically left out the 1% or so sexual content, they could presumably filterg mainly on the basis of removing all articles that are in certain categories, then do some blacklisting and whitelisting to deal with the outliers. I think that would be a great project. I'm actually surprised that no large city school system (for example) has done this. Of course, knowing CWA, they have a lot of other objections Misplaced Pages & are just using this as a convenient stick to beat us with. But objecting to us containing reasonably neutral articles on socialism and the like wouldn't make as big a splash in the press. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In case no one's linked to this here yet: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Porn for prudes. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• *Ahem* *Cough* seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Following up on the above, I'm planning a blog post about family-friendly options. Some outreach and communication could help here. Really, a lot of the public doesn't fully understand how wikis operate and North American social conservatives are accustomed to asking for child-appropriate content at the provider level on a local or regional basis. We can't fulfill this type of request in the way they expect. Any unprotected page could get vandalized at any time, so it's possible that someone's eight-year-old could download an article about a Disney movie two seconds after someone replaced the content with obscenities. If we tried to prevent that from ever happening we'd stop being a wiki. What we can do is educate them about their other options. I welcome input from other Wikipedians about preparing this post and making it useful. Durova 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • After communication with Bastique, I have a list of images that one of the emails to OTRS has got. I, along with him and others, are going to sort thru the images and see what should stay and what should go. As for their location, many of the ones pointed out to OTRS exist on the Commons. Plus, porn to them is probably a lot broader definition than what we think. I found many pieces of historical art in the list of images to look at. User:Zscout370 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're aware that I'm an admin on Commons? Durova 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, but I do now. I am also a Commons admin, so I can help you. User:Zscout370 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't fly to well. We need something like a firefox plugin that can blacklist certian pages. I'm sure there would be wikipedians who would help in provideing blacklists.Geni 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, I'd like to point out that when I checked earlier today, we were getting anywhere between 1 and 5 emails per hour to OTRS about this. That's a significant amount (though not nearly what the height of the muhammad controversies were). ⇒SWATJester 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of such a campaign. I find it disgusting that there are Misplaced Pages users who will do things like crap on plates and then insist such images be used in articles. We don't need explicit stuff when a scholarly diagram or something similar can do the job just as well. Jtrainor (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all images in such articles can be done up in such a manner without confusing the picture. Any diagram of smegma, for example, is going to end up looking "moldy" and thus be confusing. And, indeed, there's been some concern about the image on the page currently (as well as some glacier-mo edit-warring over it), but unless we have a useful diagram (read: one that doesn't make the subject look like mildew, cum (pardons), or bread mold) then we can't remove the picture quite yet. -Jéské 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not see how poop on a plate would be worthwhile (I do not see any value in the stripper picture linked to above, either), I think that images that some people find objectionable have a place on Misplaced Pages. Most of the potentially objectionable images I have seen relate to medical topics, and you find graphic images all of the time in certain high-quality medical publications. Dermatology books and journals have some particularly delightful ones. ;-) In regards to diagrams/drawings, unfortunately, it can be hard to find one that can be used on Misplaced Pages legally. Also, as Jéské Couriano mentioned, it can be difficult for Wikipedians to create their own.

It's not poop on a plate, it's in a toilet, for pete's sake. Powers 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a drawing request page for articles for which a photo or drawing cannot be found. We already have photo requests, and this would allow those with the skill to create drawings know what topics need them. -- Kjkolb (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone complains just redirect their user page to Category:Bad images Jackaranga (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Kiddie Porn

At least one of the OTRS messages concerns children in pornographic images (full frontal, prepubescent, sexually provocative)which are posted here. Maybe we should reconsider our demand that anything goes. After all, if a child posts personal information on his talk page we delete and oversight it - but if they are nude it's acceptable? Doesn't make sense. -JodyB _talk 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kiddie Porn" images is a favourite meme of pro-censorship interests. Are the pictures intended as sexually provocative? If a picture of a naked child in a "natural pose" excites sexual desire in someone then it is the problem of that viewer, not the host of the picture, and the potential of the reaction of a small minority should not disallow the use of an image in an appropriate context. So, are examples of images of naked children acceptable? Within context, yes, as this is an encyclopedia that uses various media to illustrate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only think of two images of naked children - one is a child (and her father) in the naked bike ride article and the other is an album cover. Neither is porn. Viridae 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sexually provocative" is the key word (well, words). If we have any sexually provocative photos of nude children, that's undoubtedly against our policies and they should be deleted, rather than defended with the usual "no censorship here" rhetoric. But I doubt such images actually exist here currently -- people tend to just see nudity and recoil in terror. I know beans and all, but specific links to the photos people consider to be "sexually provocative" are in order in this case, if we are to discuss this productively. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it refers to the Scorpion's album cover, which the "World Net Daily" (whatever that is) is currently trying to publicise as much as it possibly can, see DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer - That's an interesting problem. It's provocative, but at the same time it's not merely a photo taken for that purpose, but a historical (artistic?) album cover from the '70s. This could really go either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its also not the only one. Srsly, and I speak this as a born-again Christian myself, these people are only out for self-aggrandizement and aren't really making these statements to "make the world better". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the famous re-imagining of Dejeuner sur l'herbe in the Bow wow wow article. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, those news sources have questionable intentions, but that doesn't mean we can't re-examine the issue for our own purposes. That first article does feature a provocative photo of a naked 10 year-old, whether or not some tabloid-esque news magazine is who's responsible for informing us of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to use the girl Virgin Killer picture? Since there is an alternate and the girl album cover is not the subject of the article or of any critical analysis...I'll be bold. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, when I said critical analysis, I meant that what was there already wasn't really enough to make a strong argument to keep the image. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why give in to a few hate-mongers on a fringe website? DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it anyway if I had known before. It was brought to my attention from this discussion. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose what you did. The album cover was controversial and having it in the article does help greatly with illustrating the controversy.-Wafulz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Feel free to revert. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wafulz that the image does help the article. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the image is in line with our policies -- but if it is, then it should probably stay, as the replacement image isn't just as good. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG CHILD PORN. WND is horribly sensationalist and they’ll put a spin on anything to rid the world of "liberal" values. I suggest we carry on with business as usual.-Wafulz (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An earlier removal of the image was reverted as vandalism, I think content issues such as this should be discussed on the article talk-page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already left a message on the talk page. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, that is the image I was referring to. It was simply a gratuitous image that was even dropped by the record company. I appreciate Seraphim's boldness. As one who has professionally with victims of child pornography I will not give space to those who seek to excuse it. As a parent of three young boys the image was horribly offensive. This is not merely a naked picture, but a deliberately provocative pic of a child. We should at least have some small standard of decency here. -JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's... a mass-market heavy metal album cover, of which no doubt tens of thousands (if not more) were produced. Everyone who owns this Scorpions album is a child pornographer now? Come on. World Net Daily is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist "news" (used very loosely) outlet pushing an extremist, anti-American censorship agenda. We should not be gratuitously publishing porn, because we're an encyclopedia, not a porn shop. But if the worst that WND can throw at us is "omg noes an ALBUM COVER," I'd say there's really not much to be concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be the appropriate point to mention that Balance was one of the biggest selling albums of the 1990s - is every record store on the planet distributing kiddy porn, too? — iridescent 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed these emails are fun to deal with. But we are not censored, and in this case in particular the image does help the article (IMO; note, it's been removed). The album isn't porn, and I'd be more worried about people who think it is than the image itself. – Mike.lifeguard |  15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the positions should be reversed, and the revised cover put at the top, changing the labels appropriately. DGG (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Mike.lifeguard and DGG on this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested, this is being discussed at the article's talk page. Come take part in the discussion there :). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a situation a couple of months ago where a minor was taking photos of his bits and uploading them here to articles such as "Puberty" and "Penis", and we dealt with it by speedying the photos and warning him. I'm not sure what came of it, but it seemed a thoroughly sensible approach. Orderinchaos 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty obvious "delete, no questions asked" issue. FCYTravis (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, World Net Daily is certainly right-wing, but it's not particularly Christian, unless "Christian" is just taken as code for "Moslems not welcome." This bit of moral panic is sheer opportunism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's interesting that they hired Matt Sanchez, former gay porn star as one of their correspondents, isn't it? --David Shankbone 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is up for ifd in today's log anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Modoufa

Odd case, here. It seems that I had advised him on a speedy deletion back in January. So had at least one other user. Well, he's back with the same text dump as before. No other edits I can see. Can someone take a look at what's going on? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It rather looks like he had hoped you had gone away, and wouldn't notice. I would tend to ignore it for now, hope that the editor becomes a useful contributor, and zap him the next time there is an attempt to recreate the article. I don't think warning them further is going to provide them with any more clue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article - Israel

Israel is today's featured article. I suggest folks watchlist this one, 'cuz it's gonna get slammed by vandalism. -- Kesh (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk about timing! <eleland/talkedits> 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been semiprotected by Maxim after only two edits. I strongly disagree with this. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, an article on the mainpage should only be protected in response to extreme vandalism and should never been done preemptively. Tiptoety 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, and no. This article cannot survive on the Main Page without semi-protection, and Maxim was 100% correct in re-adding the semi-protection, regardless of the amount of time and/or vandalism between Auburn's action and Maxim's. Articles like this one that are on indefinite protection simply would be pummeled beyond recognition were it not for the semi-protection. This kind of action would not be unprecedented; it was done last year, on July 1, when Islam was Today's Featured Article (and even with the semi-protection, there was disruption abound). I wholeheartedly object to the slavish adherence to a rule; leave the article semi-protected as it has never worked well, even off the Main Page, without it. Unprotecting it would be an invitation for disaster. -- tariqabjotu 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's semi-protect it overnight. No harm. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(As the one who created the don't-protect-FAs-on-the-mainpage policy) I agree 100% with Tariqabjotu - this is one of those articles that show never be un-semiprotected. Raul654 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is adequate - main page + discretionary sanctions = uh-oh. It's rather shocking that an article under such sanctions has remained an FA. Sceptre 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with semi-protection. I've never really gotten the use of NOPRO. We already have a bad reputation as a website where people can add any crap they want. Clicking on the featured article and having people's suspicions confirmed does nothing to help us. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having people click on the featured article only to see YOUR MOM SUCKS COCK! doesn't improve Misplaced Pages's reputation. Especially with an article that is such a vandalism magnet, semi-protection seems very appropriate. —Remember the dot 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it depends on article (say if a hockey FA I wrote gets on the Main Page it's not going to be vandalised too badly), but Israel is a special case, and if unprotected and not visible on the Main Page, it might last an hour. On the Main Page, there's simply no chance for it. Maxim_(talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support the sprotection. I usually avoid instating sprotection on the Main Page featured articles but Israel gets the same kind of barration as George W. Bush does. Doubt articles like these will ever be safe to open to anons.¤~Persian Poet Gal 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, may I have a volunteer to take the position of deciding which articles should and should not be protected as they appear on the main page? I've been move protecting them for a little while now, as it was a no thought task, but I don't wish to play these sorts of games. I will defer to somebody else from this point forward. They are currently protected up to the 14th, so if somebody will pick up after that point, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, to me, it's simply telling high-risk vandal targets apart. Like Israel. Maxim_(talk) 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But isn't any article on the mainpage a "high risk vandal target"? Tiptoety 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep - even the Hamersley, Western Australia article had to be semi'd at one point when it was TFA. Orderinchaos 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and not only that, it's the article that gives newcomers their first impression of what to expect in a Misplaced Pages article. —Remember the dot 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean it's even more of a risk even with the Main Page. Do we need even more of an incentive to see swastikas on the Main Page article? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember the dot has nailed it. It is about optimising the impression we give newcomers. Usually we do that by showing how wonderfully open we are, but sometimes we are better off displaying our ability to respond to abuse of that openness. Hesperian 01:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that any article under near-permanent semiprotection should be semi-protected when it's on the main page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaving this article open would be foolish. Resolute 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(To rememeber the dot): I think the benefits of protection Israel outwight the negatives. Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I especially agree with Hesperian's well-phrased comment. I would also say that it's more important to keep vandalism off the featured article of the day than it is to keep the featured article free and open during the time when it's the prime target for vandal attack. These articles already have to go through a brutal peer review process, so they shouldn't require much editing anyway. 24-hour semiprotection of one article a day isn't going to ruin our free-and-open philosophy. —Remember the dot 02:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

← Aaaaaand it's been unprotected by Thebainer. This is not going to end well... -- Kesh (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted Thebainer of this thread. Hopefully we can avoid a wheel war. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 has already re-protected it. Wheel goes round and round... This should really stay semi'ed at least through today, if not indef. -- Kesh (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm finding hard to understand is why this article was chosen to be on the main page if we knew prior to this that it was going to have to remain sprotected whilst up there. We have plenty of FAs to choose from, and there are already some that are unofficially never going to be on the main page, Israel should have been one of those. We should always choose article to go on the mainpage that can remain open so we at least give the impression to new editors our articles are very much open for anyone to edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To recognise the wonderful work of Tariqabjotu et. al. (I think those were the authors, sorry if I'm wrong!) to our community, and the world? I would like to be anyone-can-edit, but I think we can go one day without an album article on the main page in exchange for showcasing this brilliant work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dihydrogen monoxide. Editorofthewiki 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan makes a good point - Raul, perhaps in future we avoid FAs that are under permanent semi-protection on the main page? What do you think? It's not like we are short of featured articles. I'm still waiting for Edward Low to get on there. Neıl ☎ 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, we shouldn't avoid controversial FAs on the main page. I'd still love to get Waterboarding to FA, for example, some day, but Lord knows that will get hammered to holy hell as well if it were main paged. Ditto for any FA on any major American politician. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the Main Page featured article supposed to illustrate what's best about Misplaced Pages?

• Coverage of a controversial subject with quality writing and a neutral point of view?
• The encyclopedia anyone can edit?

If you restrict the main page to non-protected articles you won't be fulfilling the first objective. If you allow protected articles you're violating the last point and making the article look like it's locked down to a particular point of view. What's the harm of this article not having protection? Surely there are enough people watching it that any vandalism would be reverted in a heartbeat. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the current semi-edit-protection and sysop-move-protection. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And the wheel war continues...*sigh*¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified the admin in question of this discussion. --Bfigura 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And now re-protected by the same. --Bfigura 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! Sorry about the "wheel warring", I didn't realize this was a hot topic. I changed the article back to being protected since that seems to be what people want. I am surprised though. I've had two articles featured on the Main Page, both feminists, one a Jewish anarchist feminist. Obviously, they could both be considered "vandalism magnets", but I left them unprotected the entire time because that was the policy. If we're going to make exceptions to the policy, it should be rewritten. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but WP:IAR always works just as good ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While individual feminists might draw in some vandals, Israel is such a hot-topic worldwide that it's going to be vandalized on a nigh-continuous basis. I agree that typically the FA should not be protected until necessary, but this is one of those occasions it's inevitable that the lock will have to be put on. -- Kesh (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some software glitch at Misplaced Pages

There seems to be some glitch here. Otherwise I don't understand what happened with my talk page. A week ago, I made this edit to it (I stole a code from someone else a while ago.) The intention was to make my page display a message I saw fit to an occasion most prominently, but allow anyone to see the rest of the page by clicking on a "show" button, similarly to the hide-option in some templates. It worked exactly as intended but today it suddenly stopped working (I do not see the hide/show buttons in classic[REDACTED] interface at both my talk page and my userpage which was not edited ever since. Is it an unintended consequence of some software modification, code, glitch, etc.? If someone knows how to fix it, please feel free to do so at my userpage and talk directly. But I am not posting here to ask to fix my user and talk (I am not Jimbo or Giano to be entitled to do that :) ). I am posting in case this is indeed a glitch that needs to be fixed. --Irpen 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a show button that works. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is seemingly working for me, as well. Note that I use Firefox and the monobook skin. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Started to work again. Whatever caused it, the problem disappeared. Thanks, --Irpen 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, this would have been better placed at WP:VPT. Happy‑melon 08:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HeatherRoseF

Bad uploads. Someone should look at the rest of them & possibly delete and block. – Mike.lifeguard |  11:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryanleyland edit to Vagina

The above now indef blocked editor included a name and cellphone number (presumably their own) to the above article, as well as to Penis and Pornographic actor. I removed the edit from the histories of the last two by deleting and undeleting, but Vagina is too big has too many edits. Is this information serious enough to request Oversight, or is there any other way the info can be removed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. --bainer (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to re-protect penis, it got unprotected when restored. And I though the limit was supposed to be 5,000 edits now? - The log says 6,572 for that article. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the penis delete seemed to hang up a bit - and I was surprised to find I was undeleting 6500 plus edits. The vagina undelete request was rejected immediately, so perhaps there is some fine tuning required for the 5000+ delete barrier? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) ps. sorry about neglecting checking the protection log.

I would like to start a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica

As a new source has just been published which focuses on the site and only on the site: (see here). However, I am afraid to do so for several reasons. First, there have been three separate reviews started for the site in (I believe) the past week or so, and I am afraid that my review will be closed immediately for being "too soon after the last review" (though all of the recent reviews were closed immediately and did not go through). I will explain to the best of my knowledge why the recent reviews were closed. The first of the three was started by myself but was closed immediately because I did not have a draft of the article at the time. I returned with a draft and started a second review the same day which was closed immediately by an editor who was not an admin who cited "disruption" as the reason. My attempts to reopen the review resulted in me being blocked for "the disruptive way in which I advocated the recreation of that artice" (though what that way is has still yet to be explained) and the review was never reopened (Here is a link to the two reviews I am describing). The most recent review was started by an editor other than myself without my prior knowledge using my draft as the draft of the article, but it was closed immediately for three reasons (only one of them being valid): 1. Too soon since the last review (since the article had not undergone a serious deletion review, this should not have applied) 2. Nothing new has changed, and 3. Just, no. (Yes, that was one of the reasons given. Here is the link) The second of the two reasons was however valid, as while my version of the draft was an attempt to make User:Shii's draft more in line with the sources, it did not contain any new sources, so that was a legitimate reason to close the review. But now, I have a new source, and one which covers Encyclopedia Dramatica exclusively, and I would like to start a real deletion review with this new source in mind, but I am afraid that doing so will upset certain editors, result in an edit war, and possibly result in me being blocked for "disruption" again, so I am giving prior notice of my actions. And also, I know that many editors get tired of hearing this, as they honestly believe that this site doesn't deserve an article here, but please try to remain objective on this issue. The site is crass and gross and I don't blame anyone for not wanting there to be an article on it (though on the other hand, the more public exposure it gets, the more likely it will be pressured into toning is attacks and content down), but Misplaced Pages is not censored, and finding something crass does not justify it not having an article if it truly does merit it. I personally find Saddam Hussein (for lack of a better word) "crass", but that doesn't mean that I think his article should be deleted. If you truly believe that ED does not have sufficient media coverage to warrent an article, I respect that, but I also honestly believe that much of the uproar that centers around the idea of creating an article on ED comes from the fact that it is a very crass website (until recently, for example, the rationale for why the article is protected for recreation read "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreated. Ever."). So anyway, while I know that I am not required to do this, I would like to get prior approval before I start a new deletion review.--Urban Rose 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The link at the top says that the "article content does not exist". I don't think it's wise to go into a ED DRV with an essentially 404'd source. -Jéské 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the link. It should work now.--Urban Rose 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your substantive point, but you're probably not doing your cause any good by pushing it so hard, so repeatedly... you come off as rather obsessed (speaking as one prone to obsessive behavior myself, so I know it when I see it). *Dan T.* (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. there is actually an ongoing DRV for Encyclopedia Dramatica (yes, yet another one) but this one will seemingly not be WP:SNOWed. So this is kind of moot. Mangojuice 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility on the part of User:JzG

See this diff. In the diff he refers to User:Dtobias as a "troll" and tells him that he is "unwelcome here" and also completely removes a discussion I started on his talk page concerning his closure of an earlier ED deletion review. It's also worth noting that in his comments, he blatantly admits to closing the review simply because of a personal distaste of ED. In his closure summary, he cited "just, no" as one of the reasons (see Here. I've informed him of this thread and I'm even considering requesting that he be desysopped, not so much because of the personal attacks (he also stated that he did not trust me), but because he has blatantly admitted to misusing his authority as an admin.--Urban Rose 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly an intensely personal dispute going on among a group of editors, and threads are being started here (see above) and at AN/I to pursue this. Probably if anyone uninvoved were to get involved (not a desirable task, I know, akin perhaps to the morning cleaning of the elephant house at the zoo), it should be to instruct all concerned to cease and desist, and to steer well clear of one another. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed tangentially at ANI in the earlier thread by Atren. This is just mischief making. DanT is well able to look after himself and doesn't need UrbanRose to fight his battles. Spartaz 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More at WP:SPIDER. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as Spartaz says, this has already been discussed. If Dan doesn't want to be called a troll, he might perhaps try not trolling me. His sensitivity to the slightest hint of insult combined with his fierce determination to allow links to offsite attacks however vile speak to me of gross hypocrisy, but as I explained on ANI I find Dan to be irrational so that could just as easily explain the yawning disconnect in the standards he aplpies to others and those he insists are applied to him. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, see my comment above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't just post this thread because of what Guy said to DanT. I also posted this because of Guy's first ignoring my post entirely, second because of Guy's blatant admission that he closed the ED deletion review because he personally dislikes the site, and third saying that he trusted Sceptre but not me (totally uncalled for) and fourth, removing my post on his talkpage altogether. This was about far more than him just calling DanT a troll.--Urban Rose 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Undelete two images

See the discussion here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's abusing WP:TALK ?

Following a suggestion at WQA, User:John Carter posted a thread, asking for comments re opening one or two User conduct RfCs, at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls where the conduct occurred. One of the subjects, User:Sarvagnya, blanked the post with an edit comment indicating that JC was abusing the Talk page. Another editor User:Wikiality123 then restored the post and added a comment, effectively saying that it is relevant. Sarvagnya removed the thread again citing WP:TALK. I restored the thread and added my own opinion. An editor I've never seen before (User:KNM) then blanked the thread a third time.

Can anyone figure this out?

• Is it disruptive abusing WP:TALK to discuss user conduct on the Talk page of an article? What if the article is protected due to edit warring?
• Is it okay to delete another editor's Talk page post when it's not directly related to improving the article? What if it's related to disruption of that same page? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Talk pages are for article RFCs, not for user RFCs. There's a different process for that. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, John Carter wasn't attempting to host an RfC on the page, just discuss one with the various editors involved. I've added the diff above. All he said was "It has been suggested on the page for the extant wikiquette alert that user conduct RfCs be filed regarding the two parties named above. Comments?" So my question really comes down to: Is it inappropriate to announce or discuss an RfC on the article Talk page where the involved users are to be found? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My view (IINAA) is that it is in order to use an article talk page to discuss the possibility of a user RfC where the subject of the RfC has given rise to the RfC concern on that article. It is not in order - and clearly not in order - for such a discussion to be removed. Other editors may well question or disagree with the discussion, but have no mandate to remove the discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for Voped.com

I received an email from Voped.com today, requesting an opinion on a draft of a Misplaced Pages article they wrote themselves. I responded explaining COI and so forth. I also did a little searching and found this and this. Strangely this person says user:Jéské Couriano referred him to me, as a "dependable administrator". I have absolutely no experience with Jeske and I'm not an administrator. In case anyone wants to read it, I've included the email here via {{hidden}}. I'm reporting this here because frankly it's weird and interesting, and also because the website in question apparently just went live a week ago, so heads-up regarding promo material.

Attention Equazcion:

I would like to post a non-biased article about my company on our new Misplaced Pages page and would like to have a quick review of me article before I post it. I was referred to you by REAL NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED as a dependable administrator.

Thank you,

-David

Article:

voped.com (“vah-ped”) is a privately-funded project established in 2007 by a group of communications professionals based in the Washington, D.C. metro area. The voped.com website was officially launched on May 1, 2008.

voped is an combination of web applications and an online video sharing forum that are based on video opinions. The word ‘voped’ stems from the combination of video and opinion editorial (op-ed).

voped web applications allow for video responses to articles and other published online content. The web applications are a share button and a widget that is populated with single point content in relation to the source of an individual voped share button.

Video opinions can be submitted to voped directly on the website or through voped’s share button (referred to as the “v-button”). Both the share button and filmstrip widget are intended for use by third-party users..

The following web applications are available for news and media outlets and other online content providers to add to their website.

The “v-button”: voped’s share button appears at the end of articles and other online content so video opinions can be submitted in direct response to that particular content or news story.

The Filmstrip is a widget intended for news outlets, blogs, and content providers to embed on their website to display video opinions that were submitted from their website.

The voped.com website has four main tabs:

News Responses are video opinions submitted to voped.com using the voped share button in response to particular content or a news story.

Commentaries are video opinions submitted right through the voped.com website.

News Stand houses links to several media outlets.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Exempt enabled for administrators on user rights

WP:IPEXEMPT and bug fixed. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that details of how it should be granted, and what process is best, are still being finalized. There may be some changes during the first week. Please grant very cautiously and to a limited extent only for the first week, or until the policy beds in. FT2  00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the user rights management and saw another thing, what is accountcreator for? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The accountcreator permission allows for user accounts to bypass the arbitrary account creation limit designed to prevent mass account creations. Nakon 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a throttle put on non admins accounts to stop them making more than 6 new accounts a day, but this has been stopping users who help create accounts for new users. This removes that throttle. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, now I know. That's an area I've been far away from. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we approve users for either of those new rights? Tiptoety 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IP block exempt goes through the unblock mailing list. I'm guess ACC can just go on any admins talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need is some way to restrict accounts from preforming a certain number of page moves a day. Tiptoety 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need it now, but I'm thinking about doing some ACC work in the future...could a friendly passing admin give me accountcreator please? :) Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait..it looks like me and Ryan edit conflicted on it, he is actually the one that gave it to you. :D Tiptoety 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ryan (and Tip for trying!). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the ipblock-exempt user group also means that anonymizing proxies should be exclusively hard blocked now (which is more or less already currently done), as all constructive uses of such proxies should be channeled into IP block exemption. Gracenotes § 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the idea behind this to allow trusted non-admin users to edit from otherwise blocked IPs, such as Tor? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tiptoety 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, though, we should strongly discourage ipb-exempt users from using Tor specifically - its widely distributed nature has the disadvantage of making disproving checkuser investigations less easy, as well as making it possible for a rogue node op (of which there are plenty) to hijack your account if you don't go through the HTTPS gateway. Better to go through one of the many more reputable HTTP-based proxies if at all possible. krimpet✽ 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of official statement from ArbCom on TOR and GWA, just so we know exactly where we stand - Alison 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent news for checkusers, too. Note that ArbCom have already granted the first two exemptions to User:Exxolon (the first ever) and User:Deltasquared. This option really makes my day!! - Alison 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats kind of cool. How does this benefit Checkusers, Alison? Also, we should put up a list of "recommended" proxies for these users, as well as some kind of something (WP: page) explaining "why" this is good for everyone/checkusers and what purpose it serves. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when applying hard rangeblocks, there's nothing more annoying than knowing that one or two editors will be caught as "collateral damage". Admins are normally blind to that, but range checking on checkuser shows it up. The two examples above are as a result of the "thousands of socks" vandal and were caught in the hardblock - Alison 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Something very wrong with Eucharist

If anyone knows how to fix the image and remove the vandalism commentary at the top of the page, please feel free to do so. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. Nakon 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was still seeing it 12 minutes after the edit, but you're right. I got no clue how the changes weren't visible to me earlier, but it looks like the matter is resolved. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Same, it took a while for the serve to catch up or something. Tiptoety 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Accountcreator usergroup enabled

Just a notice, further input on how/when of assigning, etc would be welcome here. SQL 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Serafin, or not Serafin - that is the question

The article Nicolaus Copernicus has a long-standing problem with endless socks of User:Serafin. Usually, they are easy enough to spot. However, there's been an edit today that could be him, but might not. User:Shpakovich, who started editing in early April, made a "Copernius is Polish"-type edit earlier today. While this editor differs from the ususal pattern in that the account has other edits, some aspects of it seem suspicious - specifically:

• The edit comment "Ok nationality i wont enter, but his Polish ethnicity should be mentioned", which reads as a continuation of the two socks that tried to make changes earlier. (Shpakovich has also never edited the article before.)
• The comment on User talk:Shpakovich from early April, where the editor admitted to having been blocked and also to having socks that were blocked without stating outright who he/she was.)

Does this warrant a checkuser? --Ckatz_spy 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New BAG candidacy

This is a note that I have nominated myself for BAG. You can find the nomination, and voice your opinion, at Misplaced Pages talk:Bot Approvals Group#RFBAG: dihydrogen monoxide.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards