Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 9 August 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:SmashTheState

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• ...and now SmashTheState has been unblocked. I won't wheel-war but strongly suggest an immediate reblock for his massive and flagrant WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations that he shows no signs of stopping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The unblocking admin -- User:WereSpielChequers -- has now reblocked, an action I endorse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• SmashTheState has never been anything other than a deeply tiresome agenda editor. Whether the puppetry was sock or meat is immaterial, the WP:DUCK can be heard from another continent. We do not need this person. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass spamming from multiple socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note mass spamming from LauraBrad (talk · contribs) as well as MaryBroady (talk · contribs) and however many others. May need help with this one. -- œ 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From MaryBroady) - Apologies, I was not trying to spam. I was adding reference links to a new Diocese Calendar for Catholic Diocese pages, which I thought was an appropriate link for their WIKI pages. I am very sorry for the confusion. --MaryBroady (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything appears to be rolled back. What do you still need help with?--Chaser (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought there might be more than a few socks/meatpuppets here but it seems I've overreacted. Everything's rolled back, user has been informed, nothing too extensive to be fixed. -- œ 04:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From LauraBrad)Diocese Calendar References

Apologies, we are not trying to spam. Every Catholic diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on xt3.com If someone is looking for Catholic events happening in their diocese this is where they can find more information and upload their own events happening at their parishes within their diocese. There must be an appropriate place for this information? This is useful for all Catholics in that diocese also please note that all the diocese links are different and specific we are not just copying and pasting information --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions i would say you are not correct. You have clearly been adding links to a calander trying to promote it. In That case, I propose a temporary block.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses, if they wish to do so online, is from the respective diocesan websites. There's nothing wrong with you creating a commercial central website for this - although it's farcical to imagine you could possibly keep up with the doings of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis - but you cannot promote it on Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 05:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravenswing, The central website is called xt3.com (however it is not commercial) it has been created for WYD 2008 by a team of English and Australian Catholics and overseen by an Australian diocese. It was created as a service to all dioceses in the world. Every diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on the site. Therefore a link to the specific diocese calendar on[REDACTED] is a useful reference for all dioceses in the world. The diocese calendars are user generated therefore priests, youth ministers, etc can upload their local events on the diocese calendar therefore it is not "farcical to imagine keeping up with the events of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis." (you could say the same thing about wikipedia) Your comment that "The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses is on the respective diocesan websites." is problematic as many dioceses do not have websites, especially in rural Australia and African countries that is why we wanted to reference their diocese calendar and homepage on xt3.com on wikipedia. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the url for the Sydney Archdiocese event calendar on xt3.com http://www.xt3.com/diocese/calendar.php?dioceseId=19 it is widely used by catholic agencies and parishioners in Sydney Archdiocese, this would surely be of interest to anyone in that diocese who search for the diocese on Misplaced Pages?? --LauraBrad (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Laura, adding the link to a number of articles is problematic due to the rules on spamming. While it might not be "commercial" in the traditional sense, it isn't a scholarly source, but instead a blog of information for a particular organization, hence commercial in respect to our policies (ie: it is promoting itself). If there is an article on that diocese, then the link would be appropriate as a primary link, but not likely in other articles. Keep in mind the goal is to verify facts, as we are an encyclopedia, and not to just create a list of links. To everyone else here, biting isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'll add that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only and exclusively an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages articles include "encyclopedic" stuff like date of creation of the dioceses, historical buildings owned by the dioceses, and other items of what is known as "knowledge". What you want to add is not knowledge, it's information. Misplaced Pages is a compilation of knowledge, not a compilation of information. And Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links, either. Adding links to multiple pages is frowned upon, unless your website has valuable encyclopedic knowledge that is difficult to obtain from sources like books and journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. We always add an EL to the official home page of an organization. We would for a school district--we should for a diocese. If these pages are being prepared or coordinated by a central agency, I do not see how it is wrong to use them. I think from what Laura says they have semi-official status. This assumes, of course, that the link goes directly to the appropriate page for the particular diocese=, not to a general site from which one can search for the particular diocese. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see adding these ELs as terribly problematic, but I think in an encyclopedia it would be more appropriate to link to the diocesan homepages on xt3 than to their event calendars – which are easily reached from the homepages. For example, for the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia, that would be www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19.  --Lambiam 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lambiam I agree and would be happy to edit selected diocese as such. --LauraBrad (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments DG. and to re-emphasise xt3.com does have official status in the Catholic community Rome Reports even did a story on the site http://www.romereports.com/palio/modules.php?name=News&file=article&newlang=english&sid=1386/ we webcast global Catholic events such as World Youth Day and canonization of saints such as Mary MacKillop we are run by the Sydney Archdiocese in Australia, it is not a freelance website it is official as it is under the Archdiocese authority and is a central website for the service of all Catholic diocese in the world. Many diocese turn to the trusted calendars and homepages on xt3 as they don't have the resources to keep up a diocese website themselves therefore not providing an EL to a calendar for their specific diocese could leave them with the impression their diocese is a ghost on the internet apart from the historical dates and facts on Misplaced Pages. This EL link can alert them to the events happening in their diocese. I can see your point that this could be seen as information and not knowledge but why would a person go to a diocese[REDACTED] page? They may be seeking knowledge about events in the diocese. There must be an appropriate place to direct people to the fact that their diocese whether its Sydney Australia or Aachen Germany, has a homepage and an events calendar on a central Catholic website? Where can this information be added that would fit the vision of[REDACTED] and not be censored?

Furthermore the diocese event calendars and their homepages were created to be a support to all dioceses in the world especially those in rural areas who do not have websites. Every time I edited the information on a diocese wall on Wiki I provided an EL that linked to the specific diocese event calendar (not a general one) and I never mentioned xt3.com therefore I believed I was abiding by the self promotion rules of[REDACTED] for example when editing the Diocese of Aachen website I linked to the diocese of Aachen events calendar on xt3.com not to a general calendar and I took great care in doing so. So I was surprised that half a day's work was removed. I thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your response. --LauraBrad (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not believe you are promoting the xt3.com website with what you added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen? You linked to instructions on how someone could integrate the calendar into their website and even to a page where they could find other dioceses that had already done so. To me that tells me you are promoting the website. You should read the guideline on external links. GB fan 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the links to the instructions are the problem then I will leave them out and only link to the specific diocese calendar. Would this be acceptable? --LauraBrad (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only problem. The links are not any help to an encyclopedia article. They are something that belongs on a website for the diocese and the Misplaced Pages articles are not webpages for the dioceses. Did you read our guideline on exteral links? GB fan 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closing admin's comment: Laura and Mary, I'm sure your edits were made in good faith in possible ignorance of the policies and guidelines. Please take note of admin advice by Dennis, DGG, and GB fan, and also take a moment to familiarise yourselves with Using Multiple Accounts (in case it's appropriate) and Conflict of Interest before making any more edits to the encyclopedia. I'm closing this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you for referring me to this link. I have read it and what I gather from reading this is that links to the diocese homepage on xt3.com should be as an EL External Link) rather than placed in the body of the article (which was the mistake I made originally) I have read what needs to be considered when adding an external link to an article and I believe the EL to the diocese homepage does fill Misplaced Pages’s criteria see below • Is the site content accessible to the reader? Yes xt3 is accessible to anyone • Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes it would be useful to someone in the Archdiocese of Sydney to know there is a homepage and an event calendar for their diocese. • Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? Yes. Therefore if this is ok I will add EL to Diocese Pages on Misplaced Pages in the appropriate section. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)--LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• • We get so much spam, we sometimes get a bit trigger happy here as well, so hopefully we didn't bite down too hard. If you have any issues or concerns with the links in the future, just drop a note on my talk page and I will try to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor continued to add links, and I have reverted these edits. These pages do not provide more information about the diocese itself, it is providing information about possible activities. That is not the function of Misplaced Pages. If you want information about the diocese, you go to Misplaced Pages, if you want to know what they are up to, you go to their homepage (or you use Google to find thát information). --Dirk Beetstra 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked all of them, but noted some already had primary links. In the event that one of the diocese didn't have a primary link, ie: no website of their own, then this would be acceptable as the primary link since it is under the control over the organization (as not to be too bureaucratic here), but I tend to agree that as a second primary link, it is likely not within WP:EL. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I did not check all additions, but the first three (i.e., the last three edits) link to a page on xt3 which gives as information:

Welcome to the Xt3 homepage of your diocese - this is where you can check out your local events, groups and projects (those that give their location as this diocese will automatically show up here), and connect with others in your area.

The diocese homepage is a fantastic place to stay in touch with members of your diocese on Xt3. The coordinator of the page is able to update all the information on it and contact everyone in the diocese via a private message. This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative. If you work for your diocese and would like to become involved in maintaining the page, please do contact us through the feedback form.

In the meantime, please post messages on the discussion board and add your photos...

()

In other words, no information.

I'll assume good faith, and that other pages will have more, but I start to be afraid that these pages are then for those dioceses which do have an own webpage already, and that the information on xt3 is mainly copying that information, or just some general chit-chat without additional information (see number 4:

Howdy Y'all - Welcome to the Rockhampton Diocese Homepage.

Stef your friendly WYD Coordinator has now transformed into your friendly (but only on Friday's) Youth Ministry Coordinator for the Diocese.

Let's get connected and stay in touch.

Commit to check out this XT3.com page at least once a week and update us with what's on in your area. Feel free to post messages, add your photos, create a group or two (remember to put Rockhampton as the location so it appears automatically on this site) and generally keep each other informed.

If there is something special that you woudl like to see hear for the Rocky pages then please let me know!!!!

Looking forward to getting connected. Cheers from your friendly Youth Ministry Coordinator Stef Lloyd :-)

Official URL: www.rok.catholic.net.au

()

which still fails our inclusion standards completely). If, if there are pages which do give really more information worthy of inclusion (though that may actually be included into the wikitext content) then individual editors can add such a link, but we do not need to spam that link onto every Diocese wikipage, as most (if not all) of them simply fail. --Dirk Beetstra 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is about time I put in a word here. I was not commenting earlier as I am regular contributer of content on several other pages (which have nothing to do with this matter being discussed) - I was worried that I could have my account suspended. But I do need to clarify that I am not the same person as LauraBrad as someone has claimed. That aside, I just want to mention that Laura and I decided to add these links as we found the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites. But they are visiting Misplaced Pages, and they are also visiting Xt3. Therefore it made sense for us to add a link to the Xt3 Event Calendar and Diocese pages as an alternate source of information about a particular diocese on its Misplaced Pages page. It is simply another resource adding to the pool of knowledge about the Diocese. We have to get with the times - young people are going to visit a website that is based on Web 2.0 and encourages user-generated content, as opposed to a static Diocese webpage. This is why the links that we added are a positive contribution to the relevant Wiki pages. --MaryBroady (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Dirk Beetstra I understand your original concern however I would ask you to reconsider your response to remove *the EL. These external links are not inappropriate Xt3.com is a recognised and respected official Catholic website in *the catholic world community and the specific diocese link to that diocese homepage is indeed relevant and adds useful *information to a person interested in their diocese, the aim was not to alter search engine rankings but to direct *people to the semi-official diocese homepage. I have already had a discussion about this in the administrators page and *2 people agreed that this was acceptable to add in the External links section (not in the body of the article which was *MaryBroady and my mistake originally.) There seems to be some question here amongst administrators to these inclusions, *so who has the final decision here? I can see that this is an unusual situation for[REDACTED] and that multiple *external links are frowned upon however it is an unusual case that I believe needs to be discussed further --*LauraBrad (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1) You appear to be going through the Misplaced Pages categories on RC dioceses and creating clone pages on Xt3 for them. At least once this has been in error: Diocese of Aberdeen is the WP historical article on the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, yet there is the cloned Xt3 link.

2) Most of the Misplaced Pages articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage. Social events do not fall under WP purview. If the official site hosts a link to the Xt3 sites, that is their choice.

3) Since there are already church-supported homepages for many of these dioceses, the addition of Xt3 links feels more like linking to a social network. The fact that "the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites" is not a problem that can or should be fixed by networking links on WP. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

*Dear UTC what are clone pages?

• To me a clone pages suggest content is all the same but if you see the below URLS this is not the case
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=22
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=33

Regarding Diocese of Aberdeen and the add to the EL on the WP historical article as opposed to the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, thank you for picking out that mistake, however a mistake in one article due to an oversight should not lead to all my ELs being removed. Misplaced Pages would be pretty empty if you dealt with every mistake like this.

addressing your second point that

• 2) Most of the Misplaced Pages articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage.
• With this reasoning will I be allowed to add an EL to the Catholic Diocese of Albany which has no Official diocese *homepage? For example
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Abancay

Social events do not fall under WP purview. 

We have addressed this before that is why I am now adding EL's to the diocese homepage only not the events calendar

What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" this is useful content and fits with Misplaced Pages's policies the diocese homepage also has information about the diocese. I would appreciate if my external links would remain I know you must see a lot of spam but this is not spam. --49.143.225.34 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clone, as in all of them say the exact same thing. While Adelaide has extra words and pictures inserted, it still says the same thing as, say, Broome, which has a few different words and pictures. They are cookie-cutter copies, placeholders that present little to nothing encyclopaedic that cannot be garnered from reliable sources.
• If a diocese does not have its official homepage linked in the article, then editors should find and add the official homepage. If such a link cannot be found, leave it blank, or link to the archdiocese's page about the diocese if there is one. If someone wants to find a diocese's web presence, there are plenty of resources outside WP to do it with. A social networking site is not a substitute for an official page, not even temporarily.
• Xt3 is a social networking site, not a reliable source. It presents nothing that would be allowed in an article that cannot be taken from reliable sources. The pages you are linking are not even officially under the control of the diocese: both Broom and Adelaide above contain the line, "This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative." That I cannot find a way to determine when a page has been "adopted" is not important. What is important is that there is no reason this social networking site should be treated any differently than Facebook or Myspace, per WP:ELNO #10. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource. "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" ..." and thát is exactly the plain violation of WP:NOT that is happening. Misplaced Pages is not a place to 'advertise'/'promote'/'suggest' the existence of your site by linking utterly non-informational pages throughout in sometimes erratic, often useless, and often superfluous ways, where it is even questionable whether the pages will provide information in the future, and the ones that have been created sometimes do not yield any encyclopedic information either. I have reverted again one of the additions, and I would strongly suggest that from now on you do NOT add any of those links by yourself, but let it be done by other editors without a conflict of interest. I see the point that these links sometimes may be of interest, but as has been obviously shown a couple of times now, but that is not your call anymore. Please, be careful with further pushing of these links, other admins may consider (I am considering) that it is time for blocks on single-purpose accounts or even blacklisting of the links to finally stop the pushing of links. Leave it to the community. --Dirk Beetstra 07:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Roger Kahn

G'day guys,

there've been repeated efforts by unregistered users to turn the Roger Kahn article into a hagiography. Most of the edits come from a single IP. I don't think a block would be useful in this case --- given the user(s)'s edit pattern, the block would need to last many months at least, and I'm not comfortable with that for an IP address, particularly as other IPs are used on occasion.

I've semi-protected the page for three months. Could someone a little more hip and with-it please review that decision, as:

1. I've been personally involved in attempting to clean up the article in the past, and
2. I'm extremely rusty at this whole "Misplaced Pages" thing.

Thanks! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of problems, but I understand why and agree that bringing it here for review as best. First, if you think it needs page protection and you're involved, dropping it off at WP:RFPP is required now. That way an uninvolved admin can review, per WP:INVOLVED. (If you aren't involved, protecting out of venue is fine.) Second, if it went there, I wouldn't have protected it. Normally we only want to protect if there is more than one IP, and the edits are either clearly vandalism, heavy POV or otherwise disruptive. This looks more like puffery, and it isn't very often. Since it is a BLP, I normally would err on the protect side, but it really isn't needed here. Over the last couple of years, we have tightened up on when and how we protect, block, etc. so a look around is likely a good idea. If all else fails, it is better to just dump the problem here at ANI if you aren't sure and one of us will hash it out. Hopefully you can hang out more often, work the boards a little bit and sharpen up the tools, as we could use the help anyway. I went ahead and removed protection on the page. And it is very, very unlikely we would block for a few instances of puffery as well, per WP:BITE, and instead try to engage on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Funchal123
diff
"sorry how is it a personal attack? i am just stating my reasons and if you block me i will make sure solicitors get involved as i use[REDACTED] very seriously" Jim1138 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Already indeffed by User talk:GiantSnowman Jim1138 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect

About Index to isotope pages -- Template:Index to isotope pages (by periodic table). One is content, one is a Redirect. There was some moving & deleting, which left an incorrect situation.

1. 20:14, 24 July 2012: DePiep move from Article to Template space, leave a R
2. 19:26, 1 August 2012‎: IP tagging the R with DB-R3
3. 20:13, 1 August 2012: Martijn Hoekstra: MH moved the tagged R page to his Userspace
4. 20:17, 1 August 2012: MH removed the R3 tag.
5. 03:00, 2 August 2012: Matthewrbowker (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R2).
6. 05:51, 2 August 2012: Nyttend deleted the R page for DB-R2
7. 14:32, 2 August 2012: Double sharp moved content page from Template to Article space, leaving R.

So the page was fine for almost eight days in Template space and an R. An IP vandalised the R with a speedy tag, MH moved it to (his) userspace, which invoked deletion for R2. That left many red links on article pages, so DS moved it back to Article space to make them blue.

The situation now is that it is template page in article space. I request reversal, back into the situation before the vandalism started (so: code in Template space, the Article page a redirect).

The move by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) MH was bad judgement and did not address the R3 tagging. When I asked for explanation , MH was incomplete. Later on, MH was evasive, did not explain his motives, and ducked responsibility . I find the behaviour of MH (bad move and not cooperating) disruptive. I contacted Nyttend to discuss (propose) undoing the deletion , but Nyttend denied, arguing that the R2 deletion in itself was correct at that moment (which is a valid point too). He then helped me clarifying the process (I am not an admin, I didn't see everything). I concluded to take the whole issue here.

Anyway, I request a reversal. Note: if the pre-vandalism situation is to be challenged (arguments have entered), that should be done after reversal, and on apropriate pages -- not at ANI and not by es. The current situation was created by vandalism and bad judgement, which is not the process to imply changes. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, what administrator intervention would you like, and what here can't be fixed through requested moves? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Notified MH, DS, Nyttend. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't really agree completely with the index page being moved to template space, I don't really mind either if it is (though there do seem to be many precedents for keeping indexes in article space, I'm quite undecided on the matter, since an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles). My major motive (which I put first in my edit summary) for moving it back is that the links were broken, and it seemed easier to move one page that edit 118 pages. I wasn't aware of this situation until now, since I wasn't involved in the speedy deletions going on on that page.

While cross-namespace redirects are generally considered to be a bad thing, I would consider that if they are linked by many pages or are also of interest to readers, like Periodic table (standard), then they should remain. This is especially true for pages that straddle the boundaries between two namespaces: for example, Template:Periodic table is in the template space, while Periodic table (large version) is in the article space, even though they are very similar. Likewise, while an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles, it could also be argued that putting an index in template space (or some other namespace) means that readers are less likely to find it (unless, of course, it is linked heavily and prominently). In such cases, especially when the actual content page is not in the mainspace, there should be cross-namespace redirects to ensure that readers will find it if the page is useful to them. (An R3 posted on the redirect Periodic table (standard) was not carried out, as it had many links from the mainspace and was thus manifestly useful to readers.) Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly this discussion should be elsewhere, and after the revert. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DS acted in good faith when doing that last move. No complaint from me. It's just that IMO, seen the process, the situation should be mirrored. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So you did not see? What an impressive argument. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you did not even read. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That was uncivil and uncalled for, DePiep. CBW has done nothing to deserve an assumption of anything but good faith from you. That said, I only partially agree with CBW. I see a series of good-faith actions on the part of others that combined to result in an unfortunate disruption. While that's certainly not vandalism, it is a problem. - Jorgath (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that CBW did not read the thread. CBW did not contribute anything to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read the entire thread and followed all the links. I still don't see any vandalism. The only possible way that the IP edit can be described as vandalism is if it is expanded to cover using the wrong speedy template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding R3 was vandalism. Then, the thread is about more. The red herring is yours. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no intention of any red herring on my part it was a valid question. You called the IP edit vandalism and it is not that, even Martijn Hoekstra didn't claim that. The most you can say is that the IP made an error. Also if the the IP is guilty of vandalism why did you not add a warning to their talk page? In fact I now see that you didn't even bother to notify them about this discussion, which I have done for you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because IP adding R3 is not the issue here. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

re CBW: "No intention of red herring"? -- but still you did. You followed it by yourself. "a valid question"? I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here you wrote. Is not even a question. "even MH didn't claim that." -- Had you read the thread, you'd know that MH is the lowest authority you could invoke. MH is the perpetrator. And IP vandalism is not the ANI topic. "you didn't even bother to notify" -- Talk for yourself. You did not even check your thing. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"User does not agree with me" does not equal "user did not read what I said." You are being uncivil. Furthermore, vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Misplaced Pages. What you encountered was quite possibly disruption, but CBW is perfectly correct to claim it was not vandalism. Finally, notification of being mentioned in ANI is not optional. - Jorgath (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I would like to note WP:DONTPANIC. The tagging the IP did was wrong, the move I did wasn't the smartest thing to do, I don't think the deletion of the mainspace redirect was the best idea, though certainly defendable in policy, the move back by DoubleSharp fixed the acute issue of redlinks. The wiki isn't burning, everything can be solved by normal processess (let this be the third time I go on record suggesting requested moves to move to template space). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IP user 209.190.61.7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

209.190.61.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add advertising to Template talk:WikiProject Cities (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), one or two postings per day (11:21, 2 August 2012; 16:28, 2 August 2012; 19:07, 3 August 2012; 23:55, 3 August 2012; 03:11, 5 August 2012; 07:59, 5 August 2012; 11:54, 6 August 2012; 00:22, 7 August 2012; 21:32, 7 August 2012), despite warnings. I have issued warnings up to and including {{subst:uw-advert4}} with no effect. Since there is sometimes a gap of more than 24 hours between these postings by 209.190.61.7, I suspect that if I issue a 24-hour block, they'll merely ride it out and then continue. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Give him 3 days as a trolling account. He is trolling WP Cities. Also, I note that he added this link: - *lasjan.page.tl (*|search current) which may be getting spammed here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chintu6 is your guy (one account anyway)...look at this history.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disregard that please...possibly not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, which of the reasons in the drop-down list at Special:Block/209.190.61.7 is the best fit; similarly, which of the template messages at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace#Blocks would suit? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reason WP:Disruptive editing
• Template {{uw-disruptblock}}
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,  Blocked --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing 4chan Misplaced Pages improvement drive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

_{Made the heading more accurate :) --Jac16888 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)}

Ongoing 4chan raid affecting List of English words of Japanese origin, requesting 24h protection. Thread in question is https://boards.4chan.org/a/res/69794304 /a/69794304 (archive). I am a registered user posting anonymously, a checkuser can confirm my identity.

Quote:

• Seriously? "Sayonara" is fine, "kawaii" is borderline, but fucking "mottainai"?
  • It's on wikipedia.
    • then just delete it and it will be fine

Regards, 101.118.223.198 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protection due to a couple unusual edits there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't object to the protection, but 4chan may actually have a point here. At least good half of the words listed couldn't be called "English" words even in the absolute broadest sense. Compare List of English words of Spanish origin, which does a much better job of the same type of article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Starblind - the article is far too unsourced. GiantSnowman 15:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

4chan conspires to improve an article? Why can't this happen more often? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Looked at Talk to see if anyone had raised some solid points, and an IP recently did a pretty good screed on the issue as Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Japanese_origin#What_makes_a_foreign_word_English.3F. Not to barge into longer arguments without reviewing the consensus of dozens of other "Foo words in English" articles, but I think the litmus test of "can you use this word in English and people don't automatically think of Foo?" is a good one. For the Japanese list, people clearly say "tycoon" and don't necessarily think they're drawing any parallel with a Japanese prince. However, what on earth would zori mean other than a very specific kind of rice-straw sandal completely Japanese in nature? To give 4chan all due credit, they've raised a valid issue. A lot of other lists employ terms that nobody would ever use outside of describing a specifically Foo-ian thing. The Persian list includes Bostanji, an Ottoman Empire imperial guard; not exactly something I draw parallels to in everyday conversation. I'm also not thrilled about geographical names making the lists (we call a Philippine city by a Tagalog name? Wonder of wonders!). Maybe the time has come to set a clear standard for the "List of English words of Fooian origin", in terms of structure and inclusions, and then set forth to enforce it, maybe ensure each Talk page (and maybe even a hidden-text warning at the top) inform editors where to find the standards? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a good academic dictionary that gives word origins be appropriate to use here? Or to avoid having any third-party dictionary, limit it to foreign words that appear in the most accepted English language dictionaries like Oxford or MerriamWebster. That implicit declaration would be similar to saying that for "List of people from X", we're only considering those with articles on WP (eg notable people). --MASEM (t) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really - the question isn't veracity, but scope. Is bonsai included? Obviously Japanese, obviously used in the West whenever miniature trees are discussed, but has it become an English word, as the concept is still fundamentally and obviously Japanese? It didn't replace Shakespeare's or Chaucer's obsolete English word for an miniature tree (I can just see Bill Bailey getting a standup sketch out of this), is was imported along with the concept. Now how far does a concept have to be absorbed into English culture (with its word tagging along behind) for it to be accepted in this list? Koshirae clearly isn't, but how about katana? Komusō aren't, but how about geisha? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source stating word X is an English word of Japense origin then said word should not be included on the list - no ifs, no buts, no coconuts. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearing in a major English dictionary, OED or Webster, as Masem suggested, would seem to be the best way to go. I expect trying to use "mottainai" in English conversation would get only the blankest of stares, even at an anime convention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• "We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Thumperward and templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Thumperward today redirected a template without any prior discussion. Earlier today he decided to move Template:Category relevant? to Template:Cleanup-categories, which clearly is not the same thing, and then later undid this move himself. I remember having some history with him, about precisely this same subject - undiscussed merges. I find his conduct unacceptable for a Misplaced Pages administrator. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you started an RFC for this? That would be more appropriate as this isn't the place. I don't see that anything under question involved the use of admin tools, did it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lordy. The Honorverse situation was one where Debresser defended a huge wad of un-universe garbage for years before it was finally cleared out, against his wishes, after I made a drive to do so. The {{cleanup-laundry}} situation occurred after a TfD with an inconclusive outcome three months ago; I decided to boldly merge the two today rather because I was annoyed at how plainly terrible {{cleanup-laundry}} was at its intended purpose. So far as I know, none of this required the use of my admin bit. I've had conflicts with Debresser before, mostly due to the way that the most basic conflict resolution is seemingly escalated to teeth-pulling levels every time he's involved. This would be more of the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem being that a Misplaced Pages administrator should know better than to make merges of articles and maintenance templates without prior discussion. But perhaps this is indeed better discussed at an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving Misplaced Pages, ignore them. I think his change was fair game. But your objection is also fair game. So the question is, when you raised the concern, what happened? Resolute 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

User:VideoGamePhenom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

VideoGamePhenom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been warned multiple times on their talk page about vandalism and edits without citing verifiable source. A final vandalism warning was issued at 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, the user has made multiple unsourced edits that have been reverted by other users including:

Drew Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Dave_Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Ben Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Princess Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Bobby Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff

Additionally, the user has also been warned twice about marking non-minor edits as minor, yet still continues to mark all edits as minor. The disruptive editing pattern which is burdening the community with the need to revert, combined with the masking of edits as minor needs to stop. Warnings and discussions on talk page regarding reliable sources, vandalism, and NPOV, have not been effective to date.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Propose block per WP:NOTHERE, "General pattern of disruptive behavior." - Jorgath (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Continued even after being notified of this discussion. So, blocked indef, until he indicates that he understands the problems with his edits and will not repeat them. JohnCD (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik_Shabazz repeatedly deleting my talk page comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I posted a comment on 211.26.243.21's talk page and User:Malik_Shabazz has removed the comment three times, claiming it is trolling. I believe removing my comment from a talk page is a violation of WP:TPO and I warned Malik Shabazz each time he removed it. Here is the revision history of the talk page, which shows how my comment kept being removed and I kept adding it back. I first wrote to NawlinWiki's talk page, which shows what I was told by User:QuiteUnusual (QU) and User:Drmies, including Drimies threatening to block me if I added my own comment back one more time. Drimies also reverted my comment, making it a total of four times it had been reverted. Also, QU wrote to Malik Shabazz to tell him I had reported the incident, which makes it appear that they are all working together. My comment said nothing inappropriate or threatening in any way. It simply made a comment and asked a question. Are they allowed to remove my talk page comment? Can I add it back? Thank you. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you lay it low and go away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Asking someone why they vandalized a user's page as though it was the vandalized editor's fault is at least inciting ire towards the victim of vandalism. The alternative, if you were not trying to go after Tenebrae, is that you were trying to grief the IP editor. Either way, that's not really a good idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I told Malik Shabazz that they were being discussed because you hadn't - and you should have done as discussing another editor's conduct without notifying them is inappropriate. As I noted on NalimWiki's page, I am a disinterested observer. I was patrolling recent changes, saw your original question, and decided to comment. I have no prior interaction with Malik Shabazz as you can easily check and we are not working together. I stand by my view that your question is trolling. Approaching a vandal to ask them what an editor did to make them angry because that editor has a track record in upsetting people (or words to that effect) reads like trolling to me. QU 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

QU... actually, as my edit comments show, I had already warned Malik Shabazz if he reverted it again. And he was obviously following my contributions page closely because he kept coming back right away when I put my comment back. And if you thought he should have been contacted, you should have simply asked me to do it instead of sneaking behind my back to tell him (without informing me). It sure gives the appearance that you and he are working together. I have no idea what that guy's track record is (the guy who added the bad image to Tenebrae's page). All I know is that one thing he did, which I told him I was not going to say I thought was appropriate. And it should be mentioned that Malik Shabazz failed to disclose that he knows me from an article's talk page discussion we were both involved in a few days ago, in which he and Tenebrae accused me of being a sockpuppet (a term I didn't even undertand at the time). I filed a report about it, but Tenebrae has since learned from the other useer that he was wrong. So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be." -- say what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic remarks like "say what?" are not helpful. If you don't understand something I said, just ask me about it. Malik knew me days before he made the repeated reverts and falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. So it was not like he was some impartial user who just stumbled on something. Therefore he was not a "disinterested" party to this, as QU told me that he (QU) was. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I thought you were a sockpuppet has nothing to do with the fact that you were trolling. How many people have to tell you that your message was trolling before you get the point?

And for the record, I've never dealt with QU before today, when she/he notified me as a courtesy that I was being discussed somewhere. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They key point is that you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. And did so without filing a report, which, as I've been told by another administrator, can be grounds for being blocked from editing. Then after that, you're removing my talk page comments. So clearly not disinterested. And QU appeared pretty excited to tell you that I was "complaining" about you instead of using neutral language. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has had enough food. Close this thread. Block if trolling continues. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume that Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 is not an administrator. Because an administrator would not be rude and act like a bully when I am trying to have a sincere discussion. So far, all's he's said is "go away," "say what?" and "This IP has had enough food." A classic bully trying to instigate a gang mentality. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as I suspected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 has multiple blocks for incivility, vandalism and battlegroundbehavior. I know a bully when I see one. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it was - the intriguing thing your talk-page comment referred to - it is apparently deleted now, i.e. it's invisible to us in the general public. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed four times. Haha. You can see it in the revision history links I put in my original comments here. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you posted here, you were advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I would reiterate that suggestion, and recommend WP:ROPE to you as well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik, this report is about you so you're not exactly impartial. I am doing nothing wrong. I am replying to people that are commenting to me. So please stop the condescension. Interesting how you see that one user (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556), who's been blocked repeatedly, bullying me, yet you say nothing to him. That says a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find the number of Seb's blocks that have not been undone is precisely one, not "repeatedly". But I'm going to re-close this; more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Malik here. The IP should know that talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG apply to edits on talk pages. The fact that the IP claims to not be a sockpuppet is not particularly important, unfortunately - very rarely to sockpuppets acknowledge their status. What is probably more important is that the IP has indicated behavior which tends to be associated with sockpuppets. That includes any number of variety of unacceptable behaviors. I have to think that starting this thread on such a spurious basis as this one probably does nothing but further support the evidence of unacceptable behavior by the IP. I suggest that the thread be closed, as non-actionable. However, if the IP editor wishes to continue in posting here, based solely on the evidence presented, I suppose we could perhaps consider sanctions against them based on WP:DE and other possible conduct problems. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm replying because your comment appeared after it was closed before. I don't get how reporting this is "spurious" at all? Some guy repeatedly kept removing my talk page comment. So I asked him to stop, he didn't, then an admin gave me a link to this page to file a report. So how's that spurious? And as I explained previously, the original editor who accused me of being a sockpuppet subsequently found out I wasn't. He even apologized to the other guy for calling him/us that. So anyway, I came here because I was directed here and I simply wanting a ruling on whether removing my talk page comment was allowed. So if it's not I think something should be done about it. Thanks for your comments. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I went back in time and closed it for you... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

News

Misplaced Pages is front-page news at USAToday.com. Things must be a little slow today. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was necessary to semi-protect those pages. Electric Catfish 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wonder who planted this quasi-news story. I also wonder if it's true that some of the potential VP candidates' pages were fully protected as opposed to merely semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the latter, because I have very little confidence in the ability of news media in general to understand the difference. - Jorgath (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that only Pawlenty is fully protected, at the moment - the others are semi'd. The USAToday piece refers to Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and David Petraeus "all have locks on them with a message that the page is either fully or partially 'protected due to vandalism'." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, in relation to at least Romney and Portman, could someone take a look at User:Viewmont Viking's edits and tell me I'm seeing things? Would make me feel a lot better. Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I pulled up WikiChecker and took a look. I see an interest in two (maybe three) topics: Mitt Romney and Florida (and possibly Florida animals). On the Florida-stuff, I don't see a problem. On the Romney stuff, I see mild POV-pushing, but much more restrained than some of the silly-season stuff that happens around here. That said, this user takes WP:BOLD to extremes, and should probably discuss more. - Jorgath (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So I am fairly new at editing and cannot believe I have already been added to the Administration Notice board. The original warring complaint which Viriditas made didn't really have a specific edit warring that I was involved in, when asked to provide one he came up with a change I made to the 2002 Winter Olympics. The information had been on the talk page for almost 24 hours before I removed it, and still no one else has complained. In addition Viriditas made warring threats to a number of editors at about the same time he made it to me. He made them to. to Belchfire on August 4, Causa sui on August 3, 32.142.204.111 on July 31, 130.65.109.101 on July 31 (These two may be the same person), And Ianmacm on July 30. As for the Portman article I did not make any edits. I mentioned that controversy sections invite controversy in the talk page. For Mitt Romney I was working to improve his Elections Campaign 2012 when things got too heated I pretty much backed off. As you can see from my edits, I also went much more to the talk page once a number of additional editors got involved. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry I had didn't sign I meant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to resort to personal attacks, "you know nothing about baseball" being a popular refrain in baseball-related articles. User was issue a final warning on personal attacks on 22:27, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC).

Here is a sample of the attacks:

1. 02:17, 27 May 2012 "Again, you should stick to whatever it is that you update and stay away from the baseball pages because you have no idea what you are talking about." attack warning
2. 09:09, 26 July 2012‎ "You clearly know nothing about baseball or you do not understand English. I am just glad you don't live in this country because people like you don't belong." attack warning by admin Djsasso
3. 22:09, 6 August 2012 "If you know anything about baseball ...", "Muboshgu has bullied many Misplaced Pages users for years just to get his way. He thinks he owns Misplaced Pages and will do anything to make sure pages and Misplaced Pages are the way he thinks it should be. I really wish someone could take a stand against him because Misplaced Pages is NOT owned by Muboshgu." attack final warning
4. 21:39, 8 August 2012 "If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" attack

The user is also disruptive with using reversions in lieu of discussion, despite multiple blocks in the past over edit warring and receiving a recent warning at WP:AN/EW. Here are recent reverts to List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to user's preferred version:

1. 21:53, 6 August 2012‎
2. 21:12, 6 August 2012
3. 21:05, 6 August 2012

The disruptive behavior needs to stop before valuable editors get frustrated and leave.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on this and say that Carthage44's disruption and edit warring appears as a frequent topic at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball. Ryan Vesey 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44 reverts, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 26#Help with 2011 Major League Baseball Draft. Ryan Vesey 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Carthage apparently goes to a lot of Sox games and is a student of the details. Unfortunately, it appears that his enthusiasm is being overtaken by a sense of "ownership", as with the top 500 base stealers thing, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just checking my 2007 Sporting News record book, the last one TSN published. They list what were then the top 66 base stealers of all time. Not using 66 as any kind of magic number, but rather 400 stolen bases or more. Because countless players are going to have stolen bases, but that does not make them notable base stealers. Carthage's list gets down into the 150 area. That's 15 a year for a 10 year player, or about 1 every 10 games. That's not a base stealer, it's just a guy who has some stolen bases. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership issues and uncivil displays

1. 21:39 8 August 2012 "Just because I beat you when it comes to updating Adam Dunn's page first, doesn't mean you have to be so inconsiderate and immature. If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" made here
2. 15:14 8 August 2012 Ownership behavior displayed in edit summary here

Thanks, Zepppep (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Implied legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:109.144.205.34
Edit summary 1: "Criticism: Much of the information in the article referred to is incorrect and is being challenged by the author and his legal representatives." Diff 1
Edit summary 2: "Criticism: The article referred to contains several inaccuracies and is being contested by the author and his legal representatives" Diff 2
Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat per se, pretty borderline since the IP is not explicitly stating that they're the one taking legal action, unless of course information comes to light that the IP is the author. Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's close, but not exactly a legal threat, especially as broadly as "his legal representatives" could be interpreted (for instance, his manager could qualify. His mother could qualify. It all depends and we don't know). ⇒SWATJester 09:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the statement is that action is being considered against the writer/publisher of the original source article, Nick Cohen, that is being cited in support of the content. If the edit summary had been "Removing biographical content that was sourced to an op ed.", you probably wouldn't have blinked an eye. That's what the person not using an account was actually doing. Given the whole backstory surrounding Johann Hari, Cohen, and others, which you can start reading about in this Signpost article and continue to read about in the archives of the BLP and COI noticeboards, strenuously requiring good sourcing in all of the biographies of these people is a very wise move, even if the less-than-exemplary actions of a possible partisan in the affair are what draw our attention. Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The wording of the summaries plainly states that the action is being taken against the cited source, not Misplaced Pages, so this isn't NLT territory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning card

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone want to take a look at this? Article started in 2009 and seems to have been a constant battleground between COI editors ever since. Currently fully protected in an effort to dissuade the latest incarnation of an editor who is on account #4 now (not to mention all the IPs) from warring with another SPA whose deleted contribs suggest he's involved with a competing technology. Given the complete lack of references at any point in the article's history, and its obvious use as a promotional tool by multiple parties, is it worth simply nuking it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards