Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:13, 30 December 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Languishing AfDs

Time to earn you pay. The following five AfDs have been languishing since December 14, 2010 with little input. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jay Foreman, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Microgiving, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Electronics, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Project Mayhem, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Street Action Team. Three comments in each of these should be enough for an admin to close them. Won't you please help? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• They've already been re-listed. You'll have to await discussions post relisting. And one of them was listed only recently despite having been filed earlier as the filing editor had missed out on the listing (due to script malfunction). So no worries as of now. Regards. Wifione _....... 09:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the unclear request. I am not asking for an admin to close the discussions. I'm asking editors to add to the discussion. Since regular editors don't seem interested, I'm hoping that a few admins (e.g., at least 3) will add their thoughts to each discussion. With enough discussion, these languishing AfD's can be closed, rather than re-listed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Converseley this AfD has been open since the 8th and had very little participation. It's like the non-contentius AfDs are being overlooked in favor of the drama stirring ones. Hasteur (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way of finding out when an account was created?

This morning Dralansun (talk · contribs) spammed a message to user and article talk pages, templates, articles, project pages, etc. I think they've been cleaned up but what puzzles me is his creating talk pages for users who have never edited, ie Anjneya Varshney (talk · contribs), AjayKerala (talk · contribs) and Anshu Bora (talk · contribs). How would he have found these? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New users log; or, noting the usernames, quite likely Special:ListUsers. Rd232 11:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Those three accounts do not exist in any fashion. Also, if you click the user page, you should see "User account "" is not registered. If you wish to use "" as your username, please make a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He may have used Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India/Members as a source for the names, which raises the question of why they are there, see , - this one seems to have been a spelling mistake by the editor .

What do we do? Delete the ones that don't exist, correct the spelling of the one at the project (and there seems to be at least one other name there with no contributions).? Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy criterion U2 permits the deletion of any and all userpages of nonexistent users. This doesn't apply to redirects in the old userspace of users who have been renamed (e.g. we don't delete User talk:Nenarssue), but it should be ruthlessly applied for pages in the userspace of users that have never existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I found User:Anshu.bora in the English WP. This user also seems to have an account on commons, The first one appears to be a Phd in India witt an account in WikiEducator as User:Pragati varshney (may not be the same person though I admit), the second refers to Kerala which is a city in India. Not sure if this helps but thought I would provide anyway. Its possible they just did a google scape of Wiki users in India if I have to make a guess. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is something weird there. Some entries are non-existent accounts added by other editors, with details about their interests. Some are real accounts where their only edit is to add themselves to the project, which doesn't make sense. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The main account seems to be used only for disruptions so maybe it too should be blocked. Just a suggestion after looking at what I was able to see. --CrohnieGal 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea to block the three red linked user accounts as well as the User:Anshu.bora I brought up. It hasn't been used in over a year anyway so its doubtful it will be missed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I don't know if this is related, but the user Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account on the Indonesian(!) WP. FYI, I posted this on the Indonesian embassy page:

Hi! It seems w:id:Pengguna:Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account w:id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:Asav, which is a global acoount. I don't understand the puropse of this, and ask you to remove it and block that user from establishing talk pages for other users. Also see this page, please. Thank you in advance! Asav (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing another editor's rationale for deletion nomination

Joe Sioufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:JzG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'd like some clarification as to whether it's acceptable for one editor (in this case an admin) to change the rationale of another editor's nomination of an article (Sioufi) for deletion. In this instance, JzG has changed it twice (first time and second time), apparently based on his belief that the rationale itself violates WP:BLP. Frankly, I don't get it and have said so on my own Talk page here. As I stated, if an editor nominates an article for deletion, the editor has to state a "concern". The idea then is to examine/discuss whether that concern is justified. If the concern is that the article is an autobiography but it turns out the concern is invalid, merely the statement of the concern doesn't violate WP:BLP. In a similar vein, as I also stated, I may suspect a potential copyright violation in requesting deletion of an image file. That doesn't mean I've libeled (I don't know that libel is what JzG is concerned about) someone by raising the issue. To me, changing another editor's rationale is similar to changing another editor's comments on a Talk page or in a forum. Unless the comments are egregious and therefore fall under some exception, which, in my view, isn't the case here, it violates policy to change the comments. Also, if the answer to this question differs based on whether the editor making the change is an admin or not, please explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Have you spoken to JzG about this beyond the one comment on your talk page? I can't see anything that indicates that you have.

  In any case, I hardly think this is a matter of complaint. JzG, likely though not certainly acting on an OTRS ticket, changed the deletion rationale to something that would be less offensive to the subject if they saw it. It still gets the same point across, and looks far more professional this way. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his first change, and I participated in the discussion on the original nominator's page here. Also, just so it's clear, my coming here was not to "complain" but to seek clarification. The end result may be that I'm wrong, or that JzG is wrong, or that there is no clear answer. I'm just seeking to understand how this works for the future. I don't lightly revert an admin's change, even though some admins tell me that I should treat them the same as I do any other editor. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't nominate the article for deletion. You added Template:Proposed deletion, which could result in easily reversible deletion of the article after seven days. JzG's changes strengthened the basis for the prod. Your post was in article space, so perhaps it was fair game for revision. JzG probably should have just added his own comments instead of changing yours. Why not just follow the instructions as Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion to nominate the article for deletion? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't do anything. Another editor proposed the article for deletion. I simply objected to JzG's changing that editor's rationale. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong terminology (nominated vs. proposed), but some of the deletion methods at Misplaced Pages are confusing (to me).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• User:Soundvisions1 posted in the prod "non-notable autobiography" and that appeared in a now deleted article. JzG changed that posting to read "Article which fails to adequately establish the importance of the subject by reference to reliable independent sources". JzG's did not change that editor's rationale. Take a look at posted prod templated Category:Proposed_deletion. None of them list the name of the prod template poster. The rational listed wasn't Soundvisions1 rational (in fact, Soundvisions1 didn't and could not sign the post). It was Misplaced Pages's rational. Because prod templates appear within article space, their parameter text can be edited by anyone, just as text in the rest of the article can be edited by anyone. The term "autobiography" is fairly offensive as it asserts in violation of that every edit to that article was written by the person who was the subject of the article. There was no truth to that. In addition, it implies potential violation by that person of Misplaced Pages's policies, in violation of WP:BLP. JzG did not need an WP:OTRS to make the change - any could have made the change. It would have been acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made. The change based on the WP:OTRS ticket means that you need justification from OTRS to revert back. It would not be acceptable for anyone other than an OTRS worker to change Guy's post since it was originally based on an OTRS ticket. If you want to follow up, I added a thread to Template talk:Proposed deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I refactored the deletion request rationale to be consistent with WP:BLP, and I told the user why I had done it. I have no idea why Bbb23 is choosing to make a big deal of this. Anybody with WP:OTRS access can also check Ticket:2010122310018843. WP:BLP applies in all parts of the encyclopaedia but especially to mainspace biographies, accusing people of autobiography when they dispute it is both rude and unnecessary, the rationale as I left it sdays the same thing but in a less polemical tone. I could have just deleted the article, of course, but I chose to leave that to someone else. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to OTRS. I don't agree with JzG that I'm making a "big deal" out of this. If I gain a deeper understanding of how Misplaced Pages works (which may seem immediately apparent to admins and other more experienced editors, but not to me), that helps me become a better editor and less likely to take actions that are not in keeping with policy or practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the OTRS ticket and I can't see that Giy has done anything wrong amending the prod tag to something morr informative that would be less offensive to the subject of the article were they to view it. Spartaz 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Guy rewrote the rationale to reduce offence to the subject, while keeping the reasoning the same. This is absolutely fine. Nothing more needs to be said here. Trebor (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One last question, and I'm done. Would it be acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't anything special; if it's acceptable for an admin, it's acceptable for any editor. In this case, changing the PROD rationale isn't exactly modifying another user's rationale (note that the rationale is not signed by the user, for example), it's closer to disagreeing with the PROD rationale and adding their own rationale instead; there's nothing wrong with that. GiftigerWunsch 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way to answer you question about venue, for questions like this in future you may wish to use the help desk if you're unsure about whether or not it's permitted by policy. If you have read the relevant policy and believe it is not permitted, you should discuss it with the user, and take it to WP:ANI if that discussion doesn't lead anywhere useful and you believe a policy violation has taken place. GiftigerWunsch 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Crusade initiated?

I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Misplaced Pages. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:

1. warning about deliberate errors introduced,
2. major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
3. change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If you have already tried to discuss this with the user, I think you're looking for dispute resolution if he chooses to communicate and ANI if he does not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a tricky SPI, need second opinions regarding how to proceed.

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. This is not actually DavidYork71, but there are still unresolved issues that need additional admin input. I'd like to know how to proceed. Thanks for your attention. --Jayron32 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the current solution (indef on all) is fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a question on the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know who it actually is. Checkuser cannot distinguish with 100% certainty between two users. Thank you for your report. The behavioral evidence quite strongly points to mischief, whether or not they are the same, so I've blocked the accounts. Jehochman 09:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with block, whoever it is. Aggressive attempt to force something libelous and tabloid-sourced into an article on a recently-deceased person (which is, by the way, still covered by BLP); multiple accounts; whether or not it's the same person, IMO it's not someone we want here. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unearned barnstars, etc

• About 15:00 on 28 December 2010 User:ModernWarfare14 copied User:Anthony Appleyard and User talk:Anthony Appleyard onto User:ModernWarfare14 and User talk:ModernWarfare14, and along with it several of my barnstars which he did not earn. He left this message: "== What a Surprise == I Am Just Like You Check Out My Talk And Page (Michael Robertson (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC))" on my talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have deleted from User:ModernWarfare14 the copied barnstars and the "I am an admin" matter. I left a note in the end of User talk:ModernWarfare14. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted their copied content from your talkpage as well. In my opinion, this is probably a RBI situation. Syrthiss (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why not block it and get it over with before some real damage is done. --CrohnieGal 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal relating to page moves

Hello. I'm here to post a link to a discussion over at Requested Moves. Those of us discussing there have, I believe, said everything we've got to say, and we haven't reached consensus (i.e., I'm not convinced). I'd love to see more input from a wider cross-section of Wikipedians. Thanks in advance for any comments.

By the way, at the top of this page, there are extensive lists of what this page is not for, and no information about what it is for. It's here now, on the edit screen, but not on the page itself. Or am I just not seeing it? -GTBacchus 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unearned barnstars redux

Users claiming unearned barnstars rub me the wrong way. It is silly, but nonetheless I believe we should warn users when spotted, and crack down when needed. A recent silly case in point: User:Htmlvb claims to have Centijimbos. No big deal except the user has no followers and the "rules" are no less than 30 watchers to claim them. I reverted the claim and the user proceeded to repost it. Before I revert again and start watching the user for possible 3RR and whatnot, the previous topic reminded me to ask and see the consensus, or should I just not bother (it's as harmless as claiming bogus barnstars, or isn't it?) -- Alexf 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Generally users are allowed to make any wild claims they want, including giving themselves 'awards' such as barnstars, as long as they do not claim to have some permission they do not (i.e. you can't claim to be a bureaucrat if you are not). Prodego 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a 'crat, I am also the King of France! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Cue 37 people telling you that they are a Lord of Time … Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • 36 to go. (X! · talk)  · @243  ·  04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I think X! just jumped the shark... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Haha. That just made my day. Thank you --124.168.244.171 (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This does seem a bit silly to take to AN; the page itself is only kept as humour; if they add themselves incorrectly, just remove them or move them down the list as appropriate. I'm sure we must have better things to do than worry about who's claiming they have how many centijimbos. Incidentally, I have 2.5 centijimbos ;) GiftigerWunsch 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing before. It's disingenuous and stupid but it usually doesn't fool anybody. There are no actual policies for barnstars and such so there is no real recourse if someone is so desperate for positive reinforcement that they award them to themselves. It's quite pathetic but not sanctionable, and I wouldn't recommend edit warring over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually planning on warring. Unwatched the page and forgot about it already. We have more important things to do. Just wanted to get some opinions. -- Alexf 00:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much, else you wouldn't have come here. Just added that for future reference for anyone else reading this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page

• Withdrawn I wanted to have a hypothetical discussion and avoid personalizing it, that has been horribly derailed and no purpose can be served by continuing this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I am referring to specific incidents here I would prefer to keep this purely hypothetical. Even if you dig and check and see who the other two users are, let's pretend this is a purely hypothetical question and the exact identities of the other two users are not important. Quite some time ago I had someone posting on my talk that I did not want to talk to any further. I replaced their remarks with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg, but left their signature attached. This went back and forth a few times, and we wound up at ANI, where there was a consensus that removing it was fine, but replacing it with a graphic and leaving the sig was not. I saw the logic of that, as such an action could serve to inflame the situation and certainly wouldn't help. Fast forward to the last few months. A particular problematic user and I have had occasion to interact a few times. If this person does not like what I have said they do more or less the same thing, replacing my remarks with disparaging statements about me, but leaving my signature intact as though I want my name attached to insults directed at me. I don't care if they remove my remarks entirely. I don't care if I am banished from their talk page (which they never explicitly stated until recently) but I do care that my remarks are refactored so as to insult me and my sig is left attached to them. I have tried to simply remove my remarks altogether and have been reverted. Now, it's all well and good to say it is their talk page and they can have what they want on it. That's fine, but I don't believe they should be refactoring my remarks and leaving my sig on them. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removing or refactoring comments (archiving, shrinking, collapsing) is fine, but altering the comments is against policy; replacing the comment minus the sig with anything else is altering the comment and should be reverted as altering another user's comments. GiftigerWunsch 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• If the signature is removed, of course, all that's really been done is the comment has been removed (in its entirety), and the user's own comment left in its place; which is fine per WP:OWNTALK. GiftigerWunsch 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Second paragraph, first sentence (including italicised for emphasis comment regarding userpages) of WP:TPOC - you can remove another editors comments, but you may not amend them to change the meaning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's not be coy here (for which you can read "context is everything" if you prefer). This is all part of Beeblebrox's recurrent attempts to provoke an editor he derides as "poisonous, nasty, (and) condescending". It is interesting to reflect on Beeblebrox's use of such language toward others as compared with his sensitivity to insult expressed above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case, and remembering that the issue is whether one's posts may be altered or changed to effect a different impression than one intended, the result is clear. It is improper to alter anyone's posts in any manner designed to make the post different in meaning or tone. Colons are ok. Anything else is likely wrong. Collect (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Whilst inapplicable in this particular case, that is not generally true. They are rare and unusual, but there are times when one refactors to change tone. Refactoring to leave the spirit of an argument whilst removing egregiously problematic BLP violating material is one such. (I'm probably channelling Kim Bruning here. Next thing you know, I'll be using "anti-wiki".) The idea that it's 100% improper to refactor talk pages is something that has accrued by garbled repetition of the real rule, which is that it shouldn't be done unless the requirement to protect the encyclopaedia and its writing outweighs the discourtesy of making people appear to have written that which they did not. For further edification on this subject, go and read Misplaced Pages:Refactor personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks, and the associated discussions, polls, and — yes — ArbCom cases. The idea of refactoring was not resoundingly and overwhelmingly rejected; but rather it was realized that a rule about refactoring could be gamed by the immature. Indeed, it is the idea that once written by someone something is set entirely in stone and immutable in 100% of circumstances that is the anti-wiki idea. _{There it is. Next thing you know I'll be … erm … writing in small fonts.} Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Refactoring is not "amending or changing" the meaning of the message - it is noting that a part is problematic; removing the words "fascist worshipping scum" from a complaint about some editors problematic contributions to an article like racial discrimination does not change the context of the complaint - amending "problematic" to "justifiable" is, as is replacing the entire complaint with a box noting "nigger lover whining again" or even "yada yada yada". Parts of a comment that are not policy complaint may indeed be removed or redacted, but the meaning of the comment may not be changed in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Time to drag the kids apart, I think. I propose that we have a two month bilateral moratorium on Beeblebrox interacting with WMC. I'm pretty sure William will have no problem honouring that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was too much to ask to keep this hypothetical. Don't worry, I have no intention of interacting with WMC in any way shape or form ever again. It's just not worth the insults and attacks from him and his fans.I'm not trying to provoke him, the whole point was to not name names, but Boris took a shit on that idea. I wanted to discuss this hypothetically in case such a situation came up somewhere else again in the future, since we apparently can't do that, forget the whole fucking thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My word, such language. And from a colleague who berates others he considers "insulting." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, "forget the whole fucking thing" isn't insulting anyone. GiftigerWunsch 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dudes, behave! Ok, so *yes* you are exhibiting behavior. Very good, that proves you're breathing human beings. Now if you'd kindly exhibit some friendly community building behavior, that'd be even better. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Also, see #Basics, below

Basics

If there is no consensus to stop, there's no consensus to stop. O:-)

The lowdown is that on most talk pages (those not in user space), people don't normally edit or refactor other people's posts anymore. It's certainly not forbidden though; in fact, it's a very normal wiki-operation, it's what wiki's are for. The reason we don't typically refactor posts on talk pages is not because it is forbidden (it is not) but because we have separated discussion from content. What you write on the talk page (hopefully) ends up on a separate content page at some point, so the need to massively refactor pages very often (anymore) has been reduced. Sometimes it can still be useful though. For instance, you can shove a lot of ThreadMode discussion into the archives, and just refactor/summarize the current consensus. This can help a lot! Some people probably still do it, too.

Now, in user space, there's no actual content page associated with the user talk page, and besides, convention is that you can do anything you like in your own userspace (within some level of reason). If you want to refactor everyone's comments into haiku, or into bad zen riddles - traditionally, people have gone right ahead. Example: User_talk:º¡º .

By the fact that you are reading on WP:AN, I hope I can assume that you know better than to believe what you read on any page by the face of it. You should always be using page history to see what was originally said. Obviously, this goes double in userspace.

I *would* like to remind people that refactoring means that you change the *format* of a text, but not the essential *content*. º¡º was within the basic rules/consensus in 2 different ways: both by only doing it in their own userspace and because they were merely refactoring, leaving the essential core message of what a person was saying alone.

So, yes, you may alter edits in your userspace any way you like, because it's not going to hurt or fool anyone. For instance, censoring obvious bad language is quite acceptable (but be sure that that *is* what you're doing!) .

However, with this power also comes responsibility. I would recommend wielding it conservatively. Be careful what you do and how you treat others, lest you be considered a WP:DICK. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC) My name was invoked three times, thus I am obligated to appear.

I may be misunderstanding you, since I'm late to this conversation and haven't fully evaluated it, but this catches my eye: "So, yes, you may alter edits in your userspace any way you like, because it's not going to hurt or fool anyone." That doesn't seem to accord with consensus as per WP:TALKO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." There are acceptable forms of altering messages, but "any way you like" seems like a bit of an overstatement. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the actual meaning of a comment is confusing, and therefore a pretty WP:DICK move, and is therefore not a good idea (all[REDACTED] social rules can ultimately be derived from WP:DICK ;-) ). So my statements and WP:TALKO align; though I feel that the current wording on that page is a bit too legalistic about it, and somewhat prone to WP:POINT abuses. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I said: "everything is permitted, but don't be a WP:DICK", the page says "all these non-WP:DICK things are ok. The approach is "you may- except" versus "you may not, except". You end up with roughly the same procedures, except I think my wording is less violent, and altogether nicer :-).

Perhaps, but, sadly, the legalistic language sometimes seems necessary. :/ Some people may not be dissuaded for fear of being considered a dick but might think twice for fear of being blocked for violating behavioral guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MRG here, it's better to have some guidelines because there are some things you shouldn't do, for the reason that they foster an unhealthy environment. Replacing someone's comments with a troll graphic serves absolutely no purpose except self-gratification and fostering a battleground atmosphere. That to me is disruptive editing and the TPG should point that out. Franamax (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'd go so far as to call that disruptive editing (that's a rather big catch-all, for starters). It's certainly not very nice. I never said anything about there not being guidelines. I just said that the current guideline is worded very legalistically -always a recipe for wikidrama. If I were to refactor it, I'd write it from a more friendly perspective. Not my problem atm though, I'm not maintaining policy atm. O:-) Other than that, both my words and the WP:TALKO policy seem to be pretty much in line with each other here.

WRT precedent: replacing people's comments with a DFTT graphic is

• hilarious to oneself.
• Very insulting to the other person.

I think User:Ta bu shi da yu did something similar once. He got the same answer: It's not technically entirely unpermitted, but it's not very nice either; so Please Don't Do That. TBSDY being TBSDY he abided by that advice from his peers, and I hope User:Beeblebrox will do the same. It's always much nicer when things are resolved using common sense, rather than legalistic wrangling. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox is a good name, btw. don't panic! ;-)

Masterful baiting

Would certain editors please stop this unhealthy obsession with stalking, provoking and persecuting WMC? I am just about to the point of requesting arbitration where I suspect a number of you would lose your bits or get some bans. WMC is under sanctions. It is very unseemly to persist in pressuring and baiting a vulnerable user in hopes that you can finally run them off Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Loeb's First Law of Internal Medicines states: "If what you're doing is working, keep doing it." So you see the counterargument. MastCell  18:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need ArbCom to scrutinize the matter. There are too many game players on both sides who just want to carry on the fight of CC, rather than disengage from an editor who's already been forced from the field of battle. Those who continue hounding WMC should be sanctioned severely. Jehochman 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting title for this thread . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirm editor or unprotect page

User; Mieczeslaw would like to translate Chav into Russian. Since he is a new account on en.wiki and the page is semi-protected he can't get to the code. Would it be possible either to confirm him or to unprotect the page? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find that user, but I have copied the contents to http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Unomi/chav, might be easier. un☯mi 09:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found the user- User:Mieczeslaw- and given them the flag. Courcelles 09:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, mind deleting my page then? un☯mi 09:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Courcelles 09:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you can read the source on a semi'd page even if you are not autoconfirmed - the "Edit" link becomes "View source" (hint, hint). Moreover, action=raw can also be used to get the code easily: //en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chav&action=raw. Both work even if you are not logged in. T. Canens (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Two community ban discussions on ANI

Since this board is usually the preferred place for community ban discussions, editors here might like to be aware of two ban discussions that have separately been started on ANI as a response to disruptive reports on that board:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer concerns an editor who has disrupted articles related to water fluoridation and Wikileaks
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Formal community ban for Mikemikev concerns an editor who already has a one-year ban by Arbcom but is now proposed to be community banned.

Comments are welcome in either discussion per the usual process. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATIVE EDITOR INTERFERING AND VANDALIZING SITE

Hello,

I am a published and well regarded scholar in the history of science and high tech. I give many talks on the subject, including at conferences such as TED, DLD, WEF Davos, Monoco Media Forum, etc. I have been unsuccessful, over now a period of days, to properly edit or even suggest edits that are either neutral or factual with regard to a profile of a living person Naveen Jain, who has a "controversial" and blocked biographical page on Wiki. I have no personal or business connection, nor any connection at all to either the individual or the administrator. I am trying to act as an impartial editor, with well sourced material and facts. I feel that it is necessary to maintain strict standards and careful prudence when writing about the lives of living persons.

Over the past few days, I have been met with constant resistance from an editor, who I have tried to give full benefit of the doubt to, but who now in my opinion, is clearly interfering with the site, by acting as a One Vote filter, allowing negative and unsupported controversial information through, as well as trivial matters, but blocking any corrections, sourced affiliations, and the like.

A number of examples. A fact: I tried to state that this individual was the recipient of the Albert Einstein Technology Award, which he received in 1999. Although at first he questioned the award, and questioned every source, I then went back and found sources that matched the level of which he was alluding to. Once it was proven that this individual did in fact receive the award, he then questioned the merit of the award! This was incredible to me, as it was a very prestigious award given out by and to leaders in the high tech industry, and covered by Red Herring. It is not his position as a disinterested viewer to make judgments on whether someone either deserved an award, nor whether the award is worth anything. This is stepping outside the box of what is acceptable as an editor, when one is trying to report facts and accomplishments.

In another example, the individual was on the Board of the X PRIZE Foundation as well as Singularity University. Yet, this same reviewer, even though this affiliation was once again properly sourced, questioned the merits of such an affiliation and refused to allow it.

it goes on. However, he does allow the unsubstantiated statement from a single reporter to be included that the person's company crashed because of the "hype' of this individual. This was during the dot com crash when many companies had crashed. No context given, etc.

In the individual's personal background, there is unsubstantiated trivia related to the person's inability to adjust to the climate of New Jersey. The comment takes up 1/3 of the space in that section! The editor has refused to remove this! Yet, he refuses to also insert this individual's Board affiliation with the X PRIZE Foundation and Singularity University, and also questions the merit of his awards and achievements. This does not feel right in any way. :-(

I have spent the past several days, and now many hours, in a civil and professional manner trying to get these issues resolved, but this editor blocks everything, and not only my edits, but those of others, at every turn.

Again, I have tried to give this editor/administrator the full benefit of the doubt, this is not a personal issue with me, but his continued actions, the continual double-standard applied, the lack of any effort to correct mistakes, but always to respond with a dismissal, rebuff, counter-argument (but the same arguments for some reason do not apply to the negative and controversial edits he does allow in), have shown me that this is no longer about the controversy of the material, but the controversy surrounding the editor/administrator. If he is acting as such a reversed toilet filter in this instance, where only the good gets flushed out, and the crap can remain, then, how can one expect him to perform in a way that is keeping with the standards of Wiki in other areas.

There have been numerous discussions about this, on his page, my page, as well as the talk page of Naveen Jain. There is obviously contentious history with him way before me with regards to this page. I will not comment on that aspect, other than to say I am not familiar with those other editors/commentators, and therefore I don't know. However, in my case, there has been more than ample opportunity and effort made for him to change this material. Yet, he steadfastly refuses, and I have had enough of wasting my time with dealing with him further. I request an impartial editor and administer to look over these discussions, check the material, and come in and resolve this matter in a way that is fair, balanced, and in keeping with the standards promoted by Misplaced Pages, as well as respecting someone who is alive.

Please note that he has successfully deleted my professional comments and any criticism on his own page, and so, this part of the discussion is lost. The editor is: Ronu. His link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ronz Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The pages in question, and you can find the various discussions, are as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Naveen_Jain http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Naveen_Jain http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Science%26HiTechReviewer

I thank you for your professional review of this matter. It is amazing to me that such things have to be bumped up.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards