Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 24 December 2007 (Does opening an account at a "bad site" get you in trouble?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:43, 24 December 2007 by Alison (talk | contribs) (Does opening an account at a "bad site" get you in trouble?: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Purge the cache to refresh this page
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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.(archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion


    Current issues

    User:Defender 911

    Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention User:Defender 911.

    At one point, Defender was an alright editor. However, he was blocked indefinitely in August for severe harassment and for disrespecting a fellow user's right to vanish. It was a widely endorsed block, and since no administrator was willing to overturn the block, he was banned.

    Now, recently, he has requested for unblock, however it was declined. What I'm suggesting the community consider is something that I know may cause some amount of drama, but please understand that this is out of good faith.

    I am suggesting we unblock Defender 911.

    This is not going to be easy for the community to do. There was very serious disruption caused by this user, and it stemmed from disrespecting an editors right to vanish. However, what I suggest is that we keep a close eye on Defender, and place him on civility probation. Yes, I know this would be a tough unblock, but I'm certain if he really has reformed, he can be an asset once more.

    After all, we all lose sight once in awhile. :) Maser 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    BTW, I can't find where this block was "widely endorsed." I've looked through the WP:AN and WP:AN/I archives and I only found one spot where the indef block was even mentioned in passing. -- Kendrick7 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the decision to turn the block into a ban after two hours was decided by someone who had been editing[REDACTED] for three weeks, and quit the project a week later. - Kendrick7 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, they'd been editing for a while using another account. Daniel 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I strongly, strongly oppose Defender 911 being unblocked or unbanned. His actions just prior to his banning showed a serious inability to use common sense, showed how this user could be extremely malicious and a danger to good-faithed Misplaced Pages editors (in the interests of privacy for those involved I can obviously not provide details), a total disregard for established users' warnings both about his userspace editing and his harassment of other editors, and a general inability to be involved in a community environment without causing excessive disturbance. Sorry, but I don't want Defender 911 to be editing Misplaced Pages ny time soon, both to protect users who are far more valuable than him from his harassment and also to prevent other, less noticeable yet just as effective disruption. I strongly oppose unbanning. Daniel 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Could we have some diffs of the example behavior which caused the ban in the first place? It's unusual for someone to be banned on first offense, as it appears so here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    From my understanding many have been oversighted. It would be inappropriate to rehost the harassment that resulted in the block, really. For some more tame stuff see the recent contributions (the last 100) — although, it must be said, that is only the tip of the iceberg and the end of the whole story. Furthermore, it was hardly the users' "first offence" — Defender 911 had so many warnings, so many conditional no-blocks (for a small selection see the last version of the user talk page before the block). Daniel 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    No. Absolutely not. --B (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    No. Just no. east.718 at 07:48, December 16, 2007
    I don't see any reason he'd repeat the same mistake again. Since this was this user's first block, four months seems sufficient. He seems to have been helpful to the project -- received a number of barnstars, etc. Blocks are not punitive, remember? -- Kendrick7 08:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'd have to support an unblock as well. Unless there is some more clarity as to what exactly occurred, it is difficult to figure out the extent of his disruption. At the very least, some details from the admins who were directly involved would help. How about a temporary unblock to allow him to come here and discuss the issue? Anything more and it'll be clear to everyone. Would that help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    The extent of his harassment isn't evidenct from the contributions given the oversighting of certain edits. It is my personal opinion that this block should remain in place, both temporary and in the future, for the protection of all Wikipedians. However, as always, I bow to consensus. (He is free to paste messages on his user talk page to be copied here, as I noted in this message to him earlier.) Daniel 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Upon discussion, I think I better see the gravity of the situation and support the views of those who were primarily involved in the situation, and support continuing the block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and asked for feedback at WT:OVER as to the extend of the oversighting here, just for the community record. -- Kendrick7 11:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    I understand that some of you might not want me unblocked, but all I wanted to do was help H. I did not expect a four-month block and the deletion of most of my user page space. I understand now that my disruption was wrong, and I hope that I can be reaccepted into the community. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    (This comment was copied from here by me) henriktalk 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    Barnstars notwithstanding, I just don't know if this editor is worth the hassle. Looking at his contributions, it's hard to see that he understands we're here to build an encyclopedia. Out of 1159 non-deleted contributions, only 92 are to mainspace (a shade less than 8%) and most of those are minor (at least, they ought to be flagged as such). The majority of his contributions (more than two thirds) are to user talk and his user page. His contributions in Misplaced Pages namespace fall largely into two categories: edits to games in the Sandbox, and attempts to create extensive new Esperanza- and CVU-type organizations: . (His deleted edits are largely to these sorts of projects and userspace amusement as well.)

    While I think it's fairly likely that he's always only been trying to help, his over-the-top behaviour has done more harm than good. His bull-in-a-china-shop approach to 'helping out' an editor who had left due to harrassment showed terrible judgement, and is unfortunately consistent with Defender's approach to Misplaced Pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    I just find it remarkable he received two three barnstars in the 72 hours before his block alone. I've never seen a user go from hero to zero in such record time. Perhaps he managed to make enemies just as quickly as he made friends. -- Kendrick7 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    This guy was a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer, too. TheWikiLoner (talk · contribs) Moreschi 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Can you link to the WP:RFCU thread? -- Kendrick7 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Nope, that one was done privately via IRC. You'll either have to take my word for it (easiest course), get another checkuser to go through the CU logs, or take Dmcdevit's word for it (I think it was him). Really, I wouldn't tell such an obviously disprovable lie. Moreschi 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Guy's response to Wikiloner's unblock request casts doubt on all this, though I understand he may have only been speaking off the cuff. But since it appears the ban was out of process to begin with, since no one can point to where consensus was reached, he seems only stand accused of operating a sockpuppet of a blocked user, a somewhat less serious, and perhaps forgivable, offense. -- Kendrick7 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Out of process? A person is community banned if they are indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock them. That is the process. I seriously doubt any admin is going to be willing to reverse this one. --B (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    and the block has received due consideration by the community per WP:BAN. That's the missing ingredient. -- Kendrick7 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    It seems to have received due considering here in this thread, whether or not it may have been discussed before. (Has anybody checked the WP:CSN archives?) A variety of administrators with first hand knowledge have supported the block, and none have stepped forward to recommend unblocking. - Jehochman 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    If it was discussed before, it wasn't discussed on anywhere in WP: space (what links here from WP to Defender 911). I don't know how relevant that is, though - if no admin is willing to unblock, the level of discussion is moot. Defender is, of course, welcome to make a request for arbitration and appeal his ban that way. --B (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think that, if he wants to edit once more, he should bring it to ArbCom. I came here with good faith intentions for a user who behaved horribly, to try to suggest an unblock for someone who I wanted to give a second chance to, because I think everybody deserves a second chance; however, a consensus has to be built before we can do anything. It is clear the consensus is not to unblock at this time. Maser 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    My response to thewikiloner should not be taken as an indication of doubt cast on the CheckUser evidence, only as a statement that there was more tha one problem with that user, and addressing one problem would not fix the other. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think this user treated Misplaced Pages as a social site. See this and this. I rarely see any mainspace contributions. I agree with the support to not unblockban this user. Miranda 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed with the rejection of the unblock request. I think if he wants to be able to edit again, he needs to talk to ArbCom. Considering his disruption with trying to contact a user who was harassed off of Misplaced Pages, EVEN after being told that the person was aware of his desire and did not desire to initiate conversation.. not good. SirFozzie (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    But still, the attempt to contact such user seems to have been in good faith (I'm sure your efforts to track this editor down are well-intentioned and I don't doubt your intentions); though he committed the mistake of not stopping when told, several times, I'm confident he'll be more careful in the future. TomasBat 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where even a "one strike and you're out" probation would be appropriate. Given the circumstances that forced H's departure, I can't support an unblock in good conscience. We learned the hard way a few months back what happens when we don't take violations of our colleagues' privacy seriously enough. As to whether a discussion was needed, it seems to me that ever since H was harassed off of Misplaced Pages, it's been well established that if you invade another Wikipedian's privacy, you're banned--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I wouldn't object to taking it to ArbCom, though--but given the circumstances, I think it would have to be held in camera. Blueboy96 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Saying he "played a significant part in driving away H" doesn't seem like a justified statement given that his apparent involvement in that affair took place after that user had already left, and consisted of foolish, but apparently not malicious, attempts to contact him unwantedly. The fact that he got indefinitely banned for that, and is still being treated as an unperson months later, is just a sign of the punitive vindictiveness some on Misplaced Pages show toward anybody who stumbled onto their raw nerves. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    It turns out Daniel's claim was incorrect; there doesn't seem to be any relevant oversighting of this user's contributions, per WT:OVER#Oversighting of User:Defender 911's edits on 11 August. So there's no excuse not to be able to provide diffs here, even though they may be deleted ones from his user subpages, etc. I'd prefer someone just give this user another bite at the apple here, given he's sat out four months and we should WP:AGF that he won't inquire after user "h" again, and considering the very backroom way the quote-unquote ban was handled in the first place. However, if there's a pressing need to take up ArbCom's time on this, this user has been more than patient thus far. -- Kendrick7 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm strongly opposed to the unbanning of Defender 911, perhaps even to the point of reblocking if a ban is enacted. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. He was given many second chances, and he was warned many times, by many people, to stop. Sean William @ 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, can you provide diffs? -- Kendrick7 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    No. I agree with the consensus to keep the ban for now, indef. Sorry, but this is reckless, as we know of a substantial risk that the offending user will only abuse us again. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    To try to bring a bit more sense and a bit less rush-to-judgment to this, the user in question was not the one who harassed User:H off Misplaced Pages; some above commentators seem to be acting like he was. Rather, this user made some attempts to get in touch with H after he had departed. These attempts were done for some reason likely fully known only to himself, supposedly for the purpose of helping H; however, this "help" was clearly unwanted, and the attempts to make this contact were pursued in an obsessive-compulsive way that got on many people's nerves. He even bit me on my talk page for noting the obsessive-compulsiveness of it at the time, so he's hardly a friend of mine. However, I'm against unfair vindictiveness being committed against anybody. This user seems to be one who did a silly thing a few months ago, not a serial harasser as he's being portrayed. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ehh - can we make criticism etc without delving into diagnoses of psychiatric disorders? I'm sure few of us are qualified to make that call, and speaking as a sufferer of (mild) OCD myself... I don't think that was Defender's problem. We just got trolled, and we dealt with it as we should have. I see no valid reason to overturn this ban. ~ Riana 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Once the nomenklatura of Misplaced Pages decides somebody's a troll or a harasser, there seems to be no way out. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mm, putting it on AN does indeed restrict discussion to a very small subunit of the community. Sitenotice next time, please. Seriously - some people have opposed the ban and some people have endorsed it. Enough with the tin-foil crap, y'all. ~ Riana 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    All he seems to have done is asked a few users discreetly on their talk pages if they knew how to contact User:H; I don't consider that "trolling" as you've labeled it or "massive disruption" as it was called by the blocking admin, and in any case he's promised not to do that anymore. Is there any actual trolling you'd like to point out? -- Kendrick7 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I second Riana here. As another sufferer of (pretty bad) OCD, I point out that there is a difference between obsessively stalking somebody and having OCD. Furthermore, it's really not an excuse for disruptive behavior. Anthøny 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's not just the fact that he persisted violating a user's privacy - it's actually because of the comments he left on user talk pages. This comment on the talk page of WJBscribe is the type of thing that got him blocked. Maser 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sadly, I know now that Misplaced Pages is no community; it runs itself like a corporation. Misplaced Pages's only goals are for itself, with no regard for the people who contribute to it. The administrators here are no better than I was four months ago, and, to be honest, I don't even think I caused enough disruption for a ban this long. The sysops I've met are the most hateful, disrespectful, power-hungry, unforgiving people I've ever met - and I've hardly met them! They have a stunning incapacity to experience forgiveness, but an equally stunning capacity for injustise, surplus punishment, and distrust. Don't take this as a personal attack, because this is exactly how I've felt for four months!!! I ought to leave Misplaced Pages; I'm not wanted here. Respond if you want; it hardly matters by now. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Status of ban

    Since the current working definition of a community ban is an indefinite block where no admin is willing to unblock, and admins here are willing to unblock, Defender is therefore not community banned, and I have removed him or her from Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. I would humbly request that anyone interested please comment on the future definition of community bans at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Who is willing to unblock? Sean William @ 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any administrators willing to unblock:
    • Opposing unblocking (or not willing to unblock):
    1. Daniel (administrator)
    2. B (administrator)
    3. east718 (administrator)
    4. Ricky81682 (administrator)
    5. TenOfAllTrades (administrator)
    6. Miranda
    7. SirFozzie (administrator)
    8. JzG (administrator)
    9. Sean William (administrator)
    10. Bearian (administrator)
    11. Riana (administrator emerita)
    12. Raymond arritt (administrator)
    • Promoting unblocking:
    1. Maser (not an administrator)
    2. Kendrick7 (not an administrator)
    3. TomasBat (not an administrator)
    4. Dtobias (not an administrator)
    5. Blueboy96 (not an administrator)
    I can't see the administrator willing to unblock that Ali'i mentions above. I see about a dozen administrators supporting a ban, but most importantly, no administrator promoting unbanning. That's a textbook ban. Daniel 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    If I were an admin, I would not unblock without community consent. I just wanted to see what the community thought, as I was willing to assume good faith. I think AGF is one of the greatest things an administrator can have, but mmore important is respecting consensus. Maser 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    And after reading this discussion, I am beginning to change my mind. Maser 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    (response to first post) The section is titled "romoting unblocking" for that exact reason :) Daniel 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    True. And there are very, very convincing arguments that Defender shouldn't be unblocked due to the disruption he caused. Those who do not understand whether or not he was banned, please see Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban. It states that when a user is blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock, that user is banned. There was plenty of considertion from the community, and Defender was blocked indef for harassment and disrespect of WP:RTV. No administrator is willing to unblock, and regardless of whether or not it was discussed, nobody really wanted him back. That is a de-facto ban, no matter how anybody slices it.
    My intent was to see if he can become a constructive editor - he certainly has the potential to be one IMO. However, he has been disruptive to the point where the community considered oversighting some of his contributions. And after a close look at his last contributions before he was blocked, he looks to be far too willing to climb the reichstag dressed as Spiderman to prove his point. However, I don't think he'll do what he did again - at least, I HOPE not. Maser 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't seen any convince arguments, and instead have been stonewalled when requesting diffs. Again, I hope you understand that there was no community discussion before this thread was begun, four months after the fact, which began with the false claims that he was already banned and that his edits had been oversighted. De-facto bans shouldn't be occurring in Misplaced Pages's back alleys, and when they are finally brought into the light for the communities assessment, evidence should be provided upon request. The community never considered oversighting any of his contributions; again, where are the diffs to support this assertion? -- Kendrick7 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    My apologies for this section. I read Riana's post above stating that "some people oppose the ban", and construed it to mean that there were administrators who did. E kala mai. --Ali'i 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Blueboy's suggestion

    I supported an indefblock since it was initially thought Defender made some edits that required oversight in this matter. But since there weren't any, I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate. That being said, however, we're still left with someone who made repeated attempts to contact a user who expressed a desire not to be contacted. I really don't think we should allow someone back right away under those circumstances.

    With that being said, since he has apologized, I propose this: cut the indefinite block down to six nine months, and allow him back in April--but with the proviso that he can be rebanned with the consensus of any three admins if he steps out of line again. Does this sound reasonable? Blueboy96 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't like the part about leaving this up to any three admins. The problem with the current "ban" is it never went through any community vetting, which seems to me all the more reason to go through the proper routine next time around. At this point, a simple notification here at WP:AN would probably result in a WP:SNOW in favor of a ban anyway if he engages in any future dubious behavior in the near future, so I realize it's only a formality, but it's what's right. Of course, all his block history could be brought to bear in any such discussion. -- Kendrick7 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    What I'm proposing here is basically a community probation ... but Kendrick does make a good point. It's obvious that this would be his absolute last chance. So strike out the idea of just a three-admin consensus, and simply note that if he steps out of line again, a simple note either here or ANI, he's done. Blueboy96 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify my proposal ... cut the current block to a nine-month ban, allowing him to come back in April. If he steps out of line again once he returns, he'll be subject to an indefinite community ban. Blueboy96 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Indefinite probation seems poorly conceived. He made one mistake, which only looks worse because he made the correct choice of discretion in a sensitive matter, and it is a mistake which, apparently after much thought, he has promised not to repeat, and many at the time even said he made that mistake with the best of intentions. I'd make the block retroactive to four months, starting from September 15th when he was caught attempting to evade his ban. I can't see at this point, since everyone just makes wild assertions and then clams up when asked for diffs, that he'd get a much different deal from ArbCom, whose time I'm disinclined to waste on this matter, but I would file a case on this user's behalf, and I believe they'd accept if only to clarify some of the irregularities involved here. If there are future problems, just handle them like this problem should have been handled in the first place, according to our policies, etc. No reason to insist this editor have to look over their shoulder for the next 40+ years because of one incident of poor judgment. -- Kendrick7 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    No adminsitrator seems willing to unblock, hence the user is banned. Take this to the Arbitration Committee, because you aren't getting any change here. Daniel 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Those calling to unblock might have a point if we were dealing with an excellent contributor who made a single goof. But we're dealing with a very marginal contributor who engaged in persistent behavior that compromised an individual's privacy. The ratio of expected benefits to possible costs is unacceptable. No unblock. No way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Aside from the relative marginality of his contributions, those statements are way overblown. His "persistent behavior" lasted just a few hours, and consisted of asking for information (so any privacy violation would have been committed by anybody who responded, not by him; and nobody did respond with any privacy violations). A permanent ban is vastly overblown, and reflects the harsh, unforgiving culture that has unfortunately developed here lately. I don't particularly like the guy (one of his last actions before getting blocked was to snap at me on my user page), and I think what he did was silly, but I'm also for showing a logical sense of proportion. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Those calling to unblock might have a point if we were dealing with an excellent contributor" wow, that's kind of messed up to say. It's also a bit disturbing that no one is providing any diffs here, or evidenced of prolonged bad behavior. What happened to blocking being seen as a last step? If he gets out of line again, even just a little, block him again, but don't pretend like unblocking him is such a horrible idea. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Did some more digging. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just want to stress once again that User:Defender 911, as all blocked and banned users, can appeal his ban to the arbitration committee by e-mailing any of the arbitrators or clerks. -- lucasbfr 11:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    I must confess, my position isn't too far off from those who say he should stay in the Wikibrig forever. You can't get around the fact that Defender tried to contact H several times after H apparently expressed that he didn't want to be contacted. That's a very serious matter--one which for me precludes reducing the ban to time served (as Kendrick and Dan T. seem to be suggesting). But at the same time, he's publicly apologized to the community for his actions ... something which is far, far more than I've seen. Which is why I say yes, he should stay blocked--but not indef. So my question to those who want him to stay indef'd--why not cut it down to a nine-month or one-year ban? After all, it seems pretty obvious that there are at least 12 admins who would be falling all over themselves to grab the banhammer if he slipped up again. I'm willing to change my mind if I see something that convinces me that indef is the way to go here, though--but unless something was oversighted, nine months to a year is appropriate for his misbehavior. Blueboy96 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Also should note that I've done some digging, and it seems we've given at least one "Last Chance" for an offense more egregious than this. This is what I'm proposing ... let the block stay until either April or September, than let him come back and if he slips up again, he's a goner. It should be noted that in the example I cited, Rbj wasn't forced to cool his heels for a few months before being unblocked, as I am proposing should happen with Defender. Blueboy96 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    I recently had a chance to look at Defender 911's contribs ... and there is a fairly large gap between his last publicly viewable contribs between 8:39 pm on August 10 and 6:31 am on August 11. The latter time is after he was blocked--and the Oversight people say that there was a large number of contributions on or about the 11th that were deleted. Having put two and two together, I must regretfully withdraw my proposal and endorse the ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talkcontribs) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Do you mean the deleted contributions, or oversighted ones (since Kirill seemed to believe there were no oversighted contribs)? To be precise, I see angry edits and this MfDed page (link to the MfD for non admins), both being ill advised (perhaps because of his age?), but not much warranting a ban... What am I missing? In the current state I'd say either unblock him now or don't do it, but I see no good in making him sit on the bench for 6 months. -- lucasbfr 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    There are no regular deleted contributions during that timeframe. Call me crazy, but I would bet there's at least a decent chance he was asleep for a good chunk of the time between 8:39 pm and 6:31 am. ;) It's possible that Daniel was simply mistaken about edits being oversighted and was confusing it with another case or thought some of the social networking pages that were simply deleted had in fact been oversighted. --B (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    That was my impression, that he fell asleep and woke up to being banned, with no delay, no opportunity for discussion in the community, nor any evidence, etc. being presented to the community, or even an opportunity to appeal to the community since bans can only be appealed directly to ArbCom (and no one bothered to tell him that either, I gather). I wouldn't want that to happen to me. -- Kendrick7 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I hope I'm not seen as flip-flopping here, but if there wasn't anything that merited his contributions being deleted, I don't see any harm in allowing him back sometime between April and September. I just want to do what's fair to everyone here. Like I said, considering the fact he engaged in conduct bordering on stalking and that he operated a sock, immediate unblocking really isn't appropriate in this case. Blueboy96 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Let me clarify for the non-admins in the audience that Defender 911 has numerous deleted contributions, including many in and around the suggested time frame. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Let's not forget that if the person behind the account Defender 911 has reformed and wants to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia, they can do so with a new account. Quite frankly, with the history behind this account, and the number of admins that would be hovering and waiting to block, this is what I'd recommend. Obviously, if the new account engages in the same sort of behaviour, it will similarly get blocked and maybe banned. And before anyone gets upset and says I'm promoting block evasion, note the reformed and constructive qualifiers. Having said that, I think the block was tweaked to enable autoblock, but I think, from reading Misplaced Pages:Autoblock (that's a page I'm glad I've never read before), that this always expires after 24 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have a few things to say; firstly Carcharoth, I think your AGF is, without meaning to sound like I'm thanking someone who supports my cause, commendable. Secondly, the new start thing is extended to all but banned users, and he'd be blocked if he is found to have evaded his block/ban. Which is why I'm suggesting he gets unbanned. I honestly think we have to understand two things: 1) Every editor is human, no matter how rude, arrogant, or disrespectful they may have once been, and 2) People do change, and it's unlikely that someone who got banned will continue the same behavior that got them banned in the first place. That's my reasoning behind this discussion - one last chance to someone who lost sight of what is important. Maser 06:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Technically that is not quite true. If someone got banned under a pseudonym and started editing Misplaced Pages 10 years later (or even a few months later) from a different city, maybe even a different country (ie. different IP addresses), under a different account, and never mentioned their past account, then there would be no way to tie the two accounts together. Even banned editors can vanish (not m:vanish, which is a permanent departure) and reappear. The crux of the matter is the behaviour of the new account (civility, interactions, articles edited) and the lack of connection between them and previous accounts. It is sometimes possible to do deep and complex investigations, but if the new account is editing productively then there is little point. Equally, even the most productive and seemingly civil account always has a shred of doubt attached until due diligence has been done (the phrase Jimbo is using about checking the latest arbitrators) and commitment has been demonstrated. Something like actually attending a wiki-meetup, stating who you are in real life, or at least letting certain people know these things - until that happens, there is always a smidgen (or more) of doubt. I've been editing since January 2005, but (like many others) I've never shown the slightest interest in saying who I am in real life, though there are clues for location and suchlike. The point is that I could be someone who was banned before 2005. I'm not, but as long as I edit under a pseudonym, there is no way to be sure. That is why people say to respond to the edit, not the editor. Though that oversimplifies things somewhat. You often see people saying that they gave up an old account for various reasons, often as part of explaining why they seem to know their way around Misplaced Pages. This sort of thing obviously shouldn't be overdone, and I agree that getting unblocked is a better way to do things, but if someone feels that they've been unjustly blocked or that too much mud has been flung around and is sticking, then a new account is an option. There is probably an essay about "the right to start over with a fresh account", and when it is and isn't acceptable. Does anyone know of an essay like that? I also seem to remember some banned users being allowed to start with a new account without the knowledge of the community as long as an arbitrator has been notified and can monitor them. That applies more to arbitration committee banned users, but how would that work for community-banned editors? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing against the possibility of his return under a new account. It violates WP:BAN, but I honestly think you're right. People do change, and I'm sure Defender 911 can, and I have a feeling will, if we give it time. If he evades his ban, but helps Misplaced Pages in a substantial way while doing so, I commend him as the editor he'd become, not the editor he was. WP:AGF forever. Maser 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    In any case, this has moved on to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Defender 911. -- Kendrick7 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    JoshuaZ and Daniel Brandt

    At the recent DRV of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it was decided that the deletion of the redirect was to be overturned, but the moving of the editting history of the article was placed at Talk:Public Information Research/merged material (which was itself a redirect last week) was not determined to be overturned or endorsed at the DRV discussion. This was the status quo until JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) replaced all of the editing history of the article back in its original title and then restored all of the history of the title. JoshuaZ has restored the editing history of the article three separate times. JoshuaZ has argued that this is a necessity for keeping the GFDL requirements in place for the article, but as it stands it has been decided at DRV that the content of Daniel Brandt be solely a redirect, which is what the closing admin (Xoloz) had done to the content of the page as it had been deleted.

    The issue stands that JoshuaZ has had more than his share in undeleting a very controversial page that has had a lot of deletions and undeletions. I am unsure as this can be construed as wheel warring, but I am fairly certain that several administrators in that delete log have been desysopped for their actions in conjunction with the deletion and undeletion of the article (Geni and Yanksox, in particular, were desysoped solely because of the wheel war at Daniel Brandt). I will notify JoshuaZ of this discussion so he may state his part.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Incidentally, Talk:Public Information Research/merged material is now a simple text dump of the history, which is enough to satisfy the GFDL without making available any potentially libelous/contentious/whatever-adjective material. —Random832 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    For various reasons no it isn't.Geni 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I simply do not understand the purpose of restoring the history of the article. Keeping it as a redirect to Public Information Research is a rational decision, even if some disagree, and was the decision at Misplaced Pages:DRV#9_December_2007. However what is the purpose of restoring all the article history? That perpetuates the problematic material that was the subject of the June AfD and DRV that resulted in the merge in the first place. GFDL? Redirects don't need a complicated history for GFDL purposes. Joshua also cites Previous breaks many links to by people linking to difs of this article in the archive and makes it hard to find. Well, shit, every deletion breaks a link somewhere, let's never delete anything! If someone has a link to Daniel Brandt and we have chosen to delete it (for whatever reason) then the link should be broken. This latest restoration is completely unexplicable to me. Thatcher131 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Timeline
    • 19:58, 14 June 2007 JoshuaZ ( restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,667 revisions restored)
      • This overturned the AfD closure by A Man in Black without DRV; DRV later endorsed the closure.
    • 03:13, 10 December 2007 JoshuaZ restored "Daniel Brandt" ‎ (2,674 revisions restored: Out of policy deletion, against previous compromise and consensus,and violation of the GFDL. Restoring)
      • This restoration overturned Doc Glasgow's deletion of the redirect in violation of the BLP policy which mandates that BLP deletions must not be overturned without consensus. DRV reversed the deletion on Dec 14, keeping Daniel Brandt] as a redirect but said nothing about the history.
    • 7:45, 14 December 2007 JoshuaZ deleted "Daniel Brandt" in order to move the history back over the redirect, then he protected it.


    There is no pressing need to maintain a history of potentially libelous information. The history should be deleted again and reverted to the status quo as of June. east.718 at 04:53, December 18, 2007
    • Joshua is simply mistaken about GFDL. As long as the history is clear, it doesn't matter where it is. See Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete for a full discussion. If there is indeed a GFDL problem the history could be moved to a subpage, or--I think this would be best--the list of usernames and dates could be copied to a subpage, and the history itself deleted. Chick Bowen 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I agree that there was no need to restore the history. Broken links aren't exactly a reason to do so, and GFDL concerns here are fairly minimal, particularly if the history contains content that some (including the subject) consider libelous. Dumping the history to a subpage (maybe removing edit summaries) might be the best idea to satisfy whatever GFDL concerns might be there, as Random832 seems to have done. --Coredesat 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Try again. And this time really read the GFDL.Geni 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    The status quo between June 2007 and the 1 December deletion by Doc was an undeleted history (per the log). The move of the history to another page took place only after Doc's 1 December deletion was questioned. We should keep that in mind when we talk about the status quo of the article. Another deletion would probably mean another DRV, not that that is a problem. I just wanted to note that there has never been a deletion discussion that resulted in the decision to delete the entire history. Something to ponder. NoSeptember 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    As NoSeptember says, there was no consensus to delete the history. And as I explained earlier, doing so breaks the spirit and possibly the letter of the GFDL. There's no content in the history that the subject considers libelous. All such content has been oversighted. The DRV closer specifically had no objection to this, and the DRV restored the status quo more or less- so the status quo is as we have had for sometime, the history is there. Unecessary deletion of histories that breaks literally hundreds of links simply damages are transparency and accomplishes nothing else. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    The GFDL is not intended to and should not impinge on our editorial discretion. If there are editorial reasons to keep it, fine. But the GFDL issue is not a big deal. Chick Bowen 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    The GFDL is most certainly intended to infringe on your editorial discretion. You can no more use editorial discretion to ignore the requirements of the GFDL than you can to ignore copyright law. Fortunately, I don't think deleting past revisions is a violation of the letter of the GFDL, though it certainly seems to be a violation of its spirit. (It wasn't really designed to be used in the way Misplaced Pages does.) - makomk (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is a violation of the GFDL however since most people have never really read it and made a solid effort of understanding it I doubt many people would get all the reasons why.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've re-deleted it, as per the reasons Doc, Alkivar, and Dmcdevit deleted it before. There is wide acceptance that the GFDL is already satisfied by the history on the talk subpage; GFDL compliance is not a reason to restore fragile BLP material. --krimpet 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Is this really happening? Do we have to have controversy over this again? Deleted histories are still kept in the database and are available by administrators willing to provide them. This s compliant with the GFDL. Oversight is a different issue. But I'm preaching to the choir; these are things we all know.

    Why wikilawyer all of this? This question is for both sides.

    We can policy wonk this until the cows come home, the foundation runs out of cash, the internet es'plodes, or our motherboards burn themselves out with the kilobytes of typing. If you want to provide the Brandt history to users interested, make yourself available. Let us not get into this for the nth time. Sleeping dogs should lie, this discussion does not serve the principles of our project in a positive manner. Keegan 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    The entire history has been deleted? WTF? That certainly did not have community consensus. -- Ned Scott 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Disputed_deletions, deletions of biographies citing BLP concerns do not need consensus but undeletions do. Perhaps you would care to explain how concerns about BLP (including unfairness to the subject, undue weight regarding single negative incidents, possible libel, etc) are served by keeping the history. Would you be in favor of retaining the history of any deleted biography, or just this one? Thatcher131 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    "BLP concerns" do not extend to deleting the entire history of an article because Daniel Brandt doesn't like people talking about him. Merge was the result of the last AfD, and most everyone involved were under the impression that the article history was never in danger of total deletion. Problematic revisions can be removed, as cited by the deleting admin. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 3. It's going to need it eventually anyway, so I figured it made sense to go ahead and set up the subpage. —Random832 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Can someone explain how deleting the history violates the GFDL? My impression was that only the history section itself (names, date, and edit summaries) was required, not the revisions themselves; this is, as far as I know, routinely done for moving images to Commons. —Random832 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think it does, but you may also have to include
    (The line above starting "I don't think it does..." wasn't by me). If this goes much further I can foresee arbitration looming, and you don't need a crystal ball to see how that would go. Please let this die. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    The reason is that when the GFDL was put together no one really thought about what the phrases used really meant. In this case the killer is "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title," A couple of other elements of the GFDL means that the history section has to stay under the name of history. There are other issues but those are the simple ones.Geni 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but you can probably handle that by simply labeling the top "History of X" or "blah blah blah (History)". In any event, the matter is now at DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Nope. Remeber in order to get your head around how the GFDL you have to view each article as in effect a collection of books. Kinda messy.Geni 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just another reminder, the GFDL was not the concern for the new DRV. What we have here is something that failed to get a consensus to delete, so it was merged, and then black-door deleted during the redirect fiasco. That's gaming the system, and it's unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Can someone pretend that I have no clue regarding Misplaced Pages, Brandt, etc., and explain what the biggie is here? There's much sound and fury, but there's little substance. •Jim62sch• 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Assuming you understand our concept of AfD, and community consensus, and BLP issues: The community holds several discussions regarding if something should be kept or removed. The last big discussion on it, someone decided to "kinda keep it". The argument to delete it did not gain sufficient support. Another admin thought we should delete the redirect that resulted from the merge, but moved the page history to another page so that it would be kept (the page history is what the actual article is, the title is just a title). The community saw this and thought it was wrong, and took it to DRV, where it was shown that it was indeed wrong. We expected to see things back how they were, but other users felt they could take advantage of the situation. During all this, the page history that we were all told was not going to be deleted got deleted anyways. Even though the argument to delete it, when presented to the open community, failed. No one really noticed this right away, because we were already talking about restoring it to how it was with the old title anyways, so it's not like it mattered, because the DRV overturned the deletion. But other users, who disagree with these outcomes, are manipulating the situation so that the article gets deleted anyways. I don't care what article it is, that level of manipulation is simply not acceptable, not by anyone. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Pretend that I have no clue" doesn't mean "be condescending" (see first sentence above). Anyway, it seems to me that there's a bit of an interpretation issue regarding the DRV, GFDL, BLP, etc., which is rather common. Rather than Ryulong making big chest-beating sounds about it, a simple discussion would likely have sufficed. (Interesting how much trouble Brandt has caused and continues to cause even indirectly.) In any case, I dislike the removal of page histories -- it reminds me too much of 1984.
    BTW, if you want to see manipulation in full bloom (and the Nrandt article ain't it) hang around the image deletion pages.
    Finally, as Tony said above -- let this die. Move along, time for a new horse to flog. •Jim62sch• 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, my intention was not to be condescending, but to simply present the situation in a hypothetical "if one didn't know" kind of way. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:Rosencomet

    Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here primarily to promote his off-wiki interests, mainly the Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and himself, Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This takes the form of WP:COI editing, promoting his festival in articles on people who appear there, creating articles on people who speak there, always with links to the festival, and so on.

    Per this diff he is trying to excuse his COI edits by claiming that he lets others edit from his account. This, as far as I'm aware, is an absolute no-no. ArbCom seems unwilling to extend his admonition from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood to a topic ban, which several editors think is necessary to rein in his self-promotion, requiring an RfC first. This will be complicated if he goes and gets another account - although it's usually not hard to spot him, he does appear to engage in large-scale solicitation.

    I do not know what to do for the best here. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    Just warn him again about the policy, then block if he continues. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    You can also possibly request protection. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    What about restricting him to talk-page edits only (no article space edits) on topics where there is a potential COI? This was suggested as a possible remedy in the ArbCom case, and I think it can be a good compromise in some COI cases. I don't know the specifics of this one, though. MastCell 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pigman and Kathryn mentioned 2 RFCs but they must have meant article RFCs, as I find no prior User conduct requests for comment. Normally what should happen is that Pigman and Kathryn lay out their case, Rosencomet makes a defense, and uninvolved editors step in to comment. Ideally this will show Rosencomet how to change his behavior to fit community norms, or it will demonstrate to the community (and to Arbcom) that he edits outside of community norms and is unable or unwilling to change. Thatcher131 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    The RfCs were not formulated as user conduct RfCs on Rosencomet, but both RfCs wound up addressing his behaviour. The first was a conduct RfC brought against Mattisse by the Ekajati sock drawer, but the outside view centered on Rosencomet's behaviour: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." (RfC outside view, point #2)
    The second RfC was about the links, but again, as Rosencomet is the one placing them, it again addressed his COI and spamming: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. I also think yesterday's statement by Rosencomet, "several different folks have edited using this account;" indicates a clear violation of the sock policy on Role accounts: "Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Misplaced Pages in exceptional cases. The one currently permitted role account on en: is Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working with the Foundation. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked." - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Do you see my point? At least the first RFC can not be held up as a good faith attempt be the community to address concerns about his editing, not with Hanuman Das and Matisse both sockpuppeting like mad. You've raised several issues at WP:AE and I think a new user conduct RFC is the best way to proceed. You can try going straight to Arbcom if you want, or persuade some admins to lay down some restrictions without Arbcom, although the rate of success of non-Arbcom editing restrictions is mixed at best. The role editing is a different kettle of fish though and is directly addressable. Thatcher131 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    My take: sounds to me like the account has been and is being used for role account purposes, which is prohibited for several reasons including licensing. Cease and desist the role use, or the account must be blocked. Keegan 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I already did that, as soon as someone called it to my attention. I've had nothing to do with the rest of his history. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Rosencomet made an unblock request and said he won't let others use his account. Thatcher unblocked him. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Also, Thatcher has closed and archived the Arb enforcement discussion. At this point I have to concur with Bearian. Treat Rosencomet like any user with a COI, and if he doesn't follow policies, he gets blocked. Edits to the articles he writes have spurred a re-emergence of a handful of abusive sockpuppets, but they're getting spotted and blocked pretty easily. Pigman and I posted about it over on the COI board, but there's a lot of articles involved in this; we really need more eyes on all those walled-garden articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors' removal of Starwood mentions): . I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. (Or a final warning, if anyone really believes that at this point yet another warning will make a difference.) - Kathryn NicDhàna 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    LBU

    Resolved Article at AFD, agreement that if the article exists, it should be listed on the dab page --B (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Anyone who remembers user:Jason Gastrich will remember the efforts made by alumni of Louisiana Baptist University to have a redirect at LBU. A dab page has now been created, with three valid uses plus our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill - and let's be clear, there has never been any proposed content for this page that did not contain said diploma mill. I googled this and found fewer than 800 hits for LBU -> Louisiana Baptist University, all of which were either advertisement copy, astroturfing or user-edited. I don't see any evidence that this is a widely-used initialism. I have removed it, but confidently expect Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to dispute it. I'm noting it here because it's possible I'm being more cynical than is warranted, though I don't think so, and becasue there will be a lot of admins who remember the Gastroturfing of Louisiana Baptist "University" and its alumni. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

    How about LBDM? Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Er, but their icon/logo says "LBU" and their domain is lbu.edu. This seems pretty open and shut. -- Kendrick7 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Heh! Carcharoth means Louisiana Baptist Diploma Mill, which has the merit of accuracy :-) The issue os not whether they call themselves LBU, which they do, but whether anybody else cares enough to do so, which it appears they don't, the obsessive efforts of alumni notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I still like Our favourite fundamental baptist diploma mill. Daniel 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's their domain name regardless. If I got an e-mail from someputz@lbu.edu, I'd want to know who I was talking to, and I'd want[REDACTED] to be able tell me when I type lbu and hit "go." -- Kendrick7 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages isn't whois. The initialism doesn't appear to be used by anyone outside the "alumni". — Coren  00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    What was the initial reason for not creating a redirect? Even if it isn't commonly used, it seems like a reasonable one to have. I guess it could be paid advertising, but if you type LBU into Google, the first hit is the school . "Louisiana Baptist University" gets 59,500 g-hits. LBU and "Louisiana Baptist" gets 877, or 1.4%. By contrast, "Virginia Tech" gets 7.5 million g-hits. "Virginia Tech University", an INCORRECT name for our school that is neither an "unofficial" nor "informal" name for the school - purely an incorrect one used by people who are uninformed - gets 216K g-hits, or 2.8%. So while 800 g-hits is pretty small, proportionately, it's pretty close and "Virginia Tech University" was kept at WP:RFD nearly unanimously. --B (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think the more appropriate comparison is not 1.4% versus 2.8%, but 800 ghits versus 216,000. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    What is the justification for keeping it off the dab page listing? It seems harmless enough there, we have plenty of dab page entries with fewer ghits, and the part about how it's a low-repute diploma mill smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Keeping it there seems like a much better solution than a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Good lord this is petty - it does no harm whatsoever to have "Louisiana Baptist University" on the LBU dab page. It doesn't matter if "no one else calls them LBU" (untrue - the IANA do, at least, considering they granted them www.lbu.edu - see .edu), nor does it matter if it's a diploma mill, it's a disambiguation page. We have an article on a topic with the initials L-B-U, so it should be on the relevant dab page. This smacks of personal distaste for a topic swaying people into cutting off their noses to spite their faces. I've put the link back there. Neıl 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The "disambiguation" page contained four items, two of which appear to be astroturfing (the diploma mill and ], 769 and 10 Googlehits respectively), and was proposed by Ra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guess what someone found in this user's user space? User:Ra2007/JCSM. So: looks like Gastroturfing, precisely as I said above. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    As hilarious as that is, why is "Jason Gastrich wants it" a reason not to have it there? Either delete the article or list it on the dab page - one of the two. Even if it is a self-identified abbreviation, it is still an abbreviation for the school and if the article exists ought to be listed. Other than pettiness, as Neil pointed out, I'm not sure what the reason for not having it is. If the article is free advertising for a non-notable "school", delete the article. But if the "school" is notable enough for an article, it belongs on the dab page. --B (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Guy, what does that have to do with anything? Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. Agree that there's no real reason for Liberty Union Party to be there (if dabbed anywhere, you would image it should be at LUP), but I still don't see a good reason to keep Louisiana Baptist University off there other than "Guy doesn't like it". How is it astroturfing to have a functional and correct disambiguation page? Neıl 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Like I said, it's the subject of perennial POV-pushing and astroturfing, the user also created a page on Gastrich's vanity ministry, no iteration of that page has ever existed that was not used to promote the diploma mill, and Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be the place toi promote your diploma mill. There are fewer than 800 Google hits for LBU + "Louisiana Baptist University", and all opf them seem to be the result of alumni trying to boost the place. Well, congratulations to them, now we'll be blazing the trail on their behalf. Misplaced Pages rewards persistent vanity spammers, great result for the project. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is insane. If the article is spam for a diploma mill, delete it. It doesn't make sense to have the article, but not the dab link. --B (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    If this article is supposed to be "promoting" the school, it's doing an awfully poor job of it by including extensive discussion of the school's non-accredited status. Looks more like a good snarking to me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. As long as the article exists, there's no reason the dab page shouldn't point to it. Whether the article deserves to exist is an entirely different question. —Angr 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Checkuser requested, by the way ... if you know of any non-stale socks that could be used for the check, feel free to add them. --B (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Given that they own lbu.edu it seems like an unfortunately reasonable dab to me. Of course, we should still block all LBU related crapspammers on sight. Any even suspected Gastrich sock or similar spammer should be blocked. Period. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, lets fight the right battle here. The LBU article in its present form will not be useful for advertising. We need to keep it that way unless their standards suddenly rise unexpectedly. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yup, I'm a'clicking that good ol' "watch" tab now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talkcontribs) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the article appears to heavily dependent upon WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH on the one side, self-claims on the other. I'm concerned that many editing the content there are behaving more like promoters or consumer activists or investigative reporters than encyclopedia editors. If the institution deserves note here, secondary sources are the key. If the institution needs to be "exposed", it needs to be exposed by the published authors like Steve Levicoff (who is a good reference there), not[REDACTED] editors. The battle over the initials is silly. The focus is way out of whack in this "LBU" dab squabble. The initials aren't a problem at all. The problem is WP:SYNTH is ignored throughout the article, and there is way, way too much promotional-type self claims taken straight from original sources without independent references for verification. (And please folks. Snarky digs against the topic or editors set a bad example, and don't help to achieve article NPOV in any way shape or form.)Professor marginalia (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Correction: even Levicoff is apparently a self-published source. The article says way too much considering its very skimpy WP:RS. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    So is anyone going to nominate it for AFD? There seems to be broad support for deleting it, based on what people have said in the discussion here and at the dab, and that would get it off the dab list. —Random832 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Banned users question

    Guess I misplaced this question. Your input is appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am copying the question here:

    If a user is banned, or indefinitely blocked (and there is absolutely no chance the user will become unblocked), are their subpages (talk page archives, sandbox, etc..) going to be deleted? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Usually yes. If the user is indef-blocked for vandalism or sock puppetry or other blatant violations of policy, his userpages are deleted as part of Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition and Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore. See also Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. There are cases in which the userpage can be kept. Shalom (HelloPeace) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The status quo is that when a user if normally indef-blocked, all pages in the account's userspace are deleted. If the user is a blocked sock, a page is preserved with the appropriate notice of sockpuppetry. If a user is banned, the user page and talk pages are normally preserved with the appropriate templates (the talk page is preserved for reference). Of course, in some cases, the m:Right To Vanish is invoked. This isn't instruction creep, just merely an observation of current practice. —Kurykh 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    There are some pages from indef banned user Kirbytime if anyone would like to delete these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Would a list of pages out there be something a bot could do? I'd imagine a bot could easily "check indefinitely blocked user pages, see if other pages exists, list the user name." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't really think having a bot do it would be a good idea. The reason is, we have to make extra sure that the user is not returning. That would mean a rejected unblock request, if the user wasn't officially "banned". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just meant a list being created; would it be a bot or just a generic program, something, what's the term? From there, admins could decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry. After re-reading your comment, I understand what you mean. Maybe a bot to categorize (is that the term you were looking for?) all the pages / subpages of blocked indef/banned users. Good idea! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I really just meant someone to create a list of the page/subpages. It wouldn't be a bot per se, but just a list created. That way, people could check it and strike names out that shouldn't be deleted yet. I worry about a category as to what to do for ones that aren't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    A bot was proposed for this, but was rejected. It needs human thought and assessment to pick up the pages that actually document useful stuff for the encyclopedia. Some "good" editors turn "bad", but (unless they invoke 'right to vanish') there is no need to clear out the good pages that existed before they went "bad". For this purpose, replacing the userpage with "indef blocked" or "banned" is not helpful. Adding a notice at the top of the page is better. Consider User:Giano II (this example used as an extreme example and due to recent comments made by Jimbo). Even if something happened in future and the user was banned, I would strongly object to replacing the page with an indef blocked template, putting in the "temoporary Wikipedians" category, and seeing the user page and its subpages deleted. I'm sure others would object as well. There is a spectrum, and the reasons for deletion depend on the reason for blocking or banning. Sometimes those carrying out the blocking or banning use the wrong template, and that causes problems further down the line. If the editor was always "bad" (vandal, troll, etc) then the indef blocked template and page deletions are usually appropriate. For borderline cases, "|category=" can be added to the template to prevent the page ending up in the "temporary wikipedians" category. These would be cases where someone thinks preserving the pages is worthwhile, or where the user might be unbanned and unblocked in future (relying on being able to restore deleted pages is not good practice - better to get it right first time round). Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    AWB waiting list

    There are some people waiting for an admin to add them to the AWB check page.

    See Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration.

    Please address the requests and add the page to your watchlist.

    The Transhumanist 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    There are currently two users and a bot waiting for approval. How is this an important backlog that urgently needs clearing, let alone necessitating a notice here? —Kurykh 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The instructions on the registration page state "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN" --Stephen 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    That is not an instruction for random users to check the page and report the backlog here. The instruction is meant only for a user who is awaiting access is is getting impatient. No admins should ever feel pressured to clear this backlog. If it piles up too large, it may be better to try to contact an AWB mod on their talk page or on IRC. --After Midnight 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    The perhaps the instructions could be modified to read, "If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. Just don't expect people to be nice in return". Sheesh. Jeffpw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hi I've been waiting to be approved on the AWB waiting list for some time now, so this is a polite request that a nice admin person could approve this request. Thank you in advance. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Overuse of logos

    Please have a look at Compact Disc and tell me wehter the use of logos there is allowed in their context, or that it is just plain overuse of logos. Over the past few months, I have removed them twice, but a Jnavas (talk · contribs) keeps putting them back in, sustaining that fair use criteria are met. I (and others) don't think so; they serve merely as a gallery, but John refuses to acknoledge the fact. See Talk:Compact Disc for the discussion. I want some objective views from other admins. — EdokterTalk21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, overuse of those logos. Secret 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. There really isn't a good reason to place an image of every single variation on the logos; and given that they are trademarks as well this makes fair use even more tenuous. Besides, they make the article look like crap. — Coren  21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't actually an issue for admins, but I'm not really sure what every slight variation on the logos gives us. They all seem pretty bland variants of the original logo. Secretlondon (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    It may well turn into an admin issue if Jnavas keeps reverting their removal. It may help if others tell him why the logos are not suitable. — EdokterTalk22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    From a purely editorial standpoint, they add nothing to the article and make for awkward formatting. Looking at the issue through the prism of WP:NFCC, their usage fails criteria #3 & #8. If you want to remove them permanently, WP:IFD may be a better fit. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think that we need only the main "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. That logo is extremely common, and its inclusion provides information that a textual description could not easily do. The rest are all unnecessary and excessive since they are non-free content. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Shops"

    Hello all, I was just wondering what you thought of things like this and this? I know we've had people's personal shops before, but not multiple people like this. Seems like instruction creep to me...just wondering what people think. Regards, Keilana 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    what is the point? Viridae 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    (ec) Unless I'm missing something, this is just a witty approach for offering to help others. Strikes me as good natured and constructive, and goodness knows we could use more of both qualities around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    It may be helping users, but I think the dollar stores are coming to Misplaced Pages. I've "purchased" items from one of them before, and, to clarify things, I AM NOT AN EMPLOYEE AT CHAMPION MART!!! —BoL @ 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    *sigh*. Daniel 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's not really doing much at all, in fact, it's doing harm to those who receive Christmas cards that are "bought" from these shops and displayed in dark green on bright red. Even though they claim to be helping users by making them feel cheerful and happy about contributing, but in my opinion, they appear to make the whole place look like a social networking site and end up getting people blocked for social networking. My two cents, anyway. Spebi 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    But looking at the positive side of these shops, you don't really have to buy anything, just copy the code from the source and the owner's can't come to your talk page complaining of "card theft". Spebi 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Only complaining of a GFDL violation. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think what's best is if we drop the subject, then bring it back up if Gp and Vintei start warring about it. —BoL @ 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ridiculous. This is a valid discussion topic, especially considering the fact that some users are now talking of "friend requests" – , . Spebi 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify things, shops were created to help users, not to build an emporium of shops. Also, User:Gp75motorsports has a note that the goal of ChampionMart is "to become the largest multi-use shop in Misplaced Pages", and Misplaced Pages is not a web host, nor a shopping mall. Macy's123 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, the "shops" are really intended to help users, mostly newcomers (I have a shop myself). And the workers are volunteers, not conscripts.-- Vintei  Talk  01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    (undent)Yeah, so do I. I think Vintei and I are speaking for all shop owners (there may be more) when we say that the shops are easier to use for newcomers because all they have to do is copypaste the source code. I'd rather copypaste a premade design or request a design from a more experienced user than have to continually reference the userpage design center if I wanted a unique userpage. --Gp75motorsports 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :Look, just drop it for now. If you two start flaming about it, it will be dealt with. —BoL @ 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) You know what? Scratch that. I have nominated both their shops for deletion. Looks like they're going too out of the edge, I mean, Gp75 copied the src from Vintei, so I'm doing it. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Wait, scratch that. I'll file a request for comment.BoL @ 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Remind me again why having "a unique userpage" is essential to building an encyclopedia? Shouldn't we be helping newcomers learn how to improve articles and not how to have gaudy userboxes, signatures, and user pages? Metros (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    No reason. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    I hate people who judge before they see. We also do templates and userscripts. And BoL here is only saying this because he works for Vintei. --Gp75motorsports 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Because he works for Vintei" — on so many levels, I hope you were joking. Daniel 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I don't really work for anyone, really. I mean, checkout? You got to be kidding me. So, I'm just going to kick back and relax and see how this goes. I may merge your stores into one and have you guys work together. Seems cherry? I didn't think so. Anyway, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to report it, but UAA is backlogged. —BoL @ 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    We already have places, in projectspace, for requesting templates and user scripts. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Shops nominated for deletion

    I have nominated both shops for deletion. You can see them at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. Metros (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    (this is a copy of my comment from here) I say that we should be able to keep shops in some way or form, whether it be a wikiproject or hosted on someone's userpage. I don't know why there are so many delete votes when something like this passes. I mean look at their keep rationale, all of their rational apply to shops as well, if not more. If you think shops are a waste of disk space, what do you have to say to the huge lists of userboxes we have up? Although shops will probably be deleted anyways, I would like permission to have a wikiproject or a WP: page, where there is no competition. Thanks -- penubag  23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Penubag. I'm even willing to create an alternate account solely focused on shops. —BoL @ 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    *yawn*. There's something strange going on here, as the relationship between the accounts don't appear to be a coincidence. MER-C 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Dominionism

    A few months back there was a thread here related to the template on dominionism, this eventually led to an AfD which found that said template needed to be watched for BLP issues. This template has since been forked into a "list" which continues to display the same BLP issues the template did and lists the same persons who were removed from the template with extremely weak sourcing while being away from the eyes which were watching the template. This material has been removed from the list due to BLP issues and continues to be replaced into the article. Can we get some more eyes, preferably ones with BLP experience to watch this list? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    The list is List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism. -- Kendrick7 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry. I was distracted in the middle of writing that out by this. *sigh* Its a bad day when well established editors start yelling at people and labelling their edits as falsehoods and lies. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's a bad day when established editors repeatedly make obviously false claims, even after they were called on their falsehoods. Kyaa is clearly intent on disruption here. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to be venue shopping since it was already brought up at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Seems Kyaa is prowling for an opinion to match his own. •Jim62sch• 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    No actually, I have a couple people on the talk page which agree with me. My goal is to get more input than the five or six people who have commented on the talk page involved. But thank you for assuming good faith regardless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Really? So why then are you slinking from venue to venue with this pathetic argument of yours? Oh, BTW, we are only required to AGF so long as there is no presence of evidence to the contrary. You kinda blew that one by being more disingenuous than Joe Isuzu. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    That article really is a joke. List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism#Usage_not_embraced_by_the_subject says, "Some social scientists and writers describe the following as Dominionist" and then proceeds to brand people as "dominionists" based on either TheocracyWatch's say so or, in one case, on Rolling Stone's say so. It should say, "at least one person has called these people dominionists". The TheocracyWatch attack piece being used to source most of those listed doesn't even call them dominionists. In the case of Roy Moore, the one and only time he is mentioned is in this sentence - "While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161." Yet that's being used to source a claim that he is associated with dominionism. In the case of Karl Rove, it uses a quote "We need to find ways to win the war" out of context that if you google it, he was talking about abortion, but falsely claims, "He was talking about the war on secular society." But somehow, that's a "reliable source" for proving that Karl Rove is associated with dominionism. In the case of Ralph Reed, who, lets face it, nobody in their right mind would deny he is a dominionist, the article only talks about his ethically questionable campaign tactics for Republican candidates. It doesn't once call him a dominionist or even describe dominionism when talking about him. The whole point here is that even if you take the TheocracyWatch source at face value, it doesn't say what it is being used to source. --B (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    This article is a POV fork and should simply be deleted. There are some users who keep inserting BLP-violating original research over and over again. *** Crotalus *** 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed but I've been threatened with blocking if I follow the requirements of BLP on the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    By whom? *** Crotalus *** 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Some admin(his name is not important). Not a big deal, just... annoying that they refuse to follow the BLP and prefer to back those who disregard it and boldly make an effort to continue replacing BLP infringing material counter to the rules that allegedly apply to everyone. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    ROFL. B shows his colours again. Ho hum. •Jim62sch• 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Even I don't taunt admins. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Could you help me please?

    Resolved – WinHunter 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hello. Jerry, newbiee admin here. I speedy deleted Moon Tower as patent nonsense. The article was also nominated as Afd, but not properly, not indexed, not templated correctly. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moon Tower. I closed the AfD as speedy delete, but I don't know how to do it right. Should it just be deleted as a malformed and unnecessary AfD, or should it be templated and indexed? Thanks, JERRY contribs 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    The same user tagged another article, Flatout toys that needs to be speedied, but I don't know how to disposition the malformed AfD's. JERRY contribs 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've put the closure templates, I would leave it there. Snowolf 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Another admin speedied Flatout toys, so I closed out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flatout toys similarly to as you did the one above. Thanks. JERRY contribs 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I see I missed the bottom tag. Thanks for catching that, snowolf. JERRY contribs 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I would have thought that they could be deleted as there was no discussion, but that's fine. Should they be transcluded onto today's AfD log? WODUP 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    That's what I was asking when I said should it be indexed. I believe Snowolf's reply I would leave it there was a "no". nevermind he probably meant don't delete itJERRY contribs 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I transcluded them onto today's AfD log. Cheers, WODUP 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    The moon towers were a lighting system in Austin, Texas. I've redirected the redlink to Moonlight tower. -- Kendrick7 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Harassing

    Resolved

    User:Betacommand is harassing me, but reverting edits that have nothing to do with him. most likely due to this and this debate. he is clearly trolling Ctjf83 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    I see neither harassment nor trolling in the diffs you provided. It looks to me like Betacommand is trying to show you which policies apply to your situation. If you have better diffs, feel free to share them, but as it is I would suggest that you read the policies he has pointed out to you. - Kathryn NicDhàna 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    it is relating to the first link...another user and i were rvting each other for the simpsons project about the inclusion of a quote. beta comes in, not having anything to do with the simpsons project, and this edit not having anything to do with pics, and just rvts me, so the other user wouldn't get a 3RR Ctjf83 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I saw a rude threating uncivil comment when a user reverted, without explanation, against the consensus of at least 2 other editors. I happen to have some simpson and other keywords on an IRC Recent changes feed. (I catch a lot of stuff with that filter) it was a standard edit. If I wanted to harass you, you would know it. this is in no way harassment, β 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    whatever you say, u could have discussed it with us, but your sill mad from our argument earlier...but oh well, this is another one of my useless tyrants Ctjf83 04:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I see no harassment, only you having trouble getting up to speed on an important but labyrinthine policy. You have also been sniping at Betacommand for a while on multiple places for a while now, and it stops here. BC's hard work on images and their surrounding issues is not a license for you to continually make querulous complaints in an attempt to paint him as the village scapegoat. east.718 at 04:32, December 21, 2007
    Ctjf83, do I read you correctly, and are you calling Betacommand a "useless tyrant"? - Kathryn NicDhàna 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    no you didnt not...it is my bad vocabulary...i meant tirade...but i'll rephrase it..."one of my useless bitch fests" Ctjf83 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    but just put the {{resolved}} template, i'll be the adult and ignore him Ctjf83 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ignore someone helping you to understand policy and improving the encyclopedia? Thank God you're doing the mature thing. Once again, Betacommand makes the encyclopedia more free, and someone hates him for it. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    We know, Betacommand can do no wrong. Carry on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I hardly think him deleting pics improves anything Ctjf83 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Betacommand doesn't delete images, as he's not an admin. Acalamari 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    from the articles i mean Ctjf83 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Betacommand has contributed more than any other editor to applying image related policies, so remember that he knows a lot about it now, and is unlikely to be wrong or doing it for the fun of trolling anyone. He often removes images from articles, and is almost always right in doing so as far as I can see. Even faced with people reporting him here every other week he remains calm, and doesn't give up, + his bot does an excellent job and despite what some users may think has a very low error rate from what I've seen. I honestly don't think he is targeting you in particular, he just happened to notice the topic and tried to help out, by enforcing the policy that consensus decided upon. Note that there is also a strong consensus to forcefully apply policy if needed. Jackaranga (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations

    Just letting you guys know that there is a backlog of 229 articles over there. Davnel03 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Anybody can review GAs. This doesn't really need urgent administrative action. east.718 at 10:01, December 21, 2007
    This is a good place to announce a backlog. Many editors watch this board, not just administrators. You might also try the village pump. - Jehochman 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest the village pump next time for this. User:Zscout370 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    WP:GAC has been backlogged since time began, a periodical announcement of this isn't really necessary... Anthøny 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    School Threat

    58.109.120.73 made a treat this morning (their only contribution) against a school in Australia. Is it practice to make notification to the school administration regarding threats such as these? Brianga (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Since this is an overt threat, somebody familiar with Australia who can identify the city should contact the police. - Jehochman 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    The school is located in Victoria, Australia. Telephone is (03) 9430 5111, email is info AT elthamhs DOT vic DOT edu DOT au. The police phone number is (03) 9247 6666. Who wants to call? --Haemo (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Could do with notifying the foundation and possibly User:Mike Godwin via e-mail. Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think this needs an immediate response. I am not capable of calling Australia right now, tho. Brianga (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh for goodness sake, this is schoolboy vandalism. Ignore it.--Doc 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    That's what I think too, but I went ahead and asked for any active Australians an the mailing list so that we can at least say we tried. John Reaves 11:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Jimbo has repeatedly said that issues like this are to be taken seriously. What should be done is an LEA decision, not ours, and this applies equally to suicide threats. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can't believe this thread. The threat is ridiculous and anyone contacting the school is being a melodramatic fool. There's thousands of these type of thing every day. Forget it and move on. --Doc 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    You might not say that if there was another school massacre. Seraphim 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Or if you'd seen Jimbo's interventions in previous cases. Not our decision. Period. End of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Get a grip. This is just silly now.--Doc 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Jimbo's view is that, yes, it may be silly. But it's also a criminal offence. I've seen similar cases here where the FBI have been involved. Now, do you want to take responsibility for the headline "Misplaced Pages fails to prevent school massacre"? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    (ec)So, phone the school and say "hey, some anonymous person blanked your article with a threat to hunt down and kill every single one of your pupils in some unspecified way - they implied they wanted to warn you by being one of the millions of people who vandalise us every day. Actually, we get stuff like this routinely on[REDACTED] mostly by 12 year old trolls. Mainly we ignore it but, in this case, we thought you'd want to know....(click)"--Doc 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agree that it's almost certainly unnecessary and commonsense says 99 out of 100 times it's a childish post. Also underline "almost". As far as I know, WP practice is we do take such statements seriously, regardless, and let the school or lEA know. They're not naive either; a school or LEA that sees that will often say "thanks for letting us know" and then make their own decision if it's childish or not. But that's their choice, not ours. And email, not phone. FT2  12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd love to know what qualifies DocGlasgow to assess this type of risk. The school and their local law enforcement agencies will have people trained to make appropriate risk assessments. In a country like Australia they are likely to have already developed protocols for dealing with threats of this nature - if we do not tell them, then we deprive them of the ability to make their own judgment. If we do tell them, they can assess the situation and take whatever further action they deem appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Qualified or not, we have to do some limited assessment. We get thousands of silly "die scum" vandalism every month - should we report every one? When someone blanks George W. Bush with "I'll do this asshole in", do we run to the FBI? (We're not 'qualified' to say he isn't the next Lee Harvey Oswald are we?) Certainly, some threats should be reported. But whether you think this one should or should not, you are making some for of assessment, unless you are seriously suggesting we report every one? That would need a wikiproject in itself.--Doc 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Really lousy example - Bush has the Secret Service to take care of him - and I suspect the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and others have lots of very clever tools to detect threats to his person. Remarkably few schools enjoy this level of support. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've now emailed Mike Godwin about this situation. A last resort, obviously, but it seems the Foundation's message is not getting through. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think as a matter of policy someone relatively local to the site of the threat should notify the school. MikeGodwin (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Did anyone email the school? info (at) elthamhs (dot) vic (dot) edu (dot) au--CastAStone/ 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    If no one else does, I will - but I'm sort of in Ohio, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for this sort of thing. ZZ ~ Evidence 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    The problem with this is - what if ClueBot or VoAbot reverts it? There's not even a guarantee any human ever sees the threat. —Random832 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    I revert stuff like this all the time - it's childish vandalism, we really don't need to be taking such measures - so IMO, we don't need to worry if one of the bots revert it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    I strongly disagree with Doc glasgow and some of you are saying. All threats should be considered credible until they are resolved by who are trained to respond to it. Those of you saying that it is nonsense to report it or it's childish vandalism wouldn't be laughing when either someone went through with it or Misplaced Pages was blamed for its non-response to it. Lets face it, this is the one of the most popular websites on the Internet, and the chances of someone posting a real threat is probable. If you want to choose to ignore it, that would be your choice, but there are some (including me), who are not afraid to call authorities when murder threats or similar things are reported. Considering I have reported just as serious things as this and the FBI was interested in the threat enough to approach the editors house and question him about the credibility of the threats he made, then things like this definitely need to be reported to by authorities. Doc, etc. you are not exactly qualified nor in a position to define what is a serious threat to report and what is not. — Save_Us_229 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    And FYI, I have contacted the authorities and the police in that area for this threat if no one did so already. — Save_Us_229 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For the love of all that is good and holy, report this to the Australian police now! To the naysayers, all threats of harm to self or others must be taken seriously. If it was an empty threat then there is nothing to worry about, right? Just imagine if this is the real thing. Recall, the Virginia Tech guy put videos on YouTube before he went on his spree. Bstone (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's already been reported. — Save_Us_229 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, Save Us. I'm sure this will all be an overreaction, but I dread the alternative. Brianga (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I point out that anyone who does feel this to be real can perfectly well call by themselves, and would only need to tell others to prevent duplication. DGG (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Save Us, can you please clarify who this was reported to? Thanks, Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    It was reported to the school and authorites in the area. — Save_Us_229 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I understand that but can you please clarify what that means exactly? I guess I'm trying to find out what you mean by the "authorities in the area" because the phone number given above isn't correct. That phone number is a number for the state's Police Centre, the Commissioner's offices in the city. The phone number for the 24 hour police station in Eltham is 61 03 9430 4500. I don't know who you reported this to or how, and that is what I am trying to clarify. Did you ring the police on the phone? If so, what police did you ring? Did you email the school or leave a message there? Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrogating you, I'm just concerned that the info gets to the right people and I know it is difficult for people overseas to make contact, especially because the Australian police forces are somewhat different to the American's. Sarah 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I e-mail the school with the above e-mail, given that the e-mail address is right. I called the Victoria Police by phone and told them about the threat to Eltham High School, the IP address, the link to the threat and that I already e-mailed Eltham High School about it. As far as I know, they are looking into it. — Save_Us_229 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    For informational purposes, it is 3:08 am in Melbourne (Eltham is a suburb of Melbourne) on Saturday morning. Yesterday, Friday, school finished for the year. As in the school year, not just for Christmas. School is now out for the summer and won't back until February next year. Whoever did this should watch the news more. Just a couple of weeks ago, a guy was arrested in Frankston, about 40 minutes from Eltham, for posting a shooting hoax threat on the internet. Sarah 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sarah, is there any chance we could record advice in an essay to avoid these long threads in the future? We can discuss appropriate ways to respond at the essay. Then, when there is an incident, we can have less drama. - Jehochman 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    We have WP:SUICIDE, which deals with threats of suicide or personal harm. Surely, a similar essay - or an expansion of that one - would be appropriate, especially if there are hard and fast policies from Jimbo and the Foundation, as there appear to be. ZZ ~ Evidence 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Try this. And with respect to Doc's opinion, he may be right this time and the next time. He might even be right every instance he sees. But once we open the door to making threat estimates ourselves, eventually one of those threats could very well be real and someone who isn't quite so wise would follow precedent and call it a hoax. It only takes one missed warning to result in tragedy. Durova 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of violence -- So we can record the consensus advice once and reference it in the future. These long threads violate don't feed the trolls and don't stick beans up your nose. - Jehochman 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Most of the essays and proposed guidelines that spring up after these events violate both of those principles also. Durova 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agree with Durova. An essay is just asking for anonymous kids to blank their school's page with "let's kill them all" in the knowledge that a wikimop will be phoning the headmaster pronto. It's like being able to set off a rogue fire alarm with no consequences.--Doc 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    No consequences? I hardly would say the police or the FBI knocking on your front door step to be a lack in consequences. Good-faith editors are timid to report these. Do you honestly think someone is going to blatantly take the chance that the FBI may or may not show up? — Save_Us_229 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've agreed with DocG in the past but then I saw User:Vampire Warrior II and changed my mind. The idea of the police actually hunting vandals down and knocking on their door tickles me to no end. I say call them in every opportunity. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    This definitely needs to be reported. 4chan#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmajdan (talkcontribs) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    First, if the foundation wants to take threats seriously, then we simply need to know how the foundation wants us to respond. That's simple enough. As for why we should bother to report each instance? That's easy. While we can't reasonably differentiate hoax from threat, local authorities (school and police) may well be aware of a pattern of behavior from a particular individual that indicates a genuine threat. Our notification then provides one more piece of the puzzle for them. It may even provide them with the clue (IP address) necessary to identify the culprit. To us, a threat is a puzzle piece without context. To the authorities, a reported threat could be the one piece that allows them to complete a puzzle they've been working on. Now if DocG would like to argue that we should not assist the authorities in any manner, then that's different point entirely. As for flooding the police and schools with useless reports from pranksters, I think we should let them tell us what they want us to do. To date, I haven't heard the authorities make any statements along the lines of "please do not report threats or suspicious activity to us – we really don't want to know." Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Heavens above, isn't this getting blown absolutely out of proportion? If you observe suicide claims being inserted into an article, take a logical and considered decision over whether to contact the local authorities or not; don't spend numerous bytes of discussion debating the decision itself. The contact itself only takes a few moments, so yes: err on the side of "yes, contact the police" rather than "no, don't". But screeds of squabbling are unnecessary. Anthøny 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Where ever you are in the world, you can and should call your local police immediately. You don't need to track down a foreign phone number. Such threats even if hoaxes carry penalties in most places. Your local police will make the necessary contacts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    The reason to call police is primarily because we as Wikipedians are not trained to properly determine what is a legit threat and what is not. Police do not mind being called out for things which were not in fact real threats - they want to be the ones to investigate and make the determination of what was and what was not something they have to handle. If you see it, and you're concerned, notify law enforcement, and the Foundation Office / legal staff. Let them handle it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have to agree with the above that with the seriousness of the situations involved and with the Foundation's stance clear, I think we have to report incidents like this when we come upon them. Someone above said doing so would require a WikiProject. If such is the case, then I think we ought to get to founding it and finding members. SorryGuy  Talk  06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I really don't believe that there needs to be a WikiProject for this. Just a little common sense and, agreeing with AGK/Anthony, erring on the side of caution is all we need. No, not every dumb vague threat will require notifying the police, but if you think there might be something more, go ahead and make the call, or send the e-mail, or get someone else to. Of course, usually, thankfully, the threats are not acted upon, but again, I would err on the side of caution and let law enforcement deal with it. If you see something suspicious in real life, you call the police, right? If it turns out to be nothing, do the police say, "Boy, you really wasted our time with that, didn't you?" No. They let you know that it's nothing, but they thank you for being alert and tell you that if you see anything else out of the ordinary, give them a call back. WODUP 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    IfD discussion due for closure

    Resolved – IfD has been closed. 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Can someone close Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 15#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg? This IfD has some quite heavy discussion, so I appriciate a specialist having a look at is. — EdokterTalk14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

     Done, by Uncle G (talk · contribs). Anthøny 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Cut and paste move

    I noticed that the discussion page for the third AfD for a, now deleted, article had been placed over the first Afd Discussion - See . As I think it's important to be able to keep and view all such discussions for future reference I reverted the page bck to the original discussion (), created a new, approproately titled page and copy-pasted in the information from the new discussion (See the new page here). As the original page was going to stay in place and their was no talk page I didn't really consider this to be a typical - and so discouraged - copy-paste move. Now however I think I may have acted hastely and incorrectly, would it be possible for someone to clear up the mess and fix it so that an appropriate page history is viewable at both locations. Sorry for the trouble. ]

    The history is split and merged appropriately, now. Although I notice there doesn't seem to be a Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2nd nomination)? If not, the 3rd could possibly be moved to that location (which anybody can do, now that the history is arranged correctly). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the help, the second nomination was as part of a group under a different title: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination). ]

    Expungement?

    Is there, or does anyone imagine there will ever be, a method in which one may go about expunging previous blocks from their record? I have a 3RR block on my record, something which I am seriously not proud of. I will admit at time I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR and honestly thought I was reverting in good faith. Be that as it may, might there be some mechanism for minor violations like these to be removed from one's record? It can potentially derail a future RfA. Bstone (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Logistically, no: the only method one can scrub a block log is by being renamed (or usurped). Fundamentally, I disagree: transparency is important on any community, and removing a block log entry because "it makes you look bad" really isn't an acceptable reason for dodging that transparency requirement. Furthermore, if you are requesting adminship from the community, you will get it on the basis of how trustworthy you are, and whether or not you will use your tools; a block log entry, even if its effect is negative, must come into that process, unfortunately, whether you like it or not. Anthøny 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    And don't try to hide it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    What's that supposed to mean? Bstone (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Don't try to hide the fact that you've been blocked (ie: by a usurption), as that really will "derail" a future RfA. Essentially, I am just saying I agree what Anthony said above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Heck, I was indefblocked as a vandal at some point, and I seem to do fine. There might be a few people who would blindly rush to conclusions based on a single 12-hour block from several months ago (whenever you plan your RfA), but I'd like to think the far more important consideration is what you learned from that event, and how you've applied that lesson to your behavior around the wiki since then. We shouldn't expect people to be perfect. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Expungement of block logs has happened only once, and I hope the circumstances surrounding that time never occur again. east.718 at 20:09, December 21, 2007
    I'm aware of at least one case where a user requested renaming, after a serious dustup, and in the renaming process severed any and all available link to his previous block log. Whether any link to prior blocks exists after renaming, or whether you get a clean slate, is apparently up to the bureaucrat who handles the request, but in at least some cases it appears to essentially expunge a block log. MastCell 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    You musn't worry, Bstone. When you go up for RfA, people won't oppose for one 3RR block. They look at when you were blocked, why you were blocked, and more than that, what you have done since. Now, if you were a persistent edit warrior, there'd be a problem. However, it doesn't appear that way. Expungement is only for cases where we must oversight the block. Maser 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, I wouldn't worry about a single 3RR block very much. Far more worrisome was your taunting of another editor on your user page, and your repeated complaints of "vandalism" when I removed it. Friday (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, Friday, talk about a completely inappropriate time and place to bring up accusations. I really don't know what to say or how to respond. Bstone (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    You're specifically asking about this in the context of passing an RFA. I gotta be honest here, if you ran, I would oppose based on that incident. Friday (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    No, I was asking if it was possible to have previous blocks expunged. I merely mentioned how it might work in an RfA. Friday, I really don't wish to converse with you as it only ends up in dispute and personal debate. While I have no way in forcing you to do this perhaps you can at least respect my wishes. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to but in, but you did ask about expunged blocks because of a future RfA (at least that is how you worded your original comment). Friday may have been blunt, but I agree with him on that issue he has pointed out. Talk about beans. I am sure you'd like to know how to improve your chances of a successful RfA, no? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hey, nobody's perfect. I heard a rumour admins make mistakes occasionally, but I can't believe that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    You aer korrect - Admeens are inkaparable of makn misteaks. I shud no! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think we're chewing up and spitting out any admins who are capable of making mistakes, so soon we'll be left with only infallible admins, right? MastCell 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    Alternatively you could wait 4-5 years or so for it to fade of the face of the encyclopedia. This editor was banned in 2003, but it seems old logs disappear after a while and they need to be placed back in the logs. I'm guessing that would be your only shot at it actually being removed from the log history. — Save_Us_229 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    No, that won't work. They simply weren't logged before December 2004 in the way we imagine now. Blocks from November 2003 to December 2004 can be found at Misplaced Pages:Block log and blocks before that needed someone with direct access to the servers. Anyway all logs are available for download along with the Misplaced Pages database, so someone could back them up. Graham87 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    You're making too much of this. Many of our best editors and admins have been blocked for 3RR at some point. If you had multiple such blocks it might cause for concern, but you don't, so it isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    No big deal, as they say. I make mistakes all the time. :-) We need more sysop closing discussions at WP:AFD anyway. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Another thing, which I am not sure if it was pointed out; if the account is renamed, the people who perform the moves can have the ability to block for one second to show a previous block history. So even if you want to hide from the block log, there is no way to do it now. User:Zscout370 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, blocks can be completely expunged, but it requires a developer to manually delete the rows from the logging table (and you'd probably need some oversighting on your talk page to remove all the evidence), but you would need a really good reason for it to be done. Mr.Z-man 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Closing of discussion

    Will someone come close this merge discussion? It's been about a month since it started, and since I was the one who started it, it would be best for someone else to close it. Thanks! ···日本穣 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've closed the discussion as merge. There is a majority in support, and while statistics alone cannot be the indicator of consensus, they assisted in getting to it. The reason is that the supporters are arguing that the article has a section that deals with prostitution and that "Geesha" is an intentional mispronounciation of "Geisha," and while the two are separate topics, they were viewed to be related in the section that discusses prostitution. The opposers, on the other hand, were simply stating that the two are separate, but did not verify these claims. Difficult consensus. Maser 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Not so much an intentional mispronunciation, but rather an uninformed or "misheard" mispronunciation. That happens a lot with Japanese words being pronounced by non-Japanese. (^_^) ···日本穣 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Malfunctioning Bot (ImageBacklogBot)

    Resolved – Bot triggered due to FU images being used in template space by accident. Will 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    The bot ImageBacklogBot has removed various Fair use images that, in my opinion, were used legitimately in articles. See here. I'll leave a notice on the bot's talk page, but the bot maintainer wants me to go through a convoluted registration process that I don't have time for to tell him about it, so I'm mentioning it here too. If those images are not speedily undeleted, I'll probably take it to DRV if I get around to it. 98.16.161.161 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed. See resolved note above. Will 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Edit Warring on Peter Yarrow Page

    Resolved

    Page has been protected by User:LaraLove -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


    I whole lotta people worked out consensus language on Yarrow's conviction, incarceration and eventual grant of clemency.

    Two days later a single editor started unilaterally changing the page.

    Please read the history of the article and its talk page. David in DC (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note, per above, this noticeboard is NOT for content disputes, so I'm going to close this. If the user continues to be disruptive, then start by going through any of the options at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution before coming here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Articles erroneously listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion a glitch?

    Resolved – Inadvertant transclusion of CSD category to pages that linked to a template. Protected and semi-protected pages required a null edit to force the server cache update.

    JERRY contribs 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jerry, newbiee admin here. Sometimes there are articles on the category candidates for speedy deletion project page that I just can not figure out why they are there, or how to get them off. The articles themselves are not, and have never been tagged. I checked all transcluded templates, etc... and I still don't know why they are there. I have purged the page, and <ctrl>F5'd my MSIE, but they stay stuck there. A current example is Big Syke. Anyone know why this happens? Is it just on my end? Thanks. JERRY contribs 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Foreign languages

    I've always been curious about articles that contain foreign languages. A good example is at Jat people in Mahabharata period. How do we know what the foreign language really says? How do we know Al-Qaeda isn't communicating via WP disguised as an article? I know, I know.. just was curious. -- ALLSTARecho 09:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can assure you they don't. east.718 at 10:07, December 22, 2007
    lol! ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Lol, simple learn to read it. Jackaranga (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Did You Know needs updating

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Did_you_know/Next_update is 6 hours overdue.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Done, thanks for the note. Daniel 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Question about TV series episodes

    Hello, I was just wondering if I missed something in the last few months ? Before making a massive AfD I would just like to check that unsourced, original research articles on TV series episodes are still against policy ? I see there are some series that have 1 article for every single episode, with no sources given, or assertion of notability. However as I see administrators contributing towards them, I was wondering if policy had changed ? Before I make an AfD I would like it someone could take a quick look at The Kindness of Strangers (Heroes) for example, and tell me how come it is tolerated now to make so many individual articles ? The only source for this one is a link to a forum for example, and all the rest seems to be OR, please help I'm confused. Has anything changed in policy since I nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/3-2-1 Blast Off! ? Jackaranga (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are disputed right now. Even so, episode AfDs are discouraged now, and merge proposals are used instead. There's also a RfAr about it too. Will 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks! I read a bit more of the recent discussions, perhaps its better to just nominate on notability, original research, and unreliable sources grounds. I think there is more than enough for many of the articles based on those alone. Jackaranga (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    What's wrong with merging? WP:NOTE says "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." If there are unreliable sources, ask for more reliable ones before nominating for deletion. If there is original research, just remove it or request sources. Again, do this before nominating. If a week or a month has passed with the tags on them, make one last appeal on the talk page, and then go to AfD. If you follow this process, you will have a stronger case for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    True but it worked for the other ones I mentioned above without having to wait, also I don't fancy redirecting because it seems WP:EPISODE is kind of ignored, and you can be sure someone will just revert all my edits anyway. Jackaranga (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    One of the reasons merging doesn't work, is that if you just cite WP:EPISODE someone will revert you and say you must gain consensus. So then you go to the talk page and propose a merge, in the case of South Park for example you end up having to go through 400 discussions, only to find that the only persons watching the page are those who wrote it (obviously), and so they all oppose a merge anyway. The only way to get a discussion involving people who didn't edit the article is AfD. Believe me there is so much effort put into TV series on[REDACTED] that if they really did think the articles should be merged they would have done it long ago. Take the heroes wikiproject for example, they acknowledged on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Heroes that they should merge the articles into one, but they were still creating articles just as full of OR and just as unsourced more than a month later. Basically some users don't know about policy and are like "omg I'm not hurting anyone leave me alone", and others acknowledge the problem, but then just continue as they were anyway! I'm all for leaving people time to fix it their way, but they have to show good faith by changing their behaviour as soon as they acknowledge the problem. Jackaranga (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Send the fancruft to Wikia. That's what they're there for. They'll happily accept thousands of episode articles, which Wikia will monetize with ads. --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    This entire issue (amount of content of fictional universe material on WP) is coming to a head very fast ; not just episodes (though through User:TTN, that's the larger area) but any fictional aspect. I'm working with others to try to rewrite WP:FICT to help mitigate issues (merge or transwiki) but there's larger issues that many seem to have with WP:NOT. Also, I've seen more than a few editors that wonder if sending material to Wikia (which seems to be the general encouragement for transwiking) is a conflict of interest. I know the ArbCom case that still is presently open is more directed to TTN's actions and not so much policy, but I have a feeling we're going to need to be prepared for some sort of potential backlash should we not be able to come to some resolve soon. --MASEM 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    True. We're going to need some kind of destination-neutral transwiki policy. Fancruft articles could be exported to both Google's Knol and Wikia, for example. Misplaced Pages can't favor Wikia; it puts the Wikimedia Foundation's tax-exempt status at risk, especially with the interlocking director problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Knol is not yet ready to accept articles; it is in private beta. But anyone can export articles from WP wherever they please under GFDL already. DGG (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    though I do not agree with Masem on what the policy would best be, we do have to resolve it. (And I do agree with him that a real source of the problem is disagreement about WP:NOT, in this and other respects--I'm glad someone has come right out and said that. That, and a radical disagreement about what our actual policy should be, not merely problems on wording.) What we need to to solve this one way or another, and continue discussing it in a cooperative way until there is some general community consensus. I certainly think Masem is one of the people who is doing the best to solve it in a way compatible with the best methods of working at Misplaced Pages. What I do think clearly obvious,and I hope those who disagree with me about what the policy ought to be also think obvious, is that massive deletions of fiction articles at this point are WP:POINT and will disrupt the process of the encyclopedia. I would very strongly urge Jackaranga not to try to do anything of the sort. But he did very well to come here to discuss it first. . DGG (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:Supparluca

    In regards to Category:South Tyrol, I received a notification on my talk page from Chris - It seems that Supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. This, in itself, should be punished - IMHO. Rarelibra (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    RtV Clarification

    I would like input on an issue that I think many editors may have come across before, to get clarification. At times, editors, for whatever reason, will cite RtV and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed. RtV states that this can be done for two reasons: 1.) There is personal identifying information that puts the editor at risk. and 2.) The editor plans to permanently leave the project, with no chance of return. However, when neither of those apply, and it is done as a renaming to have a "clean slate", so to speak, would the confidentiality still apply? I realize that someone who digs could probably figure the old username out, but if an administrator were to request the disclosure of the person's previous username, would that be a violation of RtV if the reason for renaming had nothing to do with personal information, and the editor obviously had not left the project? Thanks in advance for any and all opinions on this! ArielGold 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    RtV also says that talk pages which contain multi-party discussion should NOT be deleted. Although, IAR in exceptional circumstances of off-wiki harassment may override this.--Doc 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that happens as well. But my question isn't so much about deletion of pages, but about someone simply renaming to have a "clean start", and then cites RtV to "protect their identity". It seems to me this is not an appropriate action per RTV, and that if an administrator requests to know their former username, it would not be an issue to tell them, as it was simply a renaming for reasons other than RtV covers, not related to personal information or harassment. I'd like this confirmed by an administrator, though. ArielGold 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    That doesn't count, there's no vanishing occurring. --Golbez (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    The right to vanish is a silly-assed concept that accomplishes nothing useful that I can see. We should not use it as justification for anything. We should, of course, respect privacy concerns when it comes to deleting individual edits which may identify an editor. Friday (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Detwinkling

    Per some rather dubious use of TWINKLE by Neutralhomer (see also the top of his talk page), I've blanked Neutralhomer's monobook and protected it for 96 hours. This is not what mock-rollback tools are for. Moreschi 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yup, those reverts didn't need an automated tool, and should have been done with a valued edit summary. 96 hours is nothing at all, I hope Neutralhomer can refrain from misusing the tool when he gets it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Based on this edit it seems that just simply removing TWINKLE will do nothing to help Neutralhomer be more civil. Metros (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    For further reference, would you all mind telling me what is vandalism and what isn't? Per the reason of my "de-twinkling", I seen that JPG had a station marked as owned by Cumulus, when the FCC said it was Clear Channel. I Warn2'd, cause he should know better. He reverted, Warn3, and so on. I thought, that when someone is vandalising a page, we issue Warn1, 2, 3, 4, etc warnings? Obviously, I was wrong. So, what is vandalism? - NeutralHomer 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hi, did you visit the station website to confirm the content JPG-GR was adding was clearly being added in bad faith with the intent of damaging the article ? Nick (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was just going to say what Nick said. He was editing based on that source, so I don't see how you can insist this is vandalism and not stop to talk to him about why you believe it's vandalism. Metros (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Is this a content dispute, or an allegation of a long-term problem? Wouldn't RfC or other dispute resolution be a more appropriate venue? Videmus Omnia 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Are you asking me or the others above? - NeutralHomer 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Simply put, he was reverting good faith edits - it was a content dispute not vandalism. Because he used twinkle to aid that, he got the tool removed. There's no need for an RfC, we sorted the problem out for now at the root. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:Paul Vogel

    This user has been banned for over three years, now his ban has expired a few days ago. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Maser 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    It would appear that Vogel has not violated his ban in the last 12 months, which was what arbcom stated was necessary for him to get editing rights back. However, "Paul Vogel" is not an actual account this individual used. To allow Vogel to edit again would force editors to monitor the pages he frequented again for antisemitism and holocaust denial, white supremacy, etc. - his trademarks. While he technically has met the criteria to come back to Misplaced Pages, I strongly suggest we Ignore this rule and continue his ban. I also suggest we take a vague poll on the matter, because it's an anagram of Paul Vogel. But seriously, please continue his ban. --CastAStone/ 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    He did the time, so let him out. It's not like he can't be reblocked again if he causes trouble. Jtrainor (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Jtrainor. We are the good guys, and we keep our word. Let him edit, and if there is any repeat of the editing that got him blocked before we do the dropping like a ton of bricks trick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (like the pun!)
    I've also put the "targets" of this editor on my watchlist, just in case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Aye, same. It's interesting to see how far Misplaced Pages has come since 2004, y'know. These days characters like Vogel never get anywhere near the level of arbitration, we just indefblock them straight away. I suppose back then they had more time to devote to such obvious cases. Intriguing. Moreschi 11:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    The presence of a ban is moot. Vogel always used unregistered IPs, usually for just a few edits apiece. His POV contributions are just as unwelcome now as in 2004. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Also, he didn't "do his time". If the ban were reset every time he'd violated it the account would still have 2.5 years left. Vogel, or someone making the same edits as Vogel, was here as recently as May 2007. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm going to reset the ban to May 2008 due to the apparent violation earlier this year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Block review

    Just posting this for review. I blocked Codykylefinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see anything at all wrong with the block. And even if he's not a sock, the username may confuse people into thinking he is. Endorsed. Maser 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know, but I guess that one of Barneys friends is a WP:DUCK? Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Help with Speedy issue

    So what's the process for dealing with this situation? On the one hand, there's a page with what can certainly be labeled spam. But it's in user-space. And the speedy tag was placed there by an IP. And that same IP has labeled five more userspace pages that might be spam. Help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    • The anon is correct in every case. G11 means that namespace is irrelevant, all of that is spam, and should be deleted. --Maxim(talk) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I would agree with you *but* WP:SPAM says articles - though G11 on WP:SPEEDY says "pages". I'm new at this, so I want to make sure I'm not missing anything :) When I wasn't an administrator, I kinda assumed my userspace was mine to do with as I would (within reason, of course). Does spam cross that line? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes it does; from the general criteria at WP:CSD "These criteria apply to all namespaces, and are in addition to namespace-specific criteria in following sections." Also WP:CSD is a policy while WP:SPAM is only a guideline. Basically when any page is spam that doesn't have a good revision to go back to, you may delete with G11. James086 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The thing to do is not to take a simple mechanistic approach. There's a spectrum of behaviours and intents, and a range of appropriate responses. If the account is named after the subject, and has zero contributions other than repeatedly putting the same text on several pages in various namespaces including talk pages, and doesn't engage in any dialogue, then it's clear that the person using the account simply wishes the text to be ubiquitous and isn't here to do anything else apart from abuse Misplaced Pages as a free web hosting service for advertisements. I've zapped all of the advertisements and revoked the account's editing privileges in such clear-cut cases before now. Conversely, a quite legitimate (albeit unusual) use of a user page is as a staging area for developing articles before moving them into the article namespace. Such a person would be editing in good faith, and an appropriate response would be to tweak the userspace draft more towards how an article should be, or place a note on the user's talk page pointing xem towards the relevant content policies.

          In this case, there's not enough information to determine which of the two this particular person is, and our Misplaced Pages:Don't bite the newbies and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith guidelines apply.

          For enlightenment on criterion #G11, and how and why it came to be a speedy deletion criterion, read Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 13. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks, All! I'll keep that in mind in the future, and very much appreciate the input! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    G - General (all namespaces), A - Articles, I - Images, U - User and user talk, T - Templates. Yay for letter-code :) Daniel 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's a matter of degree, as UncleG says with his wide experience. (Another factor to consider is how long the page has been sitting there). In this case, I don't think the speedy was really wrong--the long list of recordings for distribution would have been inappropriate content anywhere in WP. Similarly -- and most blatantly of the ones I have looked at--
    • is an mere advertisement of a beach house for sale.

    But several people been speedy tagging & deleting many pages that are do not reasonably fit into any definition of speedy for spam, for example:

    • . This can be seen as an attempt to create an article, or at least a framework where one could be created.
    • This would make an article that would probably pass speedy, but perhaps not AfD.
    • is a early draft of what looks like a supportable WP article. It can now be removed, but the speedy does not seem appropriate.
    • would be soap, not spam, and can certainly be seen as a draft for an article.
    • might not be an acceptable article, but a user might have thought it might be.
    • was an attempt at an article on a school play, that would not have passed AfD, but did not fit speedy

    In all these cases, I think a note would have been appropriate, not a speedy. And if not responded to, then an MfD. That's what MfD is for. People will disagree on any particular one. If there can be good faith disagreement among established editors, then it goes to MfD, not speedy. In many of them, they were naive users seriously attempted to build an article, but in the wrong place. All they needed was some advice. True spam is spam, but calling it spam does not make it so. Of the ones I have examined, about half were clearly justified speedies in my opinion. Half could have been handled otherwise. That is much too high an error rate, and sufficient reason, imho, for removing such items from speedy altogether unless more care is taken. DGG (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with DGG. I have a real problem with newbies who are just trying to create a little space for themselves and don't know the ropes yet being bitten by overzealousness. A little kind note on their talk page would really do the trick 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time we could tolerate an up-to 5-day time period of MFD. The question shouldn't be "if the preconclusion is made to speedy delete a user page would a "G" series CSD code apply", of course the answer to that is yes. The question should be "should the procedure addressed at WP:USERPAGE for dealing with suspected inappropriate userspace content be followed?" , I think the answer to that is equally obvious. JERRY contribs 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Irish football merges

    There has been a discussion on the topic of merging various articles relating to international football(soccer) in Ireland at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), the majority of editors support a merger, but there is one very vocal detractor. It is not a simple issue, I would appreciate it if some one external could could come in and look at closing the discusssion, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    • The three editors who are supporting mergers have displayed a blatant lack of knowledge of the subject. I urge that common sense prevail and that the relevant pages be protected from merging and not just be merged on the say of three editors who have made no positive contribution to any Wiki article I can find. To allow these mergers would open the door for small groups of editors to get together and censor Wiki. Where would it stop. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    210.49.20.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    I just blocked the IP with no warning for 48 hours based on this, this and this. I have no idea what any of it is about but I did notice that there is a Mabuhay (talk · contribs). The IP is from Australia as is J Bar but C Fred is from the US (got that from their user pages). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    And I just emailed the contact address with the information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Correct me if I am wrong, but the ip is part of a /16 pool of dynamic addresses, so he may be back. -JodyB talk 12:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ah perhaps 767-249ER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be related to all this. See such nice things like this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that's the user behind it. See the edit to my talk page, which links it pretty clearly to 767-249ER in my book. Doubly since I blocked that user for personal-attack comments he made toward J Bar; his unhappiness about the block would explain the venom directed at me. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Block on User:Ceoil; Review please

    - This 48 hour block seems uncalled for, for a "threat" to Betacommandbot. Could somone please check it out. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Seems totally uncalled for. I have left a note for the blocking admin, and am willing to unblock if there is any support here. Ceoil was not quite as gentle about it as he might have been, but nothing he said seems blockable. DGG (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Appears excessive with very little history to provide any reason. Blocking admin should have bought it here for review at the least. Support unblock at this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, totally excessive block. Not helpful. I support an immediate unblock. -- zzuuzz 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support unblock. henriktalk 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    (Copied here at his request). We now have 4 admins above supporting unblock (block is now 12 hours old) and blocking admin is offline. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC):
    • The initial indefinate block shows that Jmlk17 was being reflexive and did not look into the situation.
    • Ditto for Ryanjcole's septic "Get over yourself" comment on bettacommandbot's talk. Do these people have any substance?
    • The block is transparently punitave.
    • The phrase "driven off wikipedia" has been diluted through overuse, but if you want to find a good example look at the broken bones and dust left in this bot edit history. I sincearly think he does way, way more harm than good, he is consistently incivil, remote, and unresponsive. This needs to be stopped. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    If you want to propose a better way to protect us from copyright hell, please do. Ignoring for a moment the current case, we already know that serial uploaders of found-it-on-the-web-somewhere images dislike Betacommandbot, as they have disliked every other editor, admin or bot who has worked to enforce WP:FUC and WP:C. Some of these have indeed been driven away because they are unable to upload their images without being challenged. It may be an unfashionable view, but I say we can do without people who are unwilling to work within policy on unfree content. As far as I can tell, most genuinely valuable contributors fix the problem by adding a proper fair-use rationale rather than hurling invective at Betacommand or leaving in a huff. Maybe instead of beefing people could help word better talk page messages for the bot? Guy (Help!) 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    We can block Betacommand bot and not worry a thing about copyright. For one thing, it tags images based on more restrictions on fair use than is legally necessary. It's all about Betacommand's personal belief in "non-free" content. He's going to force us all to be free by deleting all of our "non-free" images. It doesn't matter if they're fair use (i.e., legal). I can understand why you don't mind the bot screwing up all of our images because you never upload any content. This bot is in my opinion a vandal bot, but buddies of Betacommand like you keep on unblocking it.--Temp54 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is fundamentally a free content project; what one calls "fair use", another could just as easily call "stealing" -- if we can't make it, we'll take the hard work of someone who did and call it our own. There are cases where this can be justified, and cases where doing so is harmful to the core goals of the project. Note also that the Foundation's policies are more restrictive than is legally required (because Misplaced Pages is, again, fundamentally about free content). The problem in this particular case seems to have less to do with fair use policy, and more to do with an argument between frustrated people. Also, is there some reason you're posting under a throwaway account? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is a free project. Anything we're free to use and view is free content, in my opinion. I disagree that it's stealing since no one has been deprived of anything by using it here. I'm not sure how you can say that we're calling it our own work when we have to spell out every detail about the image including who made it, where it came from, and under what legal and policy rationale it can be used. Even after doing those things, the bot still tags images because it's written to find excuses to delete images. We have to remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a political organ. As for your second question, I was angry, so didn't want to look like a troll.--Temp54 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, the bot does do screwy things sometimes, e.g. this tag was my last experience with it. But it was easy enough to say to myself "stupid bot" and make the upload compliant. -- Kendrick7 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Its not the principal of copyright that I have a problem with, its the indiscrimanate, sanctomonous (remember his 'fucktard' reply), insulting, 29 actions per minute, unthinking robotic patronising attitude that I find insulting, wanton, and almost autistic. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    It seems like the ends justify the means on this website, because basically, that is what you said JzG. Ceoil (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Its the 'Ignoring for a moment' comment, that causes these problems. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    An established, productive featured article writer was indef blocked for apparently insulting a bot? What have I missed, what justified the indef block, and the spirit of "don't template the regulars" is that we attempt to sort out the random copyright violators, trolls and vandals from our valued and productive editors before we punitively block them, adding to the graveyard of bones and dust referred to by Ceoil. I should disclose I admire Ceoil's work because there are less than a handful of editors on Wiki willing to dig in to a featured article review to get no credit for salvaging someone else's work; it's a thankless task, and Ceoil does it all the time. I'm concerned about how fast this admin's fingers were on the block trigger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to put this list up here, for the record; sometimes editors who quietly go about the business of improving Wiki and who stay out of trouble get overlooked. A quick review (I know I've missed some) of other people's articles restored to featured status by Ceoil includes Augusta, Lady Gregory, H.D., Heavy metal music, Imagism, Punk rock (one of Wiki's five oldest continuous FAs, featured since 2004), Representative peer, Royal Assent and William Butler Yeats. I'm sure there are more. Of note, he restored several of these with Outriggr (talk · contribs), who recently left Wiki, possibly explaining some of Ceoil's current frustration. The reward for restoring a featured article to status is no entry at WP:WBFAN, where Ceoil has six articles listed nonetheless. I'm not saying doing this amount of work excuses any possible violations, but trigger happy bot and admin actions are a concern if an established, productive editor is treated on par with trolls and copyright violators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly re treated on par. The issue is vandel fighters having more buttons than content people; we dont trust each other (with good reason), they think we are extendable cogs, we wonder why the fuck they are here and what they get out of it. Bad state of affairs. My preference is that this block baloons into a wider discussion.Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    That is the issue in a nutshell, regardless of what JzG thinks. I support you 100%. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think that's an excessively broad generalisation. There is, however, an inevitable tendency to develop tunnel vision when dealing with specific areas of abuse, such as non-free content abuse, and forget that non-free content is actually allowed, albeit with caveats and used in moderation. Every now and then I come across a user whose talk page consists of nothing but dozens of unfree content warnings, and I had for a while an image on my watchlist that was recreated once a week or more often with precisely the same problem, no FU rationale and no copyright information, each time by a "brand new user". Guy (Help!) 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is broad yes, and maybe unfair to the specific people involved. There is a wider issue; I'm not sure if its that a small pool of admins are overworked, or that the inherent distrust between content people and power people is getting to the stage that it just cant be ignored. I was indef blocked, thats no small thing, something is wrong here. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Abuse? Abuse. Please, leave that kind of projection at the door. I'm not a fucking idiot, don't treat me like one. Conjectiour is cheap; that is why Im protesting. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    T'was the block before Christmas
    and all through the house
    Ceoil could not edit 'cause
    Jmlk17 clicked his mouse


    Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours, and someone who cared noticed. It's a Christmas miracle!! -- Kendrick7 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Kendrick, Im not sure if you comment "Just be gald" is ironic or not. Please be clear. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Gosh. It is insulting to have one's record sullied by a block log, blocks should be taken very seriously, and it's common for some discussion to ensue before the tools are applied, particularly with an indef. It is not something to be taken lightly; I hope all admins understand the seriousness of adding a block to someone's record. Ceoil is now forever labeled as threatening and harassing other users. Kendrick, the poem was cute and funny ... unless you happen to be the person who now has that charge on your record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    To paraphrase Sandy, adminship IS a big deal, and actions have consquences. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    If Ceoil had made the same edits as a newbie, he probably would have been indef blocked, and no one would have thought twice; he just got lucky with the timing here. Those articles never reached feature article status, George, and all the men on that transport died.... -- Kendrick7 18:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC
    Maybe you should take a more substantive view before you but in with moral openions. I WAS indef blocked. I said first that this was a reflexive admin action; thats my central point. This attidude is the problem Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have unblocked per the discussion here, and will notify the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks all, for prompt action! Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've been more graceful in past arguments-these things happen-but thanks anyway for prompt action per Johnbod. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Common sense finally prevails, so it's nice to see Misplaced Pages isn't totally off its trolley. I'm also extremely happy that SandyGeorgia hasn't let Ceoil's contributions go unnoticed. Misplaced Pages would be much greater with more editors like Ceoil. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    And no comment from Bettacommand. How wonderfully consistent. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm happy about that. If he did comment, I think I'd have another block to my account (a lengthy one indeed). I run a music website, and record labels encourage me to put the album covers up. I even have PRs from the record labels sending me the covers via attachment. Not once have I needed to use a fair use rationale. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Obviously not, because you have permission from the record label. If Misplaced Pages had such written permission, you wouldn't need one here either. Because of our licensing, though, that's very unlikely to happen.BLACKKITE 19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Permission alone is insufficient for use on Misplaced Pages, see {{Withpermission}}. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I worded that clumsily; I meant that such a company would be unlikely to license their works through the GFDL. BLACKKITE 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Very clever Black Kite, but what you said has fuck all to do with this agrument. Thanks, you exclempified my point. We are ruled by a disinterested oligarcy who are interest first and foremaost with having bits on a top 10 website and building an Encylopedia second. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Encyclopedia yes, but you will notice that the word "Free" appears in front of it in the top left hand corner. Also, I was only replying to LucfierMorgan's point about record companies. Oh, and WP:CIVIL. BLACKKITE 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    But. Why? To show what you know? Back off, this has nothing to do with you. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    With respect to an earlier comment, I hope we all would have responded just the same if it had been a newbie. It might however not have seemed quite so obvious. DGG (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    If it had been.? You remeber !!, right. Rember I am now a 'haresser'. I am a very open person IRL, i talk to people I like about articles I am working on. Harress is now just a click away. I uploaded a picture of my face. Not very fucking funny. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ceoil, I think we all know you're unjustly blocked and you're angry about it. We get the point. But can you please, um, tone down your statements? We do have a civility policy here. You're not endearing yourself and helping us sympathize with you by throwing uncivil comments in our faces. —Kurykh 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    You miss the point completly and utterly. BrusH under the carpet? There's no problem? Naw, no, nein. Thats child's play. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    You just misinterpreted my entire statement. Clarified below. —Kurykh 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's obvious that Ceoil right now is justifiably and significantly upset, on top of already being concerned about Outriggr's departure from Misplaced Pages and ugly business recently including the !! Affair. The commentary on Ceoil's block log was severe. As fas as I understand about block logs, that commentary isn't ever going away. Am I wrong? Any discussion that downplays right now how it feels to have that kind of block log commentary will probably only succeed in making Ceoil more upset. Addressing the underlying issues might be more helpful than telling Ceoil to be glad he was only blocked for 48 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that Ceoil doesn't have the right to be upset. Ceoil has every right to be. But some of these comments, from the standpoint of someone who is uninvolved and hasn't commented earlier in this dispute, are toeing the line. Otherwise, I agree with your statements. I'm not downplaying Ceoil's statements and sentiments; I am trying to tone down the flames so that more constructive dialogue can take place. —Kurykh 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, can you try the tactic of not asking Ceoil not to be angry, when he is very obviously very upset? Asking him not to behave like he's angry (particularly without addressing the underlying issues) when he is angry isn't going to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was asking him to tone down his statements, and no more. Why are people so intent on misconstruing my statements? We're not resolving the dispute here if we have all heat and no light. —Kurykh 21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    With respect, if you think that Ceoil is the only person who's really really frustrated with the way administrators are treating other editors on this project then you are incredibly mistaken, Kurykh. "Helping us sympathize with you"? I'm stunned that you would make this sort of comment. It's actually a terrifying sort of attitude. Admins and editors are all in this together. You know that, right? --JayHenry (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think that us was meant as other editors rather then administrators. Snowolf 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    But only an administrator could possibly be unsympathetic to Ceoil in this situation! Is that the lot of mere content contributors? Write some of the project's best articles, make one frustrated comment, get indef'ed with no discussion, have no right to be upset about it because it was changed to 48 hours? It would be hilarious if we weren't losing our best contributors because some admins continue to behave this way. --JayHenry (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place. Off with his head!! -- Kendrick7 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Kurykh, seriously why are you commenting here. The last few posts above, and in paticular yours, sunstantiate my claim. These last few posts are drive by, ill-judged, ill-informed, random excuses by admins who missed the cusp of my argument. I'm not really interested in talking to you. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think some admins need to be more hesitant to pull the block button. A bad block can easily do a lot more damage than holding off on the button. If Ceoil would have left the project over this, the project would have lost quite a bit more than it would had everyone watched and waited. Has the blocking admin apologized yet? Gimmetrow 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    The blocking admin went offline 12 hours ago, before this thread started. —Kurykh 21:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I see. Gimmetrow 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't watch this page and noticed this thread by accident. I am posting just to back up the comments above that Ceoil is one of the most valuable editors on this project. I understand fair use issues, and I see it's important, but if the process of enforcement leads to blocking an editor like Ceoil for a fairly mild expression of irritation, then I think it would be worth reconsidering the methods used to enforce fair use. Please think about the long-term effect on the project of losing Ceoil; we gain editors like him rarely and lose them far too easily. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    here is my two cents, comments such as there will be a holy war personally bring up a scary parallel to terrorism and hint on a threat to my life. Using terrorist like terminology, along with abusive language, increases the similarity between the two. most admins would see that action and indef-block because of the obvious nature of the user, and possibility of physical harm. β 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Great, now im a terrost. Im Irish, not american, terrosist means very different things here, so dont try and bully me with retarded insults. Funny, I did not expected a more sophistaded argument from you. Did I already mention BC's use of the the word 'fucktard' the last time there was an icident like this. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    The issue is becoming clearer. Delicate work should be in diplomatic hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Excuse me? What is meant by the obvious nature of the user? Do you honestly want us to believe Ceoil was threatening your life? This is quite a dramatic charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, come on. That was a rather silly comparison, BC. You definitely know how your fair use work can be perceived , and handing ungraceful comments is something that goes along with that job. We can't have situations like this blowing up every other week forever. henriktalk 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I would have to agree with that, Mike. The people who spend so much time writing content definitely deserve better than this from us admins. At the very least, before blocking an experienced and established editor in good standing (like Ceoil) where there is no immediate harm being done, they deserve a thourogh discussion on AN/I. But with that said, mistakes are made and will continue to be made, and a block certainly isn't the end of the world.
    I think there is a fair amount of disconnect between some content contributors and some admins, and a bit of understanding and good faith from both sides is needed. We all need to recognize that no-one is perfect, mistakes are made, and the best we can do is try to fix them and move on. Holding on to grudges and staying mad will just make this project less pleasant for all. henriktalk 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Light at last. I don't upload images for these very reasons, but now that I've seen how the person behind the BetaCommand Bot responds to other real people, I'm wondering if we can't get this bot assigned to a person with more advanced diplomatic skills and level headedness? By nature, this bot's work leads to hard feelings, and the person behind it should be careful, responsive and considerate. I'm wondering if its duties are in the best hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    This editor was blocked for deliberately trying to provoke a "war" ., and since unblocking he has continued to do everything possible to bring such warfare down on our heads. Why was he unblocked? --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    You just illustrated the disconnect Ceoil was describing perfectly, Tony. Jeffpw (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Consensus. The first four people to comment thought the block excessive with regard to the reasons given - and I did exactly what Jmlk17 did; act in what I thought was the best interests of the project.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that there appears to have been consensus on unblocking. Let me clarify. On what grounds was it decided that condoning Ceoil's loutish attacks was likely to be good for the project? --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    On the grounds of freedom of speech. Furthermore, "this editor" as you call him actually contributes ten times more to the project than Betacommand ever has. Let me ask another question: on what grounds was it decided that condoning Betacommand's loutish, absolutely stupid behaviour on Misplaced Pages is likely good for the project? Betacommand has driven away more editors singlehandedly than anyone I can think of. Ceoil's comments were truthful, and I 110% agree with them. Before you start questioning what Ceoil said, perhaps you should start questioning why image taggers are deemed more valuable than content writers. It's about time someone spoke up for the majority. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    The consensus was that the block was inappropriate - that does not mean that the comments by Ceoil were condoned. I was one of two who said that the duration was excessive, which implies that some sort of sanction may have been justified; perhaps a stern warning would have sufficed, giving an opportunity for Ceoils supporters to have voiced any misgivings prior to any action. In the matter of loutish attacks being grounds for such harsh blocks, other parties to this discussion have not been so remanded for language that was found offensive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    The duration was indef, which is a bit more than excessive. Dont wipe that raw fact away. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fairly unfashionable but seasonal statement by LessHeard vanU

    It is very easy to take sides in an argument - so that is what I am going to do; I have never come across Ceoil before, but it is obvious that they are a well regarded editor who does a thankless task in keeping Misplaced Pages flagship articles (the FA's) concurrent and up to scratch. Betacommand(bot), who is familiar to me since I have both WP:AN and WP:ANI on my watchlist, is a perhaps less well regarded by some (but not all) editor/bot(operator) who does a frequently thankless - to the point of dislike - task in attempting to keep the images that populate Misplaced Pages concurrent with the licensing and useage policies that exist. True to my wishy washy liberal outlook I support both sides of the argument (but prefer there wasn't the argument in the first place) since both parties are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia.

    I would also wish to comment that I note that Jmlk17 is getting quite a bit of stick for their actions. It is part of the admins lot that they are often going to make decisions that will make people unhappy, and that from time to time that they are going to make mistakes (that is, a decision or action they thought appropriate but is considered by others to have been wrong). Whatever the circumstances of Jmlk17's block of Ceoil I cannot believe that it was done in any other consideration than that it was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It was, perhaps, a mistake of Jmlk17 to have blocked such a contributor as Ceoil for the type of comments made toward Betacommand, but it should not be taken as an example of a poor sysop. It was likely just a mistake. It is not in the interests of the encyclopedia to lose such valued contributors as Ceoil or Betacommand or Jmlk17.

    Thats not the point. The point is comments like "Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place", or "Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours", and "Why was he unblocked". Distintersted blocking, and shallow follow ups. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is very soon Christmas - so can we extend just a little of that spirit to all the parties here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for the sanity injection. There are some fellows in this world who will not forgive their fellow Wikipedians as they ought and I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!!!
    That prooves my point exactly. Are you people fucking deaf? Accountability? Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Satire apart - everyone - please, just calm down. Nobody died. Really. Moreschi 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    All for seasonal peace. This is more about a personality clash than fair use policy. Righteous indignation is a poor defense mechanism. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hear, hear. Glögg and gingerbread cookies for everybody. henriktalk 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I apreciate the fuzzyness, but its too late to wash this under the carpet. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Update: the blocking admin graciously and robustly apologized. Kudos of respect. But seeing BC's posts here, the source of the initial friction is now more understandable. A bot that is performing a chore that is by nature going to generate heat should be in the hands of a diplomatic user. "Fucktard", asking us to believe his life was threatened and Ceoil's words could be equated with a terrorist: can this bot be reassigned or do others have suggestions for how to deflame that situation ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This thread is a great illustration of the split between admins who think they should support contributors in building an encyclopædia and admins who think the content-providers are untrustworthy and need to be ruled with a big stick. The comments, and the admins making them, are entirely predictable. I doubt that this debate will change anything, but it is inevitable given the profound lack of accountability and consensus about the use and misuse of admin tools.DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    And this is not the first time this admin has acted inconsistently with his own stated principles, as seen here User:Rodhullandemu/Archive/04#November_2007. I'll accept that lots of page protection requests are unnecessary; but when you are the only editor around trying to stem the flood, being called a vandal is, er, inaccurate and unhelpful. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to admit I'm a bit confused. I see that Ceoil seems to have called Betacommand a "prick", then gone to point out having done so, then threatened a "holy war". Hardly outstanding behavior, but I get a feeling I'm not seeing the whole picture. What precipitated this? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe he's been following Betacommand's amazing example of how to win friends and influence people?joke.DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Humor aside, it seems probable. Wouldn't be the first person Betacommand has pissed off with his trademark abrasiveness. But I'm hoping to see a more specific progression, if possible. Easier to understand a reaction in the context of the inciting action, so to speak. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think this is going to be brushed under the carpet again. Ceoil is asking admins to pay attention. If you look at the top featured content additions by editor at WP:WBFAN, that list alone raises questions. Several of those editors are weighing in here (I guess they follow Ceoil's page), but oh, by the way, where is Yomangani these days, and how is the Project treating its top contributors, scholars and gentleman like TimVickers? Anyone noticing? WBFAN tells only half the story; there is only a handful of editors like Ceoil who work both ends of the equation, bringing new content to WP:FAC and restoring someone else's older, deteriorated featured content at WP:FAR. Off the top of my head, Ceoil, TimVickers, Qp10qp, Yomangani, Marskell, Casliber, DrKiernan, Yannismarou, JayHenry, WesleyDodds, a few others. Lose one of these editors, and it bites; they're adding and fixing content at amazing rates. Wiki needs to ask how these editors are being treated and how they feel about the Project. And pay attention when they answer. If we can't treat our top content contributors well, it's frightful to consider how the other editors are treated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    • What precipitated this is using a bot to enforce a sensitive policy that is bound to irritate people who work in good faith but do not understand the policy effectively, or who have been careless about it. This needs to be done by people who are sensitive, responsive, and available. Editors unhappy with it need to be told that it is not their fault, but that the policy must be enforced, and given a chance to correct their misassumptions about it. Betacommand's manner does have a GF explanation: dealing with all the complaints over the bot would drive anyone to some degree of exasperation. All the more reason for not using a bot, using a very friendly template, and adding personalized messages, apologising for the inconvenience, but explaining the necessity. "We're going to have to remove your image, if you do not explain exactly why it is appropriate to the article. I'll personally help you do it if necessary" is the sort of thing that needs to be said. Sure, there are tens of thousands of images to be fixed, but the feds are not about to shut us down tomorrow, and there are hundreds of experienced editors who can competently and politely explain image policy--and hundreds of polite admins. No one person has to adsorb it all.
    • So as a minimum, until we get rid of the bot, except for using it to make a list of suggestions that need looking at by humans, admins dealing with complainys arising from this ought to be as tolerant as possible, and calm down, not inflame the situation. Blocks are not intended to be punitive. Admins who use them insensitively should be informed by their fellows that they need to do it differently, or switch to admin tasks involving less personal contact. (but in this case it was just a single mistake, not a pattern of insensitive use.)
    • This applies equally to experienced and inexperienced editors. The job of an admin is to protect both editors and the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Nicely said DGG. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's worth reiterating how bizarre Betacommand's sole comment on this thread was, with the terrorist comparison and ridiculous suggestion that his life had been threatened. DGG's comments are well-stated—but suggestions of that sort will have little impact unless the bot operator engages with people sensibly (as the blocking admin did, after being taken to task). Marskell (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps instead of directing dozens of confused and sometimes angry editors to Betacommand's talk page, we create a fair use noticeboard/help desk/FAQ where people can respond to queries in a more organized format instead of leaving Betacommand to do most of the work. I don't think "friendlier" templates is the way to go, that might just seem patronizing to more experienced Wikipedians. Mr.Z-man 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I am sayings admins are reflexive, dont look at the context of a situation; and here you are suggesting we streamline the process, for a bot? Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm suggesting that Betacommand not handle almost all the complaints and questions about fair use tagging by himself. Maybe then people wouldn't get uncivil responses to their complaints and situations like this wouldn't escalate to the point where a block would even be considered. Mr.Z-man 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Good idea - Betacommandbot certainly needs a Diplomatic Corps, and if other people were closely involved it would be easier to form a picture of the overall usefulness of its thousands of edits, and hundreds of complaints. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    We have so many noticeboards... But the idea might be explored and I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand Ceoil, as you've asked for feedback on how to avoid these problems. I agree simply having a friendlier template will only patronize. Marskell (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    The Betacommandbot talk page - archived every few minutes - needs the sort of queen-ant attention the Jimbo talk page gets - the traffic is busier than there. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)`

    I've been asked to tone down by emails. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    That was me. I meant the message exchange betwixt you and Tony Sidaway, as it was a little on the uncivil side. I just used the wrong word. Sorry for inciting any paranoia. The telepathic mind witches of the CIA are not reading your mind. These are not the droids you are looking for. :) - Arcayne () 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    No worries, Tony makes most people paroanoid. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    FreeRepublic

    I came across an article today that used a post on FreeRepublic as a source. The post looked like a copy-paste from a local news report. Curious, I tried a linksearch. Friends, we have 1,273 links to FreeRepublic, many of them as sources.

    Is FreeRepublic a reliable source? As a forum, and one which espouses an explicitly politically polarised agenda, I would say not. An example: Eco-socialism sources several sections to blogs and forums, including FR. Those sources look polemical to me, and the inferences drawn may therefore be novel or synthetic in nature. We should be very wary of any information which is available only by analysing and comparing different politically motivated primary sources, no? Guy (Help!) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Do they publish their own news or are they just linking stories from elsewhere? --B (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Neither, it's an internet forum and chat site for right-wingers. We say about it that "due to copyright restrictions (see below), posted articles are often excerpts from originals" (see FreeRepublic). Which means in my book that anything usable should be cited to the original source not the copy-paste excerpt on a politically biased internet forum. But removing it would cause a shitstorm, I'm certain. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is a huge problem, I think. I agree with Guy that "anything usable should be cited to the original source" but I also think this part of Verifiability ( one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies): "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" provides us with an obligation to completely remove FreeRepublic as a reliable source as I see no claim even by them that they have a robust fact-checking policy. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    FreeRepublic is not a RS, except as a SPS about FR itself, IMO, and should never be cited outside Free Republic and related articles.
    One possible reason for linking to FR is that they used to copy news items, op-ed columns, etc onto their forums for discussion. (After a 1998 lawsuit, they changed to linking instead.) The result is that Googling for a particular pre-1998 item will often find a free copy at FR, whereas the original is behind some subscription wall. Thus the temptation to link to that copy. In my limited experience, FR was fairly good at saying where they got stuff from, so replacing the links with {{cite news}} etc should be fairly easy in many cases. Cheers, CWC 16:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Much like sites like Digg, which do not hold their own content but instead cite others, we should link to the real source instead. I think we should begin trimming down these links. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's going to be a mammoth undertaking, especially if we are going to try to replace each one with {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help). Perhaps we should create a {{deprecated source}} template and ask people on the talk pages to fix it, and see if the number goes down in a week or two? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just checked out at random a few of the places they are being used as a source. In the cases I saw, they are either copy/pastes of news stories in which case we should be linking to the news story itself or they are blogs about the news story in which case, again, we should be linking to or citing the news story itself. We don't link to sites that violate the copyrights of others, so even if we have no reason to believe that the story isn't transmitted accurately, we still don't link to it. --B (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    My understanding is the we dont place external links to copyvio, but that we cite both the original sources, and wherever we did see the article. I would not remove the Digg links without verifying each article. DGG (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Doesn't Digg link back to the original? This is copy-pastes of the original on a website without permission, and a b iased website at that. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) -- If they linked, it makes it easy to check.DGG (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Digg linking to user talk page

    User talk:63.162.143.21 is being linked from Digg's homepage right now. Since a {{high-traffic}} tag is not available for user talk pages, keep an eye there for children playing pranks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Why not just s-protect it for today? Presumably, nobody is at work at the homeland security office on a Sunday and in the off chance that they are, since they have only edited that talk page once ever, they will probably manage to get along without editing it today. ;) --B (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    nobody is at work at the homeland security office on a Sunday Great, now the terrorists know that :-< -- Kendrick7 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be opposed to an indef AO block on this IP; We know with near almost certainty that it's permenantly DHS, and I daresay that they have more important work to do than editing Misplaced Pages. Will 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Except there could be a registered editor who shares the IP. Wouldn't they get blocked too? We wouldn't want to incidentally "out" anybody. -- Kendrick7
    Hence why I said "AO" - I should've been more clear, "AO" is a AIV/HBC abbreviation for "anon only". Will 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ah. OK, got ya now. -- Kendrick7 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.42.35.66 and Seaside High School

    Several days ago, I reverted edits by User:68.42.35.66 to Seaside High School which added unsourced information. Today, I found the following unsigned message (left by User:68.42.35.66) on my talk page: "Kurt, First of all, I attended Seaside High School and I did not vandalize the page. Second, you can verify the demographic breakdown of the student body by vistiing the official Monterey Peninusula School District web page for Seaside. It does not have a large or high percentage of African American students. If that particular comment is not changed officially, I will go on a blitzkreig on all of your sites."

    Now, it is entirely possible that my cleanup actions were ill-intentioned, but I am not sure that User:68.42.35.66's response is entirely appropriate, either; it is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages for something to be "changed officially". I'm not sure if the appropriate response is WP:SOFIXIT or if there is a WP:NPA concern here as well. In short, I would like another pair of eyes to look over this for me. -KurtRaschke (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, it is over-reaction - but likely because the editor is unfamiliar with wiki policies. The comment about blitzkrieging the sites possibly falls under WP:HARASS, so I will leave a comment on the talkpage. If you note any actions that appear to be this or any other editor carrying out the threat then report it here or at WP:ANI. I will also remove the sensitive comment, since it also appears unsourced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nancy Reagan today's featured article

    Hello. I'm writing this message regarding some wording and gramtical problems with Nancy Reagan's today's featured article entry for tomorrow. I was going to change the problems, but the page is protected and it appears only admins can edit it. I have worked extensively on the article, getting it promoted to GA and later FA. Earlier today, I changed the article's lead to reflect some of Nancy's fashion interests and glamor and I have improved the sentence structure. I think something like what is below would work better for the main page entry:

    Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921) is the widow of the former United States President Ronald Reagan and was First Lady of the United States from 1981 to 1989. She was an actress in the 1940s and 1950s, starring in films such as Donovan's Brain, Night into Morning, and Hellcats of the Navy. She married Ronald Reagan in 1952, who was then president of the Screen Actor's Guild; they have two children. Nancy became the First Lady of California when her husband was Governor from 1967 to 1975. She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 with Ronald Reagan's presidential victory, experiencing criticism early in her husband's first term due largely to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady. More controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband's life. The Reagans retired to their home in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California in 1989. Nancy devoted most of her time to caring for her ailing husband, diagnosed in 1994 with Alzheimer's disease, until his death in 2004. As of 2007, Nancy Reagan has remained active in politics, particularly as relates to stem-cell research.

    I only added in one more sentence (technically per WP:LEAD) and improved wording of the First Lady of California bit. These changes would improve the article's main page entry, so I am asking an admin to please consider making the changes as they are beneficial and I cannot edit the page. I left a similar note on Raul654's talk page. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see any protection in the logs here. You shouldn't be having any problems editting. -- Kendrick7 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Happy isn't talking about the article; he's talking about the mainpage blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    User:Casliber fixed it; thanks though. Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified.

    For fair notification...

    About 40 minutes ago, I stubbified the article Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article in question has had near persistent edit wars and has even been request for arbitration, which evidently has not been effective in any way. I request that all users, admin and IP and the rest alike, do not revert back but to constructively edit so as not to violate any policies with regards to living individuals.

    Thanks,

    Will 23:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    A bit of help

    Hi,
    If an administrator becomes inactive or retires from[REDACTED] does their admin status get revoked? I.e. if they ever choose to return are they still and admin or not? --121.219.224.205 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    They do not lose their admin status unless they specifically request it or if their account is compromised/hacked into. —Kurykh 00:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    And if they ever come back, they can request the status to be given back, provided that they didn't give it up in controversial circumstances. Snowolf 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    As an FYI for those who might not know of it, there was a proposal to "demote" admins for inactivity which was rejected by the community back in Jan 2007: Misplaced Pages:Demoting inactive admins. I wasn't involved in the related discussion; I just came across this the other day while looking for something else. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Does opening an account at a "bad site" get you in trouble?

    Resolved – OK, groundless paranoia on my part. Awaiting my verification E-Mail from you-know-who. <eleland/talkedits> 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't like skulking around under a different pseudonym, but I want to register at... uhm, I'm not allowed to say it, am I... Let's just say it's a site which Reviews the goings-on of Misplaced Pages. Yes, I know there's trolls and stalkers and LaRouchies and banhammered ripened socks there. I'm not one of them. I've been editing this site since 2002, my only other account opened in May 2003, and this one was registered in late 2004. So, if I sign up there just to shoot the shit about Misplaced Pages, in a non-abusive and non-personal manner, is that a problem?

    (The irony of the fact that I feel a need to pre-emptively guard against off-site stalking and harassment on the basis of a policy against off-site stalking and harassment may have broader implications for Misplaced Pages...) <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    As far as I am aware just your mere presences at WR isn't grounds for a block or ban. If you violate someone's privacy (or do something else equally silly that people tend to associate with such sites) it might result in a block or ban. I occasionally glance over there at WR and notice the occasional post from regulars here at WP. I don't have any examples off-hand, but I've seen it before. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    There was a list, some time ago, on WR of admins which are registered there with the same username they're here. Snowolf 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I get demonized and sneered at for my presence there, but not actually banned (so far...) *Dan T.* (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Such reactions are a commonplace of life, not unique to Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Many Misplaced Pages editors in good standing, including some arbitrators and bureaucrats, have accounts at WR or other sites critical of Misplaced Pages and contribute regularly there, often under the same username that they use on Misplaced Pages. There is no penalty of any kind for doing so. Of course, it would be hoped that unhelpful activities such as making gratuitious personal attacks on editors or seeking to expose the real-life identifying information of editors who edit here anonymously should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    (ec)I'll put my hand up and state that I have an account "over there", and have had for at least 6 months. For honesty and openness, I have the same username there as I have here. I'm not a regular poster by any stretch of the imagination, but I've found it useful in order to reply to some things, especially if there's something I've been called on and I need to reply to set things straight. I haven't been banned here yet, on the contrary, I was made checkuser lately :) Needless to say, issues of privacy and security of information apply over there as much as they apply here. Don't reveal private or confidential info either on or off-wiki - Alison 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Add topic