Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 15 March 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Two week 3RR block on Pigsonthewing wholly invalid - but not reversed - why?

This block Pigsonthewing_reported_by_SlimVirgin is invalid. The 2nd and 4th so-called reverts are not reverts at all. Pigsonthwing has been blocked for 2 weeks for a crime he did not commit. And yet the two people who were instrumental in imposing the block using false data, User:SlimVirgin and User:Heimstern, have not acted to unblock him. I call foul. Jooler 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note there is conversation to be found at User talk:Heimstern. —— Eagle101 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the user concerned was also adding information contrary to WP:ATT and WP:BLP, as a non-admin and uninterested party, the worst I can say is that the charge sheet is wrong. Seems as though they have form, and lived up to it. I smell a wikilawyer ... Chris cheese whine 10:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of breaching WP:ATT and WP:BLP do not hold water. Jooler 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like someone with experience giving advice about the Gillian McKeith article, especially the Legal Threat to Google.co.uk, and whether chillingeffects.org is a usable source. DanBeale 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/ "Chilling Effects is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and clinics at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet & Society, Boalt Hall's Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, and other law schools across the country". From http://www.elpub.org/base02t0056.htm - "Called Chilling Effects in reference to the way legal threats can freeze out free expression, the project invites Internet users to add their cease-and-desist letters to an online clearinghouse at ChillingEffects.org. Students at the participating law school clinics will review the letters and annotate them with links to explain applicable legal rules." - what makes you think there's any reason why it couldn't be used!? Jooler 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing is relevant here, I think. Repeat offender blocked for repeating their repeated offence repeatedly. Nothing to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Is it right to hang a man for a crime he did not commit because he has form? Jooler 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no, it's completely relevant. Pigsonthewing has a long history of disruption, especially disruptive reversion. Pick another user to champion, this one has exhausted our tolerance for nonsense. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Er. Do you not understand that Pigsonthewing didn't actually breach the 3RR? Are you saying that in principle you would hang a man for a crime he did not commit because of past form. Well done. Or do you mean only in this case? Am I been over-dramatic? Hell no. Jooler 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Andy Mabbett, who is a prodigious editor and a good contributor who has an unfortunate ability to rile people, came off a year-long block in January. He's tried to improve his behaviour but issuing lengthy blocks for a questionable breach of a disputed rule is not going to help him - especially if his past form from more than a year ago is held against him. The block was not only excessive, it's likely to be counterproductive. How about cutting him some slack? How about giving him an even break for once? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• You say it's a questionable rule, but what you actually mean there is it's a rule you were blocked for breaking. Many (most?) of us find WP:3RR to be an unalloyed good, as it acts as an electric fence of which even seasoned edit warriors fight shy. And Pigs is an edit-warrior, the problem is edit-warring, and edit warring is what he was doing. Jooler seems not to have noticed the bit about "three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement" and "you may be blocked after fewer than three reverts". Efforts to improve? For sure. We can celebrate an alcoholic who turns up every week at AA, but it's still going to be a problem if he falls off the wagon. Carrot, stick. Pigs got the stick. No idea of people are feeding him carrots as well, perhaps you should do so. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Playing the man, not the ball again, in violation of WP:NPA. Really Guy you should know better. The carrot you speak of seems to be that we don't use the stick. Poor chap is not being given a chance. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder why you have chosen to chip in to this particular debate? Anyway, as you should know, being a former administrator, WP:3RR clearly says that three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement, you may be blocked for reverting fewer than three times, and Pigs may be banned from any article he disrupts. He is being given a chance: he has not been banned. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you cast aspersions on my merely contributing. You're late to this particular party, I was one of the admins who was trying to deal with Andy and there is an entry in his block log from me, so I know more about it than you do. What I do question is a rule where the penalty for not breaking it is worse than the penalty for breaking it. It really is Kafkaesque. If you think someone is reverting excessively then just tell them not to; if they continue, then a block is merited. But at the very least rename the "three revert rule": three is irrelevant, as you have pointed out; the word 'revert' doesn't mean a revert, and it's not a hard and fast rule. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• From a very superficial scanning of Pigsonthewing's edits since his return, it appears that he has made some effort to improve. However it is also true that he has a lot of past form. A one-week block might not be incorrect, depending on the circumstances. Administrators should also be aware that under his probation, which is permanent, he may be banned for good cause by an uninvolved administrator from any article he disrupts. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people are saying this is a questionable block; I'll take a look at the 3RR report again. However, in general, Pigsonthewing has been edit warring very aggressively at Gillian McKeith, fighting to add or retain anything negative about her he can find, regardless of BLP, as has Jooler. So this business of him being a good editor punished unfairly because of past wrongs is a wrong-headed way of looking at it. Between the two of them, Pigsonthewing and Jooler have been blocked 29 times. SlimVirgin 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have repeated this many times - but the evidence clearly shows that what you called the 2nd and 4th revert were no such thing. Past behaviour is irrelevant, a smokescreen, to the fact that your block was based on faulty evidence. It is beside the point bu as you brought it up I will say here that including this occasion I have been blocked 7 times and on 5 occasions the block has been reversed because the administrator who blocked did so blocked me without valid justification. you can see this clearly from the block log. Jooler 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement; WP:3RR: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period." WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Are you done Wikilawyering yet? Guy (Help!) 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The material concerned was not a breach of BLP it was properly sourced. There was no breach of 3RR. So a 2 weeks is excessive in the extreme. Pigsonthewing has now been unblocked and rightly so, but it is unlikely that he would been unblocked it I hadn't brought this up here. So my work is done yes. Jooler 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• What part of Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the context of that quote. Which it appears is more than you do. It does not stand in isolation so that it can be applied in any situation. Jooler 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. In context, it's nothing more than a get-out clause for admins to block users under 3RR when they haven't even breached 3RR if it will put a temporary stop to an edit war. Edit wars are disruptive, and disruption has been valid grounds for blocking for almost three years now. Chris cheese whine 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, with not very much effort, I managed to identify five reverts in short order, spanning a short time. rv SlimVirgin rv ElinorD rv Jooler rv SlimVirgin rv Crum375. Chris cheese whine 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly he couldn't be reverting my edits as we both had the same agenda and were adding the same material. There were two camps - one for inclusion and one for exclusion and we were both inclusionists. Secondly the second rv SlimVirgin above and rv Crum375 are both "reverts" of me not of SlimVirgin or Crum i.e. not reverts at all in any way shape or form. So of the five edits only two are reverts. I can see that you did indeed spend little effort. Jooler 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that reverts of you aren't supposed to count as reverts. Am I reading you correctly? --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PigsOnTheWing's edits were followups to my edits This alleged revert was preceed by this edit from me - I was the reverter not Pigsonthewing. Jooler 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of wikilawyering. Pigsonthewing reverted more than three times in just over an hour against multiple editors. By revert, I mean that he either removed or restored another editor's work. Saying it can't have been a revert if he removed something Jooler had added (or restored something Jooler had removed) is bizarre. Here are the diffs without commentary so people can judge for themselves:

• 22:26 March 7
• 22:57 March 7
• 23:29 March 7
• 23:35 March 7
• 23:42 March 7
• 23:44 March 7, back to back with the former

His constant reverting at that article goes back a few weeks, so this isn't isolated by any standard, and bear in mind we're talking about someone just back from a year's ban for this kind of editing and who's on indefinite probation. SlimVirgin 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah whatever, but he still didn't do what you claimed he did. Jooler 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated earlier there were two camps the inclusionists and the deletionists. I was not reverting away from the inclusion of his content and he was not reverting away from the inclusion of my content. Jooler 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? A revert is a revert is a revert. 3RR is faction-agnostic, and deliberately so. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion now remains as it was at the start. There may or may not have been a minor error on the charge sheet, but PotW was guilty of disruptive editing at least, and has a lengthy record of disruptive editing. Therefore the long block was wholly justified. Chris cheese whine 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 22:26 March 7

• (Note that Slim's previous edit falsely claims that either The Guardian or the Chilling Effects website (a site run the The EFF and Harvard Law School et al) were self published. The original deletion of the para was based on a false premise and the restoration should have been uncontroversial. Jooler

It directly undid another editor's changes, therefore it is a revert. 1. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 22:57 March 7

• This is a genuine revert. Jooler

2. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:29 March 7

• This is not a revert it's an edit of existing text that I had restored. How can it be a revert when I had already reverted to the last edit by Pigsonthewing myself (here) - I reverted to his text and then he edited it. What's wrong with that? Pigsonthewing was actually trying to address the concerns of other editors. Jooler

It is a revert, because it undid your work. 3RR could not give a rat's backside whose side anyone is one, and for good reason. 3. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:35 March 7

• This is a debatable one. He's editing my text and is restoring old content, but he is rewording the content that had been removed earler trying to address the concerns that had been raised by other editors. Jooler

He is replacing the same reference that was removed here. This is therefore a revert. 4. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:42 March 7

• This is not a revert it's a normal edit because I had already reverted it. Again I was the reverter (here) Jooler

This reference was removed here, and the same one replaced, therefore this is a revert. 5. Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 23:44 March 7

• Er... this claim is just bizarre. Both the before and after links on this so-called revert are to edits by Pigsonthewing. He can't be reverting himself. And in fact he is removing something that he himself previously added. i.e. the words "Details can be read at ChillingEffect.org" - which was the site that earlier on Slim had called "self-published" Jooler

... and text which was added not by PotW, but by you. Undoing the changes of another editor, so I guess that's another revert. Friendly fire sucks, doesn't it? 6. Got any more incriminating evidence to bring to the fore? Chris cheese whine 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No it was added by him earlier - here or maybe even earlier, but the point is it was removed earlier (along with the rest of it) by Slim et al.

... which makes it clearly a revert. Chris cheese whine 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you're so adamant that you have this right, and the other half-dozen or so people that have chimed in here have got it so very wrong, and you're so very good at Wikilawyering, please tell us where in the definition of revert on WP:3RR it states that it has to be the most recent revision that is undone. Chris cheese whine 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Pigsonthewing has already been unblocked. So there is no further point in discussion. Certainly there is no further point in you trying to justify something that has already been undone because others judged that it was wrong. Jooler 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the block log: Probably blocked long enough. Doesn't seem to tally with what you're saying. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, you still maintain 3RR was not broken. Give it up. Chris cheese whine 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

How can we fix the AMA? It's a noble and probably necessary idea: users who are banned or blocked or just don't get it need people who can hold their hand and help them through the processes of dispute resolution and mediation. Yup. What they don't need is someone who mistakes their role for that of a legal advocate. I have to say that my view of AMA is strongly coloured by the fact that user:CyclePat is an Advocate. Pat is a lovely guy, passionate about what he does, but has a positive gift for escalating disputes and rubbing people up the wrong way. There are many great uses of Pat's talents but this is not one of them. Other advocates are similarly problematic: I have seen one take a case and do nothing, leaving it there as a cesspit of argument for months, for example. We definitely need a help and support process, but this does not seem to be it. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We could stop calling it advocacy, for starters. The role of people helping out in this way should essentially be to provide information about the processes involved in dispute resolution, but there seems to be the expectation from at least some quarters that these people are available to run their case for them, as it were. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Association for Member Assistance? But what title would the Advocates call themselves, given that "Assistant" would probably be non-starter? --Calton | Talk 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• In its current incarnation, we should probably get rid of it. The very idea of advocacy encourages wikilawyering. It seems that what the advocates are intended to do matches reasonably well with what mediators do. >Radiant< 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "advocates" implies lawyering. Association for Members' Advisors rings better for me. Not sure ditching the baby with the bathwater is a good idea. --Dweller 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I like "advisors" much better, that's much more the role that it should take. "Advocate" implies a lawyer-type relationship, where the advocate is required to defend you no matter what you pull. Seraphimblade 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need anything even faintly along these lines? From my own experience I have never seen advocacy, even when well intentioned, do anything good, and when it comes to Arbitration advocacy is, and has consistently been, a walking disaster zone. We certainly don't need any more wikilawyering than we already have: surely just letting the trolls stew in their own juice is a good idea? Moreschi 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, we don't need advocacy, but there's great benefit in some organised system for dispensing advice. Good advice as to how to make dispute resolution work can make all the difference in helping people resolve issues before they become serious problems. Sure, there are places to bring up queries about the dispute resolution process, but having someone offer advice one-on-one can be particularly valuable in certain circumstances, and there is benefit in organising a group of people who feel qualified and motivated enough to give such advice. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Association of Member's Counsellors? I like the idea that your advocate is on "your side," even if that boils down to telling someone, in the nicest possible way: "I'd like to see you keep editing, so cool it so that you don't get banned." "Counsellor" gets the idea that AM? members should be giving advice, not wikilawyering. (For some more thoughts on what I think is wrong with AMA, see here). TheronJ 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If we just need an organisation to dispense advice, why not just create a new "advice" branch of the help desk? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dev: at the moment this organization is a long way off being some benign dispenser of advice. I don't like "Association of Member's Counsellors": "Counsellors" implies some sort of authority. Personally, I think this is the MfD that got away. Moreschi 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should create the Information Point (or something like that - sounds better than "advice"), promote it, get it active, and then MfD WP:AMA? Their system is far too complicated for what is, in essence, usually no more than "Post it on AN/I". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think MfD is the solution. AMA doesn't do much harm, or much good, but it's a worthy goal, and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers. TheronJ 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment overall on this, since I've no real experience of them but your sentence "doesn't do much harm, or much good..and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers" seems to be becoming a common sentiment of late, when left to get on with it so far those things have failed to move forward. --pgk 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I guess I'm something of an eventualist, and your mileage may certainly vary. If we could do it with enough precision, the best solution might be to define some clear success metrics for WP:AMA and some of the other controversial projects, and delete them in 6 months if they can't show that they're doing some good. Like any volunteer project, however, it probably depends on the motivation and talent of the leader (or !leader or whatever) and the group volunteers. TheronJ 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "problem" with the AMA is the cnnotations given by the name. A persistant troll may come to the AMA expecting them to get them off the hook. Likewise, people expect that advocates can help them to win disputes by stepping in and making a decision, which is absolute crap (of course). The best way to resolve this would be to rename the group, look through and check the members list (or abolish it), remove much of the bureaucracy (meetings every month..) and make sure that users requesting the services of the AMA know what they can reasonably get. Personally (as an AMA deputy co-ordinator), I feel that Arbitration advocacy will never work, given the bad reputation the AMA already has, and the fact that an advocate will rarely be able to give more insight into a dispute than a clued up disputant. The job of the AMA should not be to actively fight cases - it should be to clue up these (frequently) new users on the ins and outs of policy. Martinp23 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I was thinking, agrees with that to a certain degree. It just strikes me that if an organisation isn't already conscious of its issues and trying to move them forward, it seems unlikely that the ability to do so will magically appear. 6 months however seems a long time in wiki terms, to be actively moving in the right direction shouldn't take that long. --pgk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm trying to push forward with the changes now. Thanks, Martinp23 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearing WP:AIV

As a non-admin in good standing, may I remove reports at WP:AIV if the report does not appear to warrant a block and I otherwise was not involved in the dispute? —dgies_c 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you can, WP:ADMIN states that anyone can act in a way befitting of an admin as long as they don't claim to be one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• More than "you may", we will thank you warmly for your efforts. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please do, thank you. _InBC 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• I very recently removed a listing placed by a vandal. I later found out that the vandal saw their own name there and replaced it with the person who had listed them. Acalamari 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Welcome to our world. :-D --Woohookitty 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Welcome to hell. Veinor 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by Overlord

Overlord has repeatedly been incivil in his edit summaries. Examples include the following:

• "Tennis Expert, I suggest you learn some basic english grammar before you edit articles in english. You vandalise again, you will be banned. Take this as a warning."
• "This statement is unclear and should be altered in formulation. Perhaps some immigrant with limited English ability decided to include this very unclear statement."
• "If you make ONE more contradictory edit on this article and delete somebody else's for no good reason (records are also stated in intro), I will have you banned."
• "Zaheen, go back to bangladesh and clean up your dirty city. Stop editing the article you illiterate buffoon. This date should be mentioned at top. Now go away."
• "The purpose of the remark not only concludes the assertion 'Einstein was not a poor student' but also adds to flow of paragraph. Compromising this for vanity's sake is act of Senility. Even for Admins"

Tennis expert 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow those edit summaries are nasty. By the way, Tennis expert, User:Overlord should probably know that you've posted about him here. Please consider notifying him. --Iamunknown 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tennis expert 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlord's response to Tennis expert's report can be read here . - Justin (Authalic) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I urged him to apologize here (after having reverted a blanking of his talk page): --HJ 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the accusation of you having been banned several times coming from? I thought he got "blocked" and "banned" mixed up, since that happens quite a bit, but I only saw one block in the block log, and that was reversed as unfounded... Natalie 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(<- reset) To Natalie: apparently because Tennis expert (TE) was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet but then unblocked the next day because it was unfounded. To all: I'm shocked and appaled by Overlord's / Emperor's (Overlord) latest comments at TE's talk page. Overlord received two warnings soon after his comments on TE's talk page. Overlord's comments are incredibly distasteful, rude, racist, and intimidating. Can we please monitor the situation to make sure if it continues to happen and react appropriately? --Iamunknown 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion of an image revision containing accidental personal data

Hi, I accidentally posted an image to Misplaced Pages which accidentally included some personal info... I've replaced the image but the old one remains there in the revision history. Here's the image page: ] (links to current version, the one containing inappropriate data is in the rev. history). Sorry if this is not the right place to put it - I couldn't see anywhere else where it would be appropriate. Thanks a lot, --Christopher 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You want to go here to make this request. --ElKevbo 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The easiest might be to upload the image under a slightly different name, and just tag the old one for speedy {{db|uploader request}}? The JPS 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks very much... I was rather worried and panicked and didn't think straight or look very thoroughly for the right place to post it! I'll remember it in future. Thanks again, --Christopher 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the image outright. You can go ahead and upload a safe version. Newyorkbrad 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the safe image was already uploaded, and you deleted it too :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted the non-personal revision. All fixed now. — Dan | talk 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Watts...

... has seen fit to start complaining on his talk page again. I have reset the block to one month, under the view that it is a community ban for one month, not just a block. If my interpretation is wrong, undo and note it here. No need to over discuss this either, folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've protected his talk page for a month. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Why was his user talk page protected? Navou / _contribs 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Continued trolling" sums it up, I think. He's also been emailing me. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Navou / _contribs 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and assuming bad faith from User:SmokeyJoe

Even after warning, this user has continued to be uncivil and accuse me of ulterior motives for an AfD. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Later-no-harm_criterion I request the assistance of an administrator.--Fahrenheit451 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move issue

Hi. Straight Outta Lynwood was moved to Straight outta Lynwood earlier today, and then redirected back to the original (and correct) title. This solution, of course, does not move the page history back to the original title. Could an admin please fix this? --Maxamegalon2000 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CPMV. I have tagged this as {{db-histmerge}}, so it should be taken care of in due course. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see this probably wasn't the first place I should have gone. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. --Maxamegalon2000 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User warning templates strawpoll

Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project WP:UW and then when handed over WP:UTM to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the Category:User warning templates. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts here please. Regards 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Burninators required - speedies overflowing

The number of candidates for speedy deletion has reached 765. Anyone for a bonfire party? (Note: the category tracker is reporting this incorrectly). MER-C 10:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now at 843... MER-C 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat concerned that there are apparently -1 users looking for help. Is someone looking for a refund? :-) Chris cheese whine 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a DOES NOT COMPUTE situation with all the big numbers. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I leave CSD alone for a week, and this is what happens? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We're down below 400, more help would be good. There are a lot of CSD:I3 images out there. Gwernol 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated community ban language at WP:BAN

• Thread moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy. >Radiant< 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Huntsville, Ohio

Earlier in March, the same IP added a random name to Huntsville, Ohio and was reverted four times. After warnings were left on the IP's talk page, a nearly identical IP address added the same text just today, leading me to revert it again. Could someone try to do something with this? Thanks! Nyttend 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Impersonator

My well-sourced contributions to the Elvis impersonator article have repeatedly been removed with unconvincing arguments by one user and his supposed sockpuppet. See , , , , , . May I ask you to keep a watchful eye on this article. Thanks. Onefortyone 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And I politely ask that everyone keep a close on this editor - a really close eye. He/She seems to have a thing about turning whole articles regarding some celebrities into a perverted assortment of tidbits relating to their sexuality. Take a look at his/her talk page, as well as the Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and James Dean articles; its really quite disturbing...--Dr Onion 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move issue - again

Hi. Another editor moved Straight Outta Lynwood back to Straight outta Lynwood. I'd rather we not have to continue moving the page back and forth. Can someone please confirm which title is correct and take the necessary steps to make sure the article stays at the correct title? --Maxamegalon2000 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, it should be move-protected - the place to ask for this is at WP:RFP. Eli Falk 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AMG and Rolling Stone both confirm it should be Straight Outta Lynwood. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest it gets moved back and move-protected at that location while you talk it over. Chris cheese whine 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that so many admins misunderstand the issue of our naming conventions. We don't follow other sites; we follow our conventions, like any publication. For an admin to move a page and then protect it against moves seems to me clearly to be an abuse, and I've raised it at WP:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested: procedure to follow

I'd like some advice of which procedure to follow. We've had a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place (now in the talk page archive) about what information to include and came to consensus which one user does not accept. We then had a straw poll to reconfirm the consensus, but the same user now asserts that the consensus is not valid (and will not let it drop). What is the best procedure to follow now we’ve had a discussion and a straw poll? MRSC • Talk 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to take part in the issue, but I'd recommend you read this flowchart. It is quite helpful for realizing the process involved with determining consensus. Yuser31415 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Account Removal Please

Could an admin please remove my account from Misplaced Pages, as I won't be using it again, and am taking a break. Thanks! Manopingo 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but requested blocks are specifically forbidden by the blocking policy. If you want to enforce a WikiBreak, look at the WikiBreak Enforcer script. --Slowking Man 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a total break, for good and ever, thanks. Manopingo 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can delete your userpage and relevant subpages, but probably not the talk page. Your account cannot be removed forever because you have released edits under the licensing agreement, so we need a paper trail to an account. Plus technical reasons in the software don't allow for account deletion. So, we can make you a redlink, and archive the talk page, and that's about it. Teke 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks! -Manopingo 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and talk page archived. Happy trails to you. Teke 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on article Bharathanatyam

There is an edit war currently in progress at Bharathanatyam article. The users Sarvagnya, KNM, Gnanapiti are deleting valid external links along with probably questionable links. They are group editing to avoid 3RR (see this). Now they have added invalid OR tag to the entire article which is not discussed in the talk page first. I am requesting for admin action Praveen 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As already stated in the article talk page, the external link that was removed fails as a reliable source. Please refer to both WP:RS and WP:EL.

Also, admin and arbitrator Blnguyen (talk · contribs) in one of the previous disputes, had clearly commented about that website, as below:

Thanks. - KNM 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnation is a mixed collection. It is true that the editor of the website was quite involved in the ethnic conflict and I think he now supports the LTTE. But if you leave Sri Lankan politics there are also many reliable materials on the website like this translation of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea by W.H. Schoff and this paper by R.E. Frykenberg. So I think a blanket blacklisting is wrong, but each item should be examined on its merits on a case-by-case basis. -- Ponnampalam 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If Tamilnation has any scholarly material at all, I am sure we can find other scholarly sources for the same material. Tamilnation is primarily a Tamil and LTTE partisan site. Every single word on that site is written and presented with a blatant Tamil POV. Misplaced Pages can ill afford such sources. Come on, we cant start citing from a site edited by acknowledged apologists of terror groups simply because they slip in a piece of legitimate scholarly material in some corner of their site. Sarvagnya 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then find another online source for Frykenberg's paper and show me. I don't think it is available anywhere else. There are other things like that too. And please note that I said that we should examine each document on a case by case basis. Original content written by them is one thing, and secondary content written by experts is another. -- Ponnampalam 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• If its not available anywhere except on Tamilnation, then we should simply live without it. There are zillions of 'notable' and encyclopedic things out there which are not yet on[REDACTED] simply because of the lack of notable and verifiable sources talking about them. Nobody is in any hurry. If a fact(especially controversial ones) has to wait for a RS to make it to Misplaced Pages, then so be it. As for Frykenberg's paper, I am sure there should be many sources other than tamilnation. Sagepub should have it. Or, it certainly should be available in a library. And even if the library is not near you, most libraries have inter library loans. So use it. Just because some info is difficult to find online is not reason to use unreliable sources. Sarvagnya 04:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnation.org is a collection of thousands of books and articles with links to various sources. It is a virtual library on Tamil civilization. By Blngyuen stating that the site "appears" to be supporting something, he is unsure of the topic in discussion. I request to have another arbitrator deal with this issue, since this one has been taking sides with Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, KNM, and Bakasuprman far too long. Unless this arbitrator can prove himself to be a neutral administrator, I have lost faith in him. Wiki Raja 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, another thing I would like to point out is that Sarvagnya has never contributed to the Bharatanatayam page until February 28, 2007 while his counterpart KNM started editing on March 14, 2007 page as a tag team reverter. Why the sudden interest? Could it be due to the war of the Dravidian topics template? Are those guys trying to get back at me? And Blnguyen, I do not know what your intentions are, but as an administor you are setting a bad example to others by allowing these users to do these things and by taking their side. I have been editing the Bharatanatayam article since October of last year with valid sources. I have even gone to the extent to include page numbers of what I quote. Then all of a sudden these users just hop on and remove my credible references. No, this is not a genuine edit of this particular article on their part, but an immature grudge match. Wiki Raja 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bharatanatya has been on my watchlist since ages. And lately, it has gone from bad to worse with all the link spamming etc.,. It was only a matter of time before I would have felt compelled to do my bit to bring NPOV to the article. Sarvagnya 04:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have access to Encyclopedia Britannica website and I cited from that website. It was marked as 'verification needed'. Who has to verify? I have verified it and removed 'verification needed tag. It was group reverted. If tamilnation.ORG is POV website so is the ourkarnataka.COM, etc etc. Praveen 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

serious backlog at WP:AIV

it's getting ridiculous... Natalie 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you should be able to assist with this problem in approximately ... one minute ... tick tick tick. :) And let me be the first to congratulate you here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You should be able to do it now. :) Congrats. Titoxd 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Will this be the first time a user issued a block based on her own AIV report? :) Newyorkbrad 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just blocked it. :P Titoxd 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I'm living in a sitcom... ah, the hilarious irony. Thanks for your congratulations, though. Natalie 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Coral Reef High School page move

The page moved properly to Coral Reef Senior High School, but the talk page could not be moved. Tamajared 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Picaroon 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I was wondering if I was going nuts, because everything seemed in order... Titoxd 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack page?

This page seems...unhelpful, as does his (now-deleted) comment on Talk:Wikinazi. Is there a backstory somewhere? --Calton | Talk 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As an immediate response I've blanked the page, I would appreciate other admins interpretation of this and I would support a delete Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the deleted revisions of Talk:Wikinazi, I have to say that calling other editors wikinazi's is very inappropriate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved that article over to WP:PT] instead of what it was ({{deleted}}. Can someone check that it has been protected. I didn't seem to be able to purge it. Viridae 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the second part, I forgot to force a refresh. Viridae 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok had a look at the page in question and I'm not sure it is speedyable as an attack page. It is however unhelpful, perhaps take it to WP:MFD? Viridae 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it then after blanking it, I'll also suggest reverting it to the user back to its original state Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it back to an earlier version and contacted PeterMarkSmith regarding this, I'll keep an eye on it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PeterMarkSmith has just vandalised my user page, as I'm involved now, I would appreciate someone else's input into this Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Not speediable as G10, in my opinion, but a clear candidate for MFD as violation of username space (polemical statements), as well as being highly point-ish. -- Merope 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've MFD'd it: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:PeterMarkSmith. -- Merope 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent multi-page spamming by User:Reader contributor

Persistent spamming of link to websites which s/he is the marketing director for past final spam warning. S/he has been spamming links to commercial websites with objectionable amounts of advertising that s/he is the marketing director for . The links have been removed multiple times by multiple independent editors. If this isn't the textbook definition of spamming, as well as a violation of WP:COI, and WP:EL, I don't know what is. Per WP:AN persistent spammers should be reported to WP:AIV. This spammer has been given appropriate warnings, and persists past {{spam4}} which indicates that blocking is appropriate for continuing to spam after the warning. However, despite everything which points to spamming, an admin thought it was a content dispute, and thought the report would be better handled here. Leuko 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--In view of the fact that I am being harassed here... I would like to appeal to all those concerned editors to broaden or better yet understand the situation before anything should be posted. If what I've done is spamming... Do you really consider it as such upon totally reviewing what had happened. How would we say then that Misplaced Pages will soon be a realiable source of information when in fact some of its editors and administration are itself biased. How would you say then that it is indeed a fact when the only basis of ones decision pertains to 'I think'. Users and indeed users! editors are indeed editors! administrators are indeed administrators! But what if the situation involves administrators, editors, and users who are trying to despose a contributor. A contributor who does not use his position to promote the sites he/she is handling, as what is being JUDGED, but indeed just using a page of the sites he/she is handling to better give an informative information to the topic and in this issue an internal link is being used inorder to show what the content of the link is. If you judge it as spamming when you provide an information to help[REDACTED] in providing information to various readers then be it called as such. For those who had already judged it... Have you read, review, and understand the very content, quality, information of the SITES used. have you then used you're sense of Human Understand to read, review, and understand the very content, quality, information of the SITES or you just used your 'I think' sense of judgement or you have totally used the Guidelines to be in control of the situation. Guidelines are just suppose to be GUIDELINES! If you think it is to be removed so because of the fact that the sites have stores on it, have you read the link I posted and where it is being redirected, have you read the page personally? Does it point to a store? NO!!! it points to the RELATED TOPIC I used in adding various contents in the page. Upon seeing that the sites have stores have you seen the thousands of pages containing the meaningful and Informative articles or should I say Informative contents. If none or some of these are true... from where do you belong? Reader contributor 06:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand some of what you write, but yes, I have looked at the page. That is how I determined it was spam, since it contained an objectionable amount of advertising, and no useful, unique information or content beyond what would be included in the WP article if it reached FA status. At least half of the page space on the site you are promoting is taken up by ads and links the the site's store/shopping cart. WP is not an appropriate avenue for your advertising. Leuko 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree myself that the links are very questionable and likely shouldn't be reinserted (as appears to be consensus on all the articles), the only reason I didn't block at AIV was because it appeared to go beyond simple vandalism, and because the user had stopped. Seraphimblade 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True, the user has stopped now, but at the time was edit-warring and persistently reinserting the link contrary to consensus. A block is not necessary now, only if the user restarts edit-warring or inserting spam links on other articles. Leuko 07:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal hoax?

Could some one else have a look at Princess Marcalie Windsor and opine? Unless I've missed a big news story, this must be a hoax, right? I'd like a second opinion on whether it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G10, as an attack on the good name of our esteemed Prince Andrew. I've prodded it in the meantime. Rockpocket 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious hoax (there's no way in hell a royal family member would return no hits at all), there's not a snowball's chance it would survive AFD, I see no problem. Seraphimblade 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. - is this ridiculous enough to merit speedy? Hbdragon88 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Take the implausibility of the claims in the article along with the inherent WP:BLP concerns associated with those claims (without which the article wouldn't have a claim to notability), and immediate deletion seems prudent. If we remove all the unsourced claims about Prince Andrew per WP:BLP, we are left with an easy WP:CSD#A7... or is that a circular argument? I can't decide. Rockpocket 07:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. --Golbez 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting Personal attack by BaseballDetective (talk · contribs)

I am concerned that BaseballDetective (talk · contribs) made a gross personal attack in one of his edit summaries on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalism I did not committ and Attacking me in his edit summaries on my talk page. Advice rquested. Thank you. --John Guy Royers 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

John Guy Royers has existed for barely 24 hours on Misplaced Pages and has engaged in anti-Semitic behavior and baiting on the Flag of Israel page; something he has never acknowledged directly. The guy is a troll who—in addition to an NYC Public School address—has chosen to engage in hate and trolling in Misplaced Pages instead of doing something positive. Like possibly doing nothing. I fully welcome a Wiki admin to review this 'things' behavior and make a judgement. --14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BD - he has made no anti-semitic edits. And you have vandalized his user page, and engaged in personal attacks. I've given you a single warning on your talk page. You will be blocked immediately if you do not cease. It was the anon before him the put in the Nazi flag. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On John Guy Royers' eighth edit he discovers WP:AN? Pull the other one. He's clearly a sockpuppet of another user; given that his first edit was exactly four minutes after this anonymous edit and I think that BaseballDetective's suspicions are perfectly justified, although his language was not. Nandesuka 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the language, but appreciative for the recognition before condeming me. UtherSRG did you actually see the unbased edits he made to the Flag of Israel page? He uses 'imperialism' in one edit and invokes the conquering of 'Iran' in another edit? I'm happy there is another admin here on this. --BaseballDetective 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no vandalism by John Guy Royers to Flag of Israel so have removed the warnings form his talkpage. So he edited shortly after vandalism by an IP- assume good faith. And this board is quite well advertised (nevermind the fact that this should have been brought up at WP:ANI). WjBscribe 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the warnings before I saw your post here. Is there any way for you admins to simply check the IP address for John Guy Royers and compare to the other vandalism that occured literally minutes beforehand? Taken as a whole, the discussion is antagonistic POV on the part of John Guy Royers. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say. I'll add 'watermellon' and 'fried chicken' to an African American page and see what happens. (PS: I won't because I don't play games like that with articles) --BaseballDetective 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That can be done through requests for checkuser, however such checks are a last resort in extreme cases and require strong evidence of a connection between accounts and an ongoing pattern of disruption. Neither of which are present here. WjBscribe 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if that's the way it's going to be, so be it. But I don't think this guy is going to edit a Pokemon page anytime soon. And my sarcastic examples above also hold true here. But I have made a notice on the talk page for Flag of Israel alerting others to my concerns. And hey, if this guy somehow does the exact same thing again, I know which administrators' noticeboard (section) to refer to to say "I told you so!" --BaseballDetective 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards