Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 12 March 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Please turn off this robot

User:VoABot II has become crazy. Please look at its reversions. and I don't think that editions were vandalism.Template:Sa.vakilian--07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's guessed the edition is vandalism because its too large:(+5,894)Template:Sa.vakilian--08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Voice-of-All 08:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot identified it as blanking due to a large character loss. Voice-of-All 08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the requirements a bit and changed the warning message to suggest a way around it. Voice-of-All 08:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reigning in Uber's trolling

Can some uninvolved admin please look into user:UBeR's actions. Specifically:

1. His trolling and POV pushing on Global warming and related articles
2. His repeated and persistent harassment of William M. Connolley, one of our resident experts on global warming. To wit: Unfounded sockpuppet accusations, trolling, specious 3rr warning, trolling William's article, 'etc.
3. The "hit list" that Uber keeps (which, I will note, is the same act that got Wik perma-banned)

I would make the block myself but I am involved. I do, however, think his behavior merits some serious sanction. Raul654 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an admin, but reading the diffs, I would support action. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have tried reasoning with him when he was trolling William's talk page, without luck (all I got for my troubles was this, where he seems to be saying that he is following my advice, while doing just the opposite). He doesn't seem interested in behaving like a member of the community - I'm not sure if the community's patience is exhausted, but my patience certainly is. Guettarda 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• His behavior amazes me. I worked with him on another article and saw his ability to do good work. So, I'm dumbfounded as to why he keeps harassing User:William M. Connolley. It is unacceptable and must stop immediately. If it doesn't, I do support some sanctions. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also note Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/William M. Connolley. That discussion should probably be closed, as it seems to be entirely without foundation. Also note User:UBeR/WMC and User:UBeR/Raul654, which seem to be potential WP:NPA problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Three attack pages are up for deletion - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#2007-02-28 --Aude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These might meet WP:CSD criteria #G10, though I think we can let it go through MFD. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think they can be speedied; they're pretty blatant. Trebor 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd toss out the SSP page as well. No need to dignify those allegations by archiving them as if they were worth keeping around. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• To address to the first claim, I have not pushed any particular POV at Misplaced Pages other than that of consensus, if any at all (notwithstanding talk page discussions, of course). An overwhelming of my edits to that article have been to address sloppiness, style, grammar, spelling, etcetera. My mission here is for the betterment of Misplaced Pages articles. Let it be known that I support the consensus view on global warming, as presented by the IPCC. In fact, despite what might appear as undue support for the solar variation theory, my purpose is an attempt to bring balance and a NPOV to the global warming article, where a number of POV-pushers patrol and police the article.

• To address the second claim, modeling doesn't constitute expertise. Second, there is a colossal difference in "accusation" and "suspicion," hence the name "suspected sock puppets." And it is true that I have a suspicion. How can you say it is wrong for me to have a suspicion? That's nonsensical. So, on behalf of Brittainia, an abettor of mine, I filed that suspicion, "so as to retire any further suspicion of sockpuppetry of this user." Third, I will keep in mind now to keep comments that specifically relate to an issue (in terms of previous occurrences), but may be considered "trolling" by Raul654 and his cronies, to the talk page of the originator. My apologies. Fourth, my notice of 3RR was merited on the basis of his three reversion on that particular page. I felt it necessary to advise him, because he often reverts content on that particular article, as well as related articles. There's isn't much to that. Fifth, my template of notability on that particular article was well merited. I've attempted to discuss the issue, but users, along with Raul654, digressed terribly from the issue. The particular ad hominem attacks/arguments abound when such issues arise.

• To address the third claim, it would be wholly inappropriate to label this as a "hit list." It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Misplaced Pages's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Misplaced Pages, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to detract the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Misplaced Pages policies. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I can speak for at least the first claim and say that from what I've seen of UBeR's contribution to global warming-related articles, they are not trolling, nor POV pushing. These articles are highly controversial and continuously raise heated debates. It's easy to come here like Raul654 just did and throw accusations of trolling or POV pushing, but it seems to me that this has little or no merit. Besides, I have seen many users complain of William M. Connolley's POV or behaviour regarding climate articles, and I have witnessed myself at least one disregard of WP policies by him so far. I guess it is legitimate to keep a file with regard to his actions. --Childhood's End 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Childhoodsend (along with a few others - Roncram, Rameses, and the above-mentioned Brittainia) are, like Uber, POV pushers attempting to weaken or otherwise degrade the global warming and related articles. Their opinion of Uber's biased edits should not be taken as accurately representing the content of those edits. Raul654 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I will not respond to this POV pusher accusation. I'm trying to bring balance and as far as I know, my contributions have been appreciated so far. --Childhood's End 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Raul654, please remove yourself from this discussion; we are trying to have a serious discussion. You are not. You may sit here all day, with your ad hominen attacks, trying to discredit those who see the injustices of yours and WMC and others. In the end, however, you are only detracting from the issue at hand. Lets take a look at some of these examples you trying to put forth as POV-pushing, shall we? These are all of my edits made to global warming, not marked minor (all my edits marked minor were stylistic, grammatical, reversion of vandalism, etc.), of my last 500 edits to Misplaced Pages. Since you are making these claims, can you please explain how these are POV-pushing? ~ UBeR 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the evidence for yourselves and give UBeR a fair hearing. UBeR is truly a very hard working, fair minded, long standing contributor to Misplaced Pages. He (along with many others) has simply become increasingly frustrated by the kinds of tactics used by User:William M. Connolley, User:Raul654 and a few others who constantly delete all contributions by UBeR and anyone else not agreeing with their POV on all pages having to do with Global warming - See: (Fight this insidious Censorship) William stop deleting relevant discussion, Connolley's Revert Censorship of Misplaced Pages Evidence. 12 out of the past 50 edits by User:William M. Connolley are reverts ] (the rest are mainly talk page entries) and almost all these reverts are to global warming pages. when he runs out of reverts himself he pulls in others to start reverting. Given that he makes his livelihood in this field and clearly has a very strong POV, he should avoid this area for the obvious conflict of interest reasons (esp. so for an Administrator).

User:William M. Connolley has already had two official complaints reported against him in the past for similar tactics and has been prohibited from making more than one revert per day See: (, ). Also he has rather strangely been taunting an editor to report him on that editor's userpage: His actions certainly do need to be seriously examined by Administrators as his form of control is damaging to Misplaced Pages. I believe UBeR is justified in suspecting a sock puppet and in starting to gather evidence of these tactics. -- Brittainia 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:NPOV policy has an "undue weight" provision, but the sceptics keep pushing for equal coverage of the GW sceptic position. We attract an awful lot of sceptics, so we hear the same complaints over and over. But this isn't about the sceptic POV-pushing, this is about Uber's (and Brittainia's) disruptive activities - laughable accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling William's talk page, trolling Talk:William Connolley, setting up attack pages, etc. Guettarda 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, you are not representing my actions fairly. If nothing else, the solar variation theory is probably the most debated topic within the scientific community. This theory holds water. Many scientists have researched the effects solar variation has the Earth, and there shouldn't be anything stopping these substantiated scientists' research from being discussed in relationship to how it affects Earth's climate. I've added nothing to the global warming article that was either against the consensus or POV in nature. For all intents and purposes, your claims are unfounded. ~ UBeR 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my comment wasn't quite clear. Brittainia talked about "all the other people" who have had similar problems with William. Not only is that a misrepresentation (since, after all, it isnt just William), it's also expected, since there's always been a movement to give equal weight to a minority position. As I said, this isn't about...POV-pushing, this is about behaviour. I think I've represented your behaviour fairly - your continued repost of a 3RR warning, your sockpuppetry accusations, etc., your creation of attack pages...this behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry then, I misunderstood. But I still disagree with your assessment. The overwhelming amount of dissent is that in the direct of William M. Connolley. This isn't about skepticism. You have misunderstood that idea. Second, how am I supposed to address my concerns with this particular user? Shall I go to to his user page? Of course not, that's trolling! Well then, shall I go to some committee or report it to some official noticeboard? Of course not, that's silly and nonsense! Forgive me for not assuming the assumption of good faith, but what else can I do when there is a particular administrator who has been elected to be given a large amount of power, who, based on his personal feelings that he hasn't been able to subdue, can only categorize my every action as unwarranted, when, in fact, this is solely biased and unfounded! If anything, this is nonsensical. I've made by rebuttal above, and the author of these claims continuously avoids the facts, but rather simply attacks some unrelated point of view, and has yet to substantiate anything he has said. ~ UBeR 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The "Fight this insidious censorship" comment Britannia linked to (well, tried to link to) above was posted by Ramses, and it's really quite illustrative of the whole affair. A contrarian POV pusher tries to put bias into the article, gets reverted, and decries the "censorship" in the article. That's pretty much the same of these accusations.
• As to the one revert parole on WMC, the arbcom reversed it and acknowledged they had made a mistake (For the record, I voted against imposing that parole, and was the only arbitrator to do so) But Britannia already knew that parole had been revoked, because Stephan already told her. So she is simply repeating an allegation she knows is false. Raul654 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As a close friend of WMC, why didn't you recuse yourself from the voting since it was an obvious conflict of interest? -- Brittainia 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mu Raul654 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Raul654 has labeled me a "contrarian POV pusher trying to put bias into the article". But all I was doing was defending the words: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." which had been deleted from the Global warming article. Surely these words do not constitute pushing a biased POV, as alleged? The control group will not even tolerate this tiny amount of NPOV in this important article. UBeR is a good person who has been the subject of these bully tactics for too long. Please seriously review whether User:William M. Connolley's conduct shows his fitness and neutrality to remain a Misplaced Pages Administrator. (The link to the relevant section is: ) -- Rameses
• This is a witch hunt. Most of the edits UBeR has made have been reasonable as far as I have seen. He's been fighting what many of us believe to be a systemic bias on many global warming related articles to shut down and revert edits that are anti-GW. I don't believe any action needs to be taken against UBeR. Oren0 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This situation is extremely complicated and something that anyone who is not a regular participant in global warming related articles will be hard pressed to untangle. In terms of disclosure I should state that I am a climate scientist, and am taken by some as one of the villains in the affair. Discussions on the topic sometimes get heated, and even those who are acting in good faith sometimes make remarks that could have been put more tactfully -- certainly I have. Consider all this however you will.

The global change articles see a steady stream of editors who wish to promote a point of view that gives undue weight to the skeptical viewpoint. Some simply make gratuitously provocative edits in order to stir up trouble; others have an agenda and are fact-averse. Representatives of each of those groups already have responded here. But I don't think UBeR belongs in those categories. He genuinely believes that the skeptical side is not being given fair play. In other words, while I think he wrong on the facts, I think his position is held in good faith. He also is an excellent copyeditor. The problem is, the same single-mindedness and persistence (some might say obsessiveness) that well serves a copyeditor is less helpful when dealing with other individuals. One has to learn to be flexible and that some battles are not worth fighting. I have tried to warn UBeR against personalizing the situation but unfortunately to no avail. To make a long story short, if any sanctions are meted out they should recognize that unlike some others, UBeR can make and has made constructive contributions to the articles themselves. The problems mostly lie in his actions outside article space as outlined in Rau654's point 2. I hope that the situation can be resolved in such a way that he can continue to make constructive contributions.

Finally, should the remarks of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia become material to the outcome of this matter, there are reasons to believe a RFCU on those two usernames could be worthwhile. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond. UBeR genuinely believes the skeptical side is not being given fair play and I agree (the Global warming controversy article needs work). UBeR attempts to edit in good faith and has made positive contributions. I would encourage UBeR not to personalize the situation and to focus on the facts even when being attacked personally (as is sometimes done).RonCram 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted UBeR's attack pages based on the MFD discussions and general consensus that they are attack pages. I have also listed them at WP:PTL. If UBeR wishes to collect evidence for an RFC, he may ask me to unlist the pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The next step

It seems to me that while there is disagreement as to Uber's article editing practices, there's more-or-less unanimous agreement that his treatment of others users (the harassment and the hit list, points 2 and 3) is way out of line. (I'm discounting the opinions of the contrarians, whose solicited support is both transparent and non-credible ) I suppose the question now is - what's the next step? Raul654 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty easy to say "I will ignore all who disagree with me." It's pretty typical of you. If you notice, however, I simply ask them to review the case on their own. You reject their judgment, not because it is wanton, but because they disagree with your judgment. I've already made all my points clear enough above, all of which have not been responded to. If there is any next step, if for you to be reviewed. ~ UBeR 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul, this is getting absurd. Until that last post, I thought you were doing this is good faith, but that's obviously not the case. You're right. I came to this page because of a notice placed on my talk page. Have you thought (*gasp*) that maybe not everyone checks the administrators' noticeboard on a regular basis? So because Uber or one of his supporters solicited my opionion, I'm immediately non-credible? I think I've contributed enough to WP at this point that I'm obviously not a troll. My opinion should be worth just as much as the opinions of people that disagree with you. Can I discount anyone that's posted on your or WMC's talk page as "non-credible" as well? Give me a break. You're just trying to discount 8 editors' opinions because they disagree with you. When did WP become about censoring ideas you disagree with?Oren0 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, in a perfect world the next step would be an investigation into why Uber is behaving in this manner (because I think there is fault on "both" sides). Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, most people are here because they are willingly contributing their time. This is a really difficult call, you ought to enforce the rules, but by enforcing the rules you probably are doing an injustice because some are using the rules to bully others. You ought to investigate the bullying but that would take too much time (as I found out) and I'm sure there is fault on both sides. Probably the best solution would be to ban anyone who has contributed to this debate from editing any of the various global warming/climate change/mars heating up/etc. articles again! Mike 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I think the next step is to thank those administrators who do give up their own time to read all this argy-bargy. To do a good job moderating these disputes must take an awful lot of time and effort. Well done and thanks. Having read the israel-palestian and global warming, perhaps it might be worth considering creating new pages which can only be edited by one "side" which are linked to the main page (the main should not be edited by those taking a "side"). By asking people to decide whether they wish to be "neutral", "pro" or "anti" it would allow them to contribute to the article which best suits their own background. But more importantly it would allow the articles to include contentious information often repressed by one group. The "pro" group would be balanced by the "anti" group obtaining an overall NPOV within wikipedia (but not within those articles). Just an idea! Mike 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forking is bad. --Onorem 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Raul654 filed this complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

Raul654, this post that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group , , orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows - thus they are bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. To bad we organized our secret conspiracy on public talk pages. Now all our hopes of complete world domination via accurate scientific representations are moot! Back to the UN mothership! --Stephan Schulz 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated here. ~ UBeR 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, this post by William M. Connolley on a user talk page , is clearly designed to appear innocent and is a pointer to the next post on another user talk page , where the actual conspiring and planning of your group's next move is clearly discussed. WMC was obviously attempting to hide this discussion otherwise why would he say "Where next? - I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" and give a pointer to another user talk page before starting the actual planning session? The "where next" comment makes me question "where was it before?". Your self-serving mischaracterization of user talk pages as "public" is false as the public rarely (or never) visits them for "general browsing". Now that your group has been exposed, I hope that the Misplaced Pages community takes this seriously and considers permanently banning your control and POV pushing on all GW pages. -- Brittainia 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the above post is a surreal attempt at humor, or is meant to be taken seriously. Assuming it to be the latter, if anyone wants to conspire, it would be trivial to use the "email this user" function on the side of each user's talk page.

Furthermore, there is nothing unseemly about either my message informing WMC as to the existance of this thread (after all, Uber's persistent harassment of him was one of the three primary complaints here; obviously a de facto part of that is to inform the person being harassed), or the fact that WMC asked me to participate in a discussion about how to follow up this thread. Raul654 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Although a conspiracy is not proved only by the discussions that Brittainia unearted, circumstances are of concern. I was perhaphs naive, but I must say that until now, I did not understand how it could be that these three editors are on the same line 99% of the time in GW related articles and always backing up each other. I mean, in normal circumstances, the odds are that they will disagree here and there on occasion no? This being said, the "monkey-off-your-back" post by Raul654 as well as the one where WMC gives an awkward pointer to his friends do not seem to be within normal Misplaced Pages behaviour. --Childhood's End 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...maybe our usual (though by no means universal) agreement has something to do with the fact that all of us can recognize and read scientific papers, and distinguish them from political pseudo-science. Moreover, 99% of the time, Raul is not even there. As of the end of January 2007, he has 8 edits on talk:global warming (as opposed to William's about 700 and my 400). And, of course, the secret conspiracy on our talk pages is open for all to see. My talk page has never been archived. According to the article contribution counter, William has 11 edits there, Raul has 1 (and that is the official notification about the closing of William's ArbCom case that I reopened). Given that User:Brittainia herself has indeed widely canvased support (even on pages of users who have been inactive for a long time), this conspiracy theory is laughable.--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

His 8 edits to talk in contrast to his 76 on the main article. Pretty bad ratio. ~ UBeR 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you sound like the accused in the accused box who is yelling that the accusations against him are laughable. Although you can of course have your say in this new affair, you should stick to facts, not rant. Let the discussion go and see how the case unfolds. As a party to the "conspiracy theory", your testimony (since you chose to testify) must be flawless. It is true that your talk pages are public, but you also know just like us that they're not widely read, far from that.

Besides, we can all read scientific papers. It's just that we can also elect to be critical rather than elect for blind belief. Try reading David Hume (who proved that no certainty exists in science), whose work had a huge influence on Einstein, among others. --Childhood's End 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in this that I probably miss some of it...

1. I'm not an accused accused in any way that remotely resembles the situation in a court of law and warrants such a comparison.
2. There is no "new affair".
3. I'm not yelling (but admit to some ranting, which seems like an adequate tool in this situation).
4. I'm sticking to the facts.
5. I'm not a party to any conspiracy theory, neither with not without quotes.
6. My testimony certainly does not have to be "flawless" (why should it have to be?) and, in fact, I'm not giving "testimony". At most I'm presenting evidence.
7. In fact, I have no idea about how many people read my talk pages. Certainly most people I have interacted with have my talk page on their watch list.
8. I have no idea if you are able to read (as in "read and understand") scientific papers. Certainly, "we all" cannot read scientific papers - its extremely hard to read and understand a scientific paper that is not in your field of expertise. Most people (and most Wikipedians) have no approriate scientific training at all. William and Raymond are actually specialists in the field.
9. Indeed, there is no absolute certainty in science. None of us has ever claimed there is. But that does not stop us from using scientific results to calculate the statics of a bridge, to determine the ballistics of a weapon to put someone into jail (or, in more barbaric countries, onto death row), to develop a new vaccine, or for thousands of other tasks daily. Demanding "absolute proof" is at best a self-serving delaying tactic.

--Stephan Schulz 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you claim not to be an accused - well I accuse you of conspiring with Willam M. Connolley to censor and control global warming articles. Here is a clear example of how you both work, (bolded to highlight obvious censorship and biased POV - from Talk:Global warming section titled: Svante Arrhenius)

Fair enough. I fixed it above.

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot afford to let anyone (let alone Administrators) abuse and control widely read & controversial areas such as the global warming articles. Especially in so obvious a form of POV censorship. -- Brittainia 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suprisingly, while you may think that the 95% claim supports your POV, it is unambiguously wrong. That's why I asked for someone (notice this high level of conspirational secrecy!) to fix it. I would have replaced it with a corrected version, but, on balance, I think William was right - there is no place in such a detailed discussion in a biographical article (that't why we have greenhouse gases). --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How odd that "someone" turned out to be William M. Connolley (who is part of your group ). That is a brilliant method of removing all of the inconvenient facts from the main Global warming page (almost sounds logical - hard to argue against). I may not agree with your censorship - but I have to admit to a grudging respect for the genius of your methods of execution. -- Brittainia 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that even if something is known to be incorrect, it would be "censorship" to delete it? The 95% claim isn't just wrong; it's absurdly wrong, like saying the moon is made of green cheese. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am also about to join the "accused". I don't really have a problem with the ongoing pattern of new editors arriving on these pages etc. I agree that UBer seems to be trying to improve Misplaced Pages in good faith. However, I find the pattern of personalising discussion on this topic by attacking other longer standing editors totally unacceptable, both on and off wiki. It violates Misplaced Pages:Harassment and a pile of other policies. If those who seek feel NPOV is in a different place (however good faith they are) throw tantrums and engage in personal attacks on other editors than we should warn and ultimately reluctantly exclude them. We have enough to do to stem the rising tide of outright vandalism without wasting time on petty squabbles. The attack pages have been deleted, some sort of good behaviour agreement should be sort before this is considered closed. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How refreshing: I am also now object of an off-wiki attack page: . I ought to add for completeness that the poor Wikiquette issue I raised at AN/I before: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacks. It is a shame that we don't seem to deal with these kind of editors quicker. --BozMo talk 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you have done nothing wrong - why is this radio show investigating your group? -- Brittainia 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't have any group? As a pretty straightforward demonstration of this I was recently elected as an Administrator here by a very marginal majority (76% versus the 75% required) but none of the editors with whom I am assumed to be "grouped" voted for me. What better demonstration is there of a lack of conspiracy? As for this radio show ("race to the right"?), as far as I can tell it is a couple of guys who have a very strong POV and are trying to make a story about people not accepting their views. But they are both contributing to Misplaced Pages and writing a website apparently attacking editors here alleging conspiracy just because anyone with a reasonable scientific background is reverting low quality contributions. This should be stopped now. --BozMo talk 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bored Radio DJ's... that would explain everything, I suppose. But they aren't the only people complaining about a conspiracy - there are plenty of Misplaced Pages editors who have been complaining about the cabal controlling (and pushing their POV on) the global warming articles. William M. Connolley has already had three complaints against him - which two members of his group have admitted that they helped him to get out of (their admissions are right here on this page). After this latest complaint, he and his group conspired to launch this diversionary complaint which we are now involved in against UBeR (I am not sure why, if they had nothing to hide?). It is now time to begin a formal investigation of their tactics and the allegations against them from so many sources (including the bored DJ's). -- Brittainia 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this looks like an unfounded allegation. Personally I have complained several times on AN/I about UBer and others engaged in personal attacks ref the content of the page. This seems to me to be the substance of the current complaint: if he and the 3-4 others in the "conspiracy theory" gang were a bit more civil we would not be here (and that group have a lot of cross comments planning on each others talk pages, and abusing other editors). This is not in appearance a diversionary complaint AFAICT and unless "having a monkey on your back" has a vastly different meaning in other countries there is nothing I have read above to make this claim substantial. I think it is time to go to the ArbCom and ask for a community ban for the disruptive editors. --BozMo talk 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncivil? Lets not fool yourself, Bozo. ~ UBeR 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are, as the multitude of comments above have born out. Perhaps you should go re-read some of them. Raul654 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". Now you are trying to impeach UBeR for "incivility"? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -- Brittainia 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed

Per Raymond's suggestion above, I ran a checkuser query on Ramses and Brittainia and - low and behold - they are the same person.They both edit from the same class B network, and almost entirely the same class C networks too, with many overlapping IP addresses (including one case where Ramese made an edit with an IP, then Brittainaia a few minutes later, then Ramses again a few minutes after that; and another case where they used the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other). They're clearly the same person. Raul654 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - user:Persianne is also linked to them. Raul654 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a separate issue? As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors in terms of location / computer use, etc. If your intent is to distract from issue at hand, please do so elsewhere. If, however, there is reason for the inclusion here unbeknownst to me, I apologize. ~ UBeR 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the fact that Brittainia and I live together is anyone's business but ours and it certainly should not be relevant to this review process. I do object however, to the process by which Raul654 breached my privacy. No formal process was initiated - is this acceptable or is it more renegade tactics from this group? ~ Rameses 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your concerted editing was enough, on its face, to make Raymond suspicious as to request a sockpuppet check.

And it's extremely relevant to this discussion - The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. -- Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets Raul654 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have AFD'd Persianne's only substantive contribution, Persian Panda, as a probable hoax article since I can find no confirming sources. If it is a hoax, it is worse possible kind as it appears both detailed and well-written, and would easily pass as legitimate (albeit unsourced) content to most observers. Dragons flight 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, both Brittainia and I would like an apology (for unecessary and unauthorised breach of privacy) from Raul654 and from Raymond Arrit. Failing this I would like to initiate a formal complaint and a review of their actions here. ~ Rameses 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that, beyond your self-serving denial, we have no evidence at all that you, Brittainia, and Persianne are in fact different people. Moreover, the fact that your similar editing patterns were, on their own, enough to tip Raymond off strongly suggests otherwise. I have no intention of apologizing for following up on an (apparently correct) sockpuppeting suspicion. If that doesn't suit you, you can complain to user:UninvitedCompany, the checkuser ombudsman. Raul654 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Though this is pointless to respond to, I'll say it anyway for brevity's sake. Where is the breach of privacy? Raul654 has been entrusted with checkuser access to identify socks, meatpuppetts, and other uses of contributions to evade bans/blocks or misuse Misplaced Pages content or process. We are not all entrusted with such access for the very privacy reasons you are concerned with. Raul654 confirmed the IPs, and not a single shred of personal identity was posted. Only checkusers can view their logs. I don't know your gender, location either city or continent, editing patterns that aren't public or marital/tax/health status from the checkuser confirmation. So what exactly is your beef with a checkuser that would invite such a riled defense? This question is rhetorical, I do not request a response. Teke 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, for the sake of clarity, continent, state, city, and even ISP can be determined with an IP. So you're not 100% correct in that aspect. On another note, I believe the very problem was that Raul654 WAS the one who did the check, as opposed to a more trustworthy and uninvolved person. ~ UBeR 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are dragging a child into this, this really is typical of your smear tactics. It is reprehensible how low you will stoop to win! ~ Rameses 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on these comments as well as the signature at the end UBeR's comment here, I would not be surprised if Rameses, Brittainia, Persianne, and UBeR are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of complete fairness, based on this comment and the fact that he raised the issue above ("As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors") I ran a check on Uber (my first and only one). There is no evidence there to suggest he is related to the Ramses/Brittainia/Persianne sockpuppetry Raul654 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to Raul's comment, I am convinced based on editting patterns alone that Uber is definitely distinct from the others. Dragons flight 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts galore) That's going too far IMHO. I strongly doubt that UBeR is the same as the other two (or three, or one, or whatever). Raymond Arritt 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is merely coincidental that Rameses just started to sign his comments the same way that UBeR does?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly disappointed, Ryulong. ~ UBeR 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Or whatever cliche I'm trying to think of.) Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since your group obviously has no decency whatsoever, I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman. (Is there no place in Misplaced Pages for families?) ~ Rameses 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Families are allowed on Misplaced Pages. My little brother has an account here. However, when all of the members of a family push the same point of view disruptively, we have to apply the duck test.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one where if you weigh the same as a duck, you're a witch? Because a duck floats, wood floats, you burn wood, you burn witches? "She turned me into a newt!" "You don't look like a newt." "I... I got better!" -- Ben 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman? What Ombudsman? Corvus cornix 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and all of you others, I must say that I am also truly disappointed by your continually dragging a child into this unseemly character assassination (it reminds me of Shakespeare's "the stabbing of Julius Caesar" scene). Persianne has certainly not "pushed the same point of view disruptively" (apart from one vote to save her dad's article from a similar assassination) and if you can show any evidence at all - do so. If you cannot, kindly retract your ugly smear and apologise. Failing this, I ask that this unwarranted and completely false attack on a child's character also be examined by the ombudsman. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... Checkuser only discloses similarities between accounts and general information in order to avoid revealing personal details. Personal details, for example, such as that Persianne is apparently the account of an underage female. In the future, you may want to consider not revealing such specific details in public, even when making such a response. Bitnine 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather that shes a daughter of a couple, which isn't quite so revealing. ~ UBeR 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All that Raul has revealed is that all three users apparently use the same machine(s) to access Misplaced Pages. He did not reveal either the ISP, the location, or the (apparent) family relationships. The latter were subsequently revealed (in as far as we trust them) by User: Rameses and User: Brittainia themselves. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since creating a hoax article is blockable already, you'd do better to address Persian Panda rather than bemoaning the "character assassination" of an account apparently created primarily to hoax Misplaced Pages. Dragons flight 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - that article was her class project. She and her friends set out to prove their science teacher wrong - by showing that Misplaced Pages is a reasonably reliable source of information (through it's constant error correction). I guess that makes you a part of the project - the part of the hero...? -- Brittainia 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had the misfortune to try and edit the various global warming articles. Although I do not personally agree with Uber's point of view, I am firmly convinced that the faction that opposes Uber's views try is ganging up on contributors they don't like in an attempt to silent contributions informing readers of alternative & notable view points to the pro global warming lobbyists. I really do feal sorry for people who are trying to document the alternative view to the pro global warming lobby because they are up against some very nasty characters who quite clearly want to stop people like Uber using any means possible. This whole situation doesn't do Misplaced Pages's reputation any good. There is unquestionably a majority (of scientists) who are of the view that the minority should not be heard at all. The majority appear to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at all times of day and night, the minority seems to be "normal" people with an interest as they edit intermittently.

From what I have seen this is not at all a fair fight, this is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of the overwhelming force of the Nazis attacking the minority jews (with the same vicious belief they are right). The "Nazis" may be technically operating within the law, and the "jews" may be behaving in ways that in other cases would be acceptable, but until Misplaced Pages finds a way to redress the balance and in particular starts to enforce NPOV, I'm with the underdogs and would urge you to see their actions as extremely restrained given the intolerable position they are under. Mike 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in the first attempt. Impressive. And with regard to your edits here: I suggest you retract the "professional lobbyists" claim unless you have any serious evidence that anyone in this conflict is paid for his work on Misplaced Pages. I'm still waiting for my cheque... --Stephan Schulz 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal" - Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Prospect Magazine, November 2005) --Childhood's End 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"A fascist group can easily hide itself by quoting Godwin's Law whenever anyone reveals the true nature of their activities." This has the added benefit of smearing their victim's reputation. You can call that Brittainia's Law. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to call this an uncalled for and unjustifiable personal attack. --Stephan Schulz 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic. These ad hominem arguments do nothing but to distract from the topic. It is becoming increasingly annoying. If you feel so inclined, please bicker on each other's talk pages. ~ UBeR 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Uber on the minimum wage article. In that context, I've found him to be one of the few, intellectually honest Misplaced Pages editors. -- Mgunn 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been away dealing with my own server issues lately. I have had the horrid experience of attempting to edit/balance the Global Warming pages. My own research of edit histories, etc. has shown some extremely disturbing things about Misplaced Pages, its administrators and its policies. The short of the whole issue is this: there are a number of admins (the group being discussed here are not the only ones) who flex their power over any other editor that dare disagree with them. The tactics used are vague references to policies to 'prove' the other editors are out-of-line; carefully crafted cheap shots in the article edits summaries & talk pages to 'push buttons' of the 'bad editors'; talk down to them as being too inexperienced to understand how to properly edit Misplaced Pages; revert edits wholesale and in tandem (when one's rv is undone another will re-revert for the admin. The harder the resistance to the will of the abusive admins the more destructive the admins use/abuse of policies become. People talk about the blue veil of protection for police officers and a perfect example of that in Misplaced Pages can be found in reading the past 2 years of action, complaints, activity, etc from the admins and their colleagues in this particular complaint.

This entire RfC is a part of the constant efforts to chase away editors who do not comply with the viewpoints of various admins. To some degree it worked with me personally...I have chosen to not edit Misplaced Pages until I talk with certain key people in Misplaced Pages about this problem. Their actions are so intrusive I have recently received messages from some of these people attempting to dictate content on my own personal webspaces. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?

Several users are arguing about this issue. My opinion is that if a vandal removes warning from his page, then he is interfering with the process of keeping track of his vandalism so that appropriate warnings or blocks can be made. Thus his removal is vandalism; and we should revert it and give him another warning. MrDarcy (talk · contribs) (who is apparently an administrator), claims that such reversion and additional warning would itself be vandalism by the "enforcer". And he is threatening to give warnings and blocks to those who do that. What is the policy on this matter? Thanks for your help. JRSpriggs 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until recently there were specific warning templates advising vandals that removing legitimate warning templates was also vandalism. I agree that it is necessary for legitimate warnings to stay on vandals' pages, so others on vandal patrol can see the prior offenses without having to dig through the history. It is almost always the worst vandals who promptly remove the warnings, often doubling the workload for those of us trying to stop them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those templates were intentionally deleted because many people agree with MrDarcy (though perhaps with weaker language) that reverting vandalism warnings is generally inappropriate. While I understand your concern about tracking the worst vandals, allowing such reversions also encourages harassment of generally good users that simply make mistakes. The amount of problems they were creating was disproportionate to the amount of good a little extra tracking was doing since any admin worth his title ought to already be reviewing histories. Dragons flight 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An archive of the deletion review regarding warning removal templates can be seen here. Dragons flight 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to me to show strong consensus that valid warnings need to stay on a vandal's page, and that removing them is wrong. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine is far more recent. That poll (which I helped create) does not reflect current policy. As WP:VAND, "removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" replaced the statements that removing warnings was vandalism. While removing warnings might be a cause for further dispute resolution, it is not presently considered a form of vandalism and should not be indiscriminately reverted. Dragons flight 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's so easy to solve, just make sure your edit summary reflects the fact you gave them a warning. Then it will not matter if they remove it and the next person will just need to look at the history page and not go though several revisions. Misplaced Pages:Use common sense applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in as another admin strongly against edit-warring in an attempt to force the talk page display of material a user does not want. Talk pages exist to facilitate >communication< with the user. Not to serve as a perpetual 'wall of shame' for every condemnation that any random user chooses to place there. If you want to review past problems check the page history and/or the block log... that is their purpose, not the talk page's. --CBD 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CBD, and would just like to point out that if vandalism comes from an IP, that IP could be used the next day by a completely different person who is adding useful content. If it comes from a registered user, I imagine that in most cases, the account should be blocked indefinitely. I'm basing that on my feeling that there would be very few registered users who add the word "poop" to the article about George W. Bush today and add useful content to the article on contact lenses tomorrow. But surely a user should not be forced to display warnings that annoy or embarrass him. If that were the case, we'd need to change the titles from "user warnings" to "user black marks". When I send a warning, I'm careful to put something like "uw-vandalism2" in the edit summary, so that an admin can look briefly at the history, without checking the diffs, and see that someone has been warned. I'd hope, in any case, that an admin would check for vandalism carried out by the vandal before blocking, rather than warnings issued to the vandal, as I'm sure there are some who might misuse the warning templates if they disagree with an edit or want to harass someone. Just my two cents. ElinorD (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember the point in the warnings is to get them to stop vandalising, if they just blank the warning and do nothing then it worked. If they continue just add the next warning if appropriate, most who are intent on vandalising will just continue and It'll get to a blockable level reasonably quickly. If it comes to an AIV report you can note that warnings were removed. The other side to consider is that of attention seeking, some of those involved in this are incapable of gaining attention for positive contributions and would rather gain attention from the negative, edit warring over warnings is just feeding that attention seeking. If they are replacing the warning with taunts, abuse etc. then keep cool and if need be ask for an admin to see about protecting the page/blocking. --pgk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is definitely some gray area here. Maybe there should be some sort of time period that warnings are expected to remain. If an editor is removing current (24 hours for logged in users, less for IPs) warnings and continuing the actions that led to the warning in the first place, I would consider the removal as an additional act of vandalism. /shrug. --Onorem 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If they remove the template, then they have clearly seen it. The purpose of these templates is not to blackmark users, it is to ask (then urge, then tell, then warn) users not to vandalise (be incivil, edit war, etc). If they have seen the message, then the purpose of the template has been achieved. Reapplying such templates if the user has removed them is edit warring; it should not be done. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I can revert a page without viewing the content. If someone has been doing something or engaging in inappropriate behaviour and sees my name as having just edited his talk page, he can easily revert it without actually reading what I wrote.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion could be narrowed to focus strictly on anonymous IP users as a starting point. The majority of vandalism comes from anonymous users. Since anonymous users do not generally have the same rights as account holders and user talk pages are a community asset, not personal, it's reasonable that a pattern of vandalism should be required to stand on the talk page for a period of time. The removal of vandalism warnings slows down the enforcement process. I don't look at page history or edit summaries when placing vandalism warnings. It is a waste of time - and often time is valuable when trying to stop a rampant vandal (at least when you have to get the warnings documented before you can report to WP:AIV). What about those vandal patrollers who are using tools like VandalProof? They are likely to put a test1 on someone who has been blocked 3 times in the last month just because of a blanked page. If the user can be penalized for blanking the page, it will either act as a deterrent or demonstrate malice on the part of the user. -- Mufka 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea how VP works, but honestly, if the page has been blanked it's fairly obvious that one has to check the history to look for previous warnings. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about penalizing people, it's about preventing disruption, starting wars over user talk content is in itself disruptive. When dealing with a vandal you should always be checking their recent contributions anyway to revert any as yet undetected vandalism, this will tell you if they've blanked their page and if they have indeed been up to any other misdeeds recently. --pgk 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its also about civility. And while on a low-traffic talk page of an IP its easy to check for previous warnings, on a busy talk page of a long-time user (yes they can still make mistakes), it can be near impossible to dig through and find those. Warnings are no different than any other kind of talk. We consider it a civility issue if someone is constantly blanking talk on his talk page without responding to it. So why should valid warnings be any different? They're still communication. There is no reason valid warnings on a talk page should be treated differently than valid communication and they can both be archived as appropriate. We've established that users don't own their talk page, even though they're given some latitude with it, its a place where a record of communication with other users is kept.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If one has to scan the history of a page to find warnings (and talk pages can often have lengthy histories), figuring out who to block becomes a real chore. If the warnings are left on the talk page, it becomes much easier to find out what level the vandal is at, in turn making it easier to escalate the template level when appropriate. Users don't own their talk pages, and vandals, in my opinion, should have more restrictions because of their proven malicious intents (at least persistent vandals should). If a warning is unwarranted, because the user did not perform the edit in question (the warner made a mistake), they are welcome to remove it themselves, but some users (IPs and registered users) have simply blanked their talk pages, regardless of whether or not the warnings previously displayed had been valid or read. As far as I'm concerned, archiving to a page linked from the main page is OK; blanking/deletion is not OK. — Tuvok 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also become an issue if, for instance, a long-time user had an issue with a certain subject which he only edited occasionally. If there were warnings in relation to it, and that person consistently blanked them, any future people leaving notices in regards to some inappropriate behaviour in regards to a certain subject might never be able to notice the pattern and realize it probably needed addressed more than a simple warning.--Crossmr 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two additional comments on this; If a user does not have an account and is therefore showing up as an anonymous IP, it should just go with the territory that the user might have vandalism warnings sitting on the talk page from a previous user. The user doesn't own the talk page. We could just have a template that explains the situation very politely to the next user of the ip. On that same idea, the majority of anon ip's don't change from day to day or even month to month. It is reasonable that a user who is vandalizing on that ip will be back on the same ip to do it again (if they do it again). The second, and perhaps more important, is that I don't want to see vandal patrollers getting scolded by an admin who believes that blanking the talk page is not a bad thing. It makes us all look stupid if we can't agree on what the policy is and how it can be enforced. -- Mufka 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A template would be good. I think several exist, it would be a matter of ensuring that they get on all IP talk pages. I still can't find a "good" reason for blanking warnings when other communication is allowed to stay unless its an attempt to hide it. Thats assuming bad faith, but honestly I just cannot think of a good faith reason to blank valid warnings unless you're consistently blanking your entire talk page (which you shouldn't really be doing anyway).--Crossmr 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is an established editor with that much throughput on their talk page that a brief viewing of the page history won't make the issue obvious, I'd say that's all the more reason to not worry about them keeping warnings visible if they don't want them. We should be looking to the bigger picture in such cases not merely counting warnings. The warning templates aren't something to bash people with, if the issue has been resolved and moved on from (i.e. they've read it and "conformed") then we don't need chanting of "unclean". --pgk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. Because its much easier for an established editor to cover up an issue that way. If someone doesn't seen any obvious warnings to this person they might just leave another civil1, and move on and think nothing of it. What they don't notice on this editors busy talk page is maybe he's had a half dozen of those over the last year, but its never involved the same editors, so no one picks up on it. That would be an indication that perhaps it should be taken to another level for input and possible handling of the situation. As I pointed out, there is no good reason to remove warnings if they were valid. Absolutely 100% none. And "feeling like it" isn't a good reason. If I ask you a question and you blank it, its considered uncivil. It should be no different with warnings. Its just communication. There is no reason it can't be archived in 7 days along with everything else, or whatever the regular archiving period is on that particular users talk page.--Crossmr 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that fails WP:AGF, assuming it is done for "an established editor to cover an issue", doesn't cut it. Regardless of if you see it as uncivil is irrelevant, yes we want people to be civil, do we block people for being mildly uncivil, no. Which is more disruptive removing some warnings they've read and understood or Assumptions of bad faith concerning that warning and edit warring over the removal. --pgk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't blindly assume good faith. And if you can't provide a "good" reason for the removal of the warnings before normal archiving, I'm not violating that. If a single good scenario can't be provided for their removal, yet bad scenarios can easily be though of, AGF doesn't apply. There also wouldn't be any edit warning if we established a policy on their removal. Hence why this discussion is here. We don't block people for being mildly uncivil no. But if someone is consistently uncivil in all dealings he has with a particular subject (Lets say historical figures from a certain state, it doesn't really matter what) If a keen eyed editor notices this while leaving the individual a warning, he may try and intervene and recommend that the editor not edit those kinds of articles or if the editor ignores that and continues to be uncivil in regards to those articles, it may go to a point where the editor is officially banned from editing those kinds of articles. There are also other kinds of sneaky vandalism that long time editors could get away with by being allowed to bury warnings. There is also no assumption of bad faith in my saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wipe the warning right away. I'm simply saying that it is communication and it shouldn't be treated any differently.--Crossmr 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do blindly assume good faith, when we have some evidence of bad faith in an action then that assumption evaporates. If someone removes a warning and doesn't continue the behaviour they were warned about that is not evidence of bad faith in removal of the warning. --pgk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying if I leave a NPA warning on someone's talk page, they blank and then repeat the behaviour, it is evidence and obviously the blanking of the warning is in bad faith? At that point then, since obviously the person was acting in bad faith by blanking the warning, that warning, and probably all others can be restored? What about future blankings? If those warnings were restored, and they're immediately blanked again, do we restore them since the user has demonstrated they're willing to ignore warnings? Are you willing to keep the tally sheet on which user is allowed to blank warnings because they haven't messed up again? Quite a tangled web. Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such.--Crossmr 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should restore warnings under any circumstances. I'm saying assuming that just removing of a warning is indicative of some "bad intent" goes against WP:AGF, if someone does remove a warning and then continues it seems go evidence of disruptive behaviour. Post a further warning for the fresh behaviour, if the disruption continues that's when we block. i.e. If I post a test2 template (or uw- whatever) on someones talk page and they remove it, and repeat the same action then any assumption that their original edit may have been a genuine mistake/test has gone out the window they certainly read the warning, there is no doubt they intend to be disruptive. "Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such" - yep and I'm free to remove any other message I see fit from my talk page, as is any other editor, it's not vandalism, it's not something to edit war over. --pgk 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the impression I've gotten from people. A talk page is a record of communication and you don't own your talk page. You're given some latitude with it, but in the end you don't own it. I've seen it mentioned more than once that removing messages on your talk page without responding can be seen as uncivil, and that your talk page should be archived in a useful manner (if blanked, diffs to various versions should be included) or via something like werdnabot. Editing others comments is frowned upon, regardless of the place (unless its formatting the position of the message), and blanking someone's comment, whether its a comment or a warning, would fall under that too. So while it may be your talk page, and I should assume good faith in your wanting to blank the warning right away, you should realize you don't own your talk page, and you shouldn't edit my comments. This isn't a one way street. And in the absence of any good reason for removing warnings right away, I don't see any kind of reason this should lean so heavily towards that side. The middle ground would be to allow an individual to blank warnings until they show bad faith, but I think I just covered what a gong show that would be. You assume that this would be something that would be edit warred over, but an official policy should hopefully nip a lot of that in the bud. As someone pointed out before the only policy was kind of vague.--Crossmr 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Users are heavily discouraged from removing messages from their talk pages, unless the message to them is a personal attack. Blanking warnings is vandalism, whether the warning has been there for one day or one year. Acalamari 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong answer! Agathoclea 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People can assert this as often as they want, fact is it is not consensus, and therefore not policy. And if you try to enforce it and edit-war about it, you will be in trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a bot on the drawing board that makes archives retro-actively. Once I got a better caching routine done I will make it available. _InBC 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer? What do you mean? This is a discussion about vandalism, not a quiz. Acalamari 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fut.Perf., are you saying that I would be in trouble and considered a vandal if I suggested a new policy that said that blanking talk page warnings is vandalism? Why would I be in trouble for? I would just be suggesting a policy. Acalamari 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a policy proposal. _InBC 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a proposal. Recently I encountered a user who receives lots of warnings. He immediately blanks all warnings and block notices, even while the blocks are active. Raymond Arritt 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Acamalari: No, obviously not, not for suggesting a policy. (But I'd advise you that, given the strong opposition such proposals have had in the past, you have very little chance of seeing such a proposal through. It's almost like one of those "perennial proposals". The community is pretty much split over it.) What I was saying was, you seemed to be just unilaterally declaring it a policy, and you would be in trouble if you attempted to treat it as one in practice, for instance by edit-warring on another user's page to enforce it. I thought I'd expressed myself clearly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was policy because several other users, including administrators, have said to me that talk page messages should not be removed without a very good reason (i.e. trolling) Acalamari 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors/admins who think this is a policy. I actually had to ask about it here about a week or so ago because I saw an editor get blocked for 3RR because they removed an old vandal warning and then removed the subsequent warnings they received for that action... because the admin thought he was enforcing policy. It's probably a good idea to have a more formal discussion on this. I'm not sure I want to see a hard policy on this, but a guideline may be helpful.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also support such a policy proposal. -- Mufka 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had such a policy in the past. It doesn't work. It encourages edit warring over the presence of the warning messages and leads to escalating disruption that is far more troubling than the mere blanking of warnings. Sorry, but no thanks. Dragons flight 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So then apply it appropriately? Very simply the scenario should look like this: Regular Joe User notices user X has blanked warnings, they restore them and reminds them that that is against policy and they can archive the warnings with their regular archives. If user X continues, they've been warned about the behaviour. Make a report to AIV, an administrator can restore them, provide a final warning (because honestly if this takes more than 2 warnings to get across, there is a malfunction in the junction) and then lock the talk page. This makes sure all talk is readily available. The warnings should provide links on how to archive a talk page and links to say the village pump if the individual feels a warning is unfair, or they need help understanding it. It can also include information saying "If this warning is patently false you can remove it, but explain why in the edit summary, i.e. I never edited the article in question".--Crossmr 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The standing official policy says that this activity is "frowned upon". What exactly does that mean? How does one enforce "frowned upon"? The ambiguity is what is so infuriating. This debate will go on forever until that is resolved. We need to establish policy in one direction or the other. Separately, if an edit war breaks out as a result of a policy, it would be a pretty short edit war - warning1, warning2, warning3, warning4, block. -- Mufka 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that people are discouraged from doing it, but it won't (in the absense of other factors) lead to any sanction. Disruptive user that also remove warnings are more likely to be seen as trolls though. Dragons flight 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, just because did not find consensus in the past does not mean it will not now. I encourage the drafting of a proposal, it is clear there is much support for it. I don't see how it can encourage edit warring if the side removing the warnings is violating policy. _InBC 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a link to a proposal of mine. I provided the link further down this page, but I'll provide it here too: User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. Acalamari 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that your proposal is specifically for IP addresses, but lots of others have said this should apply to registered talk pages as well. Here's the problem: Say I'm having a dispute with User X. I am being civil and refraining from personal attacks. User X leaves an npa-2 warning on my talk page, even though it is entirely unfounded. Is removing it vandalism? If yes, can others remove it? If so, will we need to set up a noticeboard for requests for independent editors to investigate whether the warning was warranted and if not, to remove it? Obviously this would be a bigger problem with registered user talk pages, but we also have some VERY good IP editors (one in particular, of course, comes to mind). Would this policy apply to him? Why or why not? It's really not that difficult to check the history page, especially if something about the user seems fishy to you. If they are vandalizing and they blank their talk page, block 'em. That's completely in line with present policy, in which blanking warnings can only be considered disruption in the presence of other disruption (such as vandalism). My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is not just for IP addresses at all. Also, discussion of the proposal should take place on the proposal's talk page, not here. My apologies if this message sound slightly uncivil. Acalamari 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misread. But I'm not talking specifically about your proposal, I'm talking about the idea in general, as have the above 30+ comments. Hence why I listed it here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, and I misunderstood. I saw the "your proposal" part, and assumed you meant my proposal. I'm surprised it hasn't generated any interest yet; from the messages above, everyone was saying it would be a highly-discussed topic. Acalamari 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a warning message is placed on a users talk page and its completely unfounded then it can be removed. Removing it wouldn't be vandalism. The burden of proof would be on the individual who placed the warning to provide diffs where they felt the behaviour occurred. If they can't, the warning can be removed. If its patently false, i.e. a copyvio template left about the George bush article and you've never edited that article. Remove it, and indicate that in your edit summary. If the warning template has been left by someone you're in a disagreement with, post to the village pump (this link could be included in the warning templates) or post to the users talk page and ask them to provide diffs.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is clearly going to be no change in policy on this issue, I guess we are left to simply "frown" heavily on the activity (maybe I'll create a template that says "I frown on what you did" -- sounds completely legit to me based on the policy WP:VAND). We that are addicted vandal fighters, just need to continue what we were doing (reverting the removals) while staying on the right side of WP:3RR. It is a shame that we can't come to a YES or NO answer on this but we'll just have to walk a thin line to keep ourselves from being labeled vandals. -- Mufka 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, there isn't going to be a change in policy because the alternative is the massive instruction creep that Crossmr mentions: if someone on vandal patrol posts a warning, he/she needs to monitor the page because if the user removes the warning as unfounded, the vandal patroller has to go back and provide diffs, right? (Otherwise, you're conceding that the warning was false, presumably). And admins and other editors can get harassed: where they remove what they think is a bogus warning, and then get presented a irrelevant diff (say, a revert they did), then what - take it to the village pump? RFC?

The reality is that Misplaced Pages has no processes to resolve arguments over whether a specific warning is a valid or not, and it doesn't need such processes - admins evaluate such warnings when, and only when, it appear that a block may be warranted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you're given a false warning, respond to it with your side rather than remove it and look like you're trying to hide something. I reverted a user removing 2 {{npa}} warnings given to him on his talk page in the past 24 hrs and added a note that removing warnings was frowned upon. That user is now blocked, and rightfully so, but he would have continued attacking, edit warring, and being disruptive if I had not reverted his warnings and reported him on WP:AN/I. I don't know if we need a policy on this or if common sense suffices, but I'd prefer to not be blocked for making sure a disruptive editor gets reported and taken care of. --JaimeLesMaths 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious copyright/policy violation

I was checking the icon Image:Vista-file-manager.png. It's saying that the image is released under GPL, and a reference to a source at http://sa-ki.deviantart.com. Why they have been specified as GPL here (and on countless other wiki-projects, including commons), is probably because that on http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=28352 it's specified as GPL.

The problem arise when looking on the authors own page about these icons http://www.iconsdesigns.com/?page_id=44. There it's a notice saying:

These free icons are provided to be used as a replacement icon theme for your operating system only. You can also use them on your open source projects. For non open source projects such as commercial ones, products website, personal website, blog, commercial or personal applications, documentation, etc. asking a permission to use them is mandatory and you will have to give credit for them. Thank you!

If this hold, then the icons is not compatible with the rules for images used on the projects. _→AzaToth 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct anyone know a commons admin to zap it. You will want to rip it out of the relivant templates first.Geni 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If a replacement image is needed, Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png should do the trick. WjBscribe 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no law-talking person. However, the user uploaded the icon set under the GPL, and the package itself contains a copy of the license, even if he states in another location and seemingly at a later time that it is under a more restrictive license. Isn't this somewhat like the Misplaced Pages disclaimer that "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."? What's relevant are the conditions when he originally released the file; you can't "take back" licenses. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is we can't prove he every did release under pure GPL.Geni 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that GNOME-Look says that (the uploader sets the license there), and if you download the package from there you'll note that it does contain a copy of the GPL with no added restrictions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

but who was the uploader?Geni 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

saki. The same person who has the deviantART page, and the IconsDesigns.com page. He links directly to and from the various websites. The one and only download address is at GNOME-Looks, and that package has a copy of the GPL inside of it and is stated as being GPL-licensed on the download page. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a great alternative. Might as well give the filing cabinet a coat of paint anyway. :) Garrett 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eef. Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png makes me weep, it really does. I know it's a matter of taste, but can I offer Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg as a stopgap until this is resolved? I'm a complete novice at Inkscape, but that's my own ham-fisted attempt at a filing cabinet icon (completely from scratch), and you can have it for nothing. — mholland 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a derivative work, it wouldn't have any affect on the copyright status. That is, if it's a violation it's still a violation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My image isn't a derivative work: I drew it from scratch from brown polygons. It looks the same, but then so would a lot of images at 40px. — mholland 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See the definition at . Redrawing an image doesn't create a new copyright, regardless of the method in which you did it, or even if there are minute differences. You therefore shouldn't be claiming it as public domain either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read and understand the definition of a derivative work. I remain confident that the image I drew is not based upon Image:Vista-file-manager.png in any way which attracts copyright rights. No part of the original image is reproduced, dimensions or colours. I had, however, looked at Vista-file-manager before I started drawing. It is my understanding that you can't copyright the idea of a square, brown, two drawer filing cabinet, drawn in perspective with a shadow beneath it; however, my experience in this field is limited to UK copyright law, and I gladly and humbly apologise if my understanding of US law is faulty.

I have removed the image from this page and from Template:Archive box. I have not removed the PD claim from the image's summary, but I'll gladly do so (or endorse another's doing so) if someone would like to confirm that the image is derivative under US law, and for simplicity's sake (given that the original image is of uncertain copyright status) request its deletion myself. — mholland 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to contact the author? --Random832 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email via the Gnome-Look interface, havn't got any replies. _→AzaToth 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Was looking up the crystal icons also, and it seems that they are allowed by the author to be used on wikipedia commons:Template talk:Crystal clear, simlar here, as the "author" have posted them as LGPL on kde-looks. _→AzaToth 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER severely backlogged yet again

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests has now reeached 21 entries; it's been backlogged for over a week now. --ais523 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with some, now at 13. Sandstein 08:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another backlog...

...at requested moves. Sorry to be a bother. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We need more administrators! Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but it ain't happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, 100 user talk space project image reversion edits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

People just don't have the balls to nominate themselves - which I've now decided to do next time - and don't want to shop for nominators. Hence shortage of candidates. Moreschi 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was always told it would reflect poorly on you to nominate yourself.--Crossmr 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten the impression that it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on you, but that the standards are a bit higher. But I haven't scrutinized RfA ever, so that could be completely off-base. Natalie 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People certainly do succeed when nominating themselves. I did nominate Jeff, but he was shouted down due to being an inclusionist. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated myself, but that's only because I'm my only fan :) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam whitelist

Things tend to go on the spam whitelist and get forgotten. I started looking through it and found several sites which were not linked, some which were no longer on the blacklist anyway, some entries which simply serve to override the blacklist for entire domains (why?), some which have no place in the project anyway (e.g. ad-riddled fansites). I have made a review page at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/review and am looking through them. I've excluded the latest ones, which at least have comments stating why they are on the list, and added links to show "mainspace" and "all" linksearch. I did not do this with the expectation of anyone but me reviewing it, but it is going to take a looooong time so if anyone else wants to help please do pitch in. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; that page has always been in need of more eyes, metaphorically speaking, but the addition of the log appears to be a good improvement. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Splendid idea Guy. I've started reviewing some of the pages. I think a bit of context for the netfirms batch is in order... when the netfirms domain was blacklisted a while back there was consern that the many legitimate sites being referenced or linked to. Since there was a huge number of them it was decided that all the pages currently being linked to from articles on wikipedia would be "grandfathered" in. However, a careful review of those pages isn't a bad idea. Since the blacklisting/whitelisting many of those pages have gone dead or the outbound links have been replaced.

As some have noticed Eagle and myself have worked fairly hard to catchup on the backlog on that page. Any help in keeping an eye on the page would be appreciated. It may not be obvious at a glance, but the whitelist is an important tool in our anti-spam efforts. It can help turn the blacklist from a sword into a scalpel. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also include a few hits; for example, whitelisting sites solely for linking from userspace might be a courtesy but is probably not a good use of resources. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So far I have rejected two "it's my personal homepage" type requests at the whitelist. I don't realy have a problem leaving the ones that are already there or granting a few under special circumstances, but I agree that it makes for a bad precedence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:South_Tyrol#Requested_move

I have little experience in dealing with the controversial nature of a discussion such as this, and I wondered if a more experienced hand at dealing with it could take a look. As a summary, most users seem to agree that the name South Tyrol has got to go. However, the conversation has dissolved into discussing and straw polling into creating up to four forks for the article. A move is agreed, but to what name? Miles to go. I'd love to learn how to handle this. Teke 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me like consensus is still changing over there. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do I report an administrator abuse case?

Would somebody point me to the page where I could make an official complaint on administrator's conduct and request that admin to be stripped of their privileges? I've been on Wikibreak for several months and forgot some procedures... Thanks, Ukrained 11:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a concrete, urgent case, you might try WP:AN/I. For longer-term problems, see WP:DR. --Stephan Schulz 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's neither urgent, nor long-term; but certainly concrete. Any other thoughts? Ukrained 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC is the place to start. But do read WP:ROUGE first :o) Looking at it, you are demanding that a block be removed from history (it won't be, that never happens) and complaining that it was invalid (which I dispute, it looks as if you have major problems with attitude and collaborative working). I think you need to read NPOV and MPOV and understand the difference. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments like "And we all must do our best to block Mr.Khoikhoi from his adminship (detailed plan will be presented via E-mail)" are worrying. --pgk 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. Looks like a wikilife that may be "nasty, brutish and short". I asked Piotrus if he could help out, since he can be pretty good with that kind of bias. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the user is unhappy about the outcome of events outlined at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Personal Attacks by User:Ukrained. If anyone clicks on the diffs presented in that thread, the picture would be more complete. --Irpen 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

New template for compromised accounts

I noticed that sometimes accounts are hijacked and must be blocked indefinitely (e.g. RaccoonFox (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Raccoon Fox (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Therefore, I created {{Compromised account}}. Could other administrators review this template and my actions so far with it? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good; comments about the template itself on its talk page. —Quarl 2007-03-11 00:13Z

• Moved to Template talk:Compromised account

An IP running a bot

Not that it seems to be doing anything wrong, but how is this possible?--Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a regular bot that got accidentally logged out. There's nothing technical that stops bots; bot flags are only human approval. —Quarl 2007-03-11 00:12Z

brian d foy rename

I saw brian d foy (previously at Brian D. Foy) at WP:RM, and after reading the discussion, concluded that the consensus was to move the article. There was the issue that a lot of the support arguments were made by anonymous users and uses with very few edits, but I was sure to take that into account. Now, User:Chriscf has come to me saying that my conclusion that there was consensus is incorrect: User talk:Enochlau#brian_d_foy. I've discussed it a little with him, and I still think that there was consensus, and I respect his disagreement with my decision - but I would like some more feedback. Without commenting on whether the article should be at one title or another, I was wondering if other administrators could comment on whether they think there is consensus to move, or whether it should be "no consensus" or even consensus to keep at the old name. enochlau (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to chip in here, so as not to feel like I'm pressuring Enochlau on their talk page. To cut a long story short, this is my perspective on it:

• WP:MOS#Identity refers to words people use to describe themselves, and the only thing you could derive from it about name is that if someone has a professional alias and prefers to be so referred, we use that (e.g. use of "Elton John" vs "Reg Dwight" - in this case, we include the meaningless "D", as we have for Richard E Grant).
• Mention of WP:NCON is a red herring since semantically the two forms are identical - it is only the rendering in capitals or lower-case that was contested at the move.
• The examples that were provided were themselves anomalous (one was even incorrect), and were cited by supporters of the move as "precedent" - the exception was put forward as being the rule.
• With all things considered, the only arguments left were "Support, brian prefers it that way" vs. "Oppose, per the rules of English".
• As far as I am aware, judging the consensus position on Misplaced Pages involves weighing up the arguments, not the numbers (such that 200 turkeys cannot block one person's proposal in favour of Christmas).

This just about sums it up. I'm also somewhat confused, since I also don't know where we go when a WP:RM comes out clearly wrong. Chris cheese whine 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline is WP:NCP, not the MoS. You can boil our naming conventions down to "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (I'm quoting that directly). While not specifically addressing pen names that contravene grammar, it does specify that pen names should be used rather than legal names if that is what the person is better known as, which I think is the case here. At any rate, enochlau asked us to chime in on whether he/she read the consensus correctly, and I believe that it was. With all due respect Chris, the arguments in favor were not invalid, as it appears you believe (?) — in fact, most were directly in line with the naming conventions. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that his legal name is actually "Brian Foy", so the pen name thing is something of a red herring too. Chris cheese whine 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

deviantART

A recent, almost trivial, mediation case about the naming of the naming of the deviantART article closed with little action at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-22 deviantART. However, one of the editors involved is obviously not happy with the outcome and is tagging DeviantArt for speedy deletion so that he can move DeviantART there. I've twice removed the speedy and suggested he reopen the case, but he seems a little set. Can someone have a look, as I'm not going to get a 3RR over this. --Steve _(Slf67) 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of the mediation case, wouldn't it be best if everything were left at the status quo (namely, at their original names)? enochlau (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

APNIC redux

Lucianne Goldberg appears not to be on very many watchlists, as a vandal — actually the same person as the Cheri DiNovo vandal — edited it on March 6 to claim that Lyndon B. Johnson was Jonah Goldberg's actual biological father; this didn't get reverted until I caught it four days later on March 10. Could a few people watchlist it? Thanks. They've also inserted the same claim into Jonah Goldberg's article numerous times, although it's been reverted quickly in that case.

Note also that the anon still hasn't actually ceased making DiNovo-related attack edits. It's been four months now — does anybody have any new ideas as to how to make it stop? Bearcat 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

odd account creation

Jack Malakian (talk · contribs) has created John Arwel Hephaestos Parry (talk · contribs), who created Johnny the Swedish Person (talk · contribs), who created John Glover Robinson (talk · contribs), who created John G. Hephaestos (talk · contribs), who created Hephaestossucksatfreeq.com (talk · contribs). I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but someone with blocking ability might want to keep an eye on this. Natalie 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears they've been blocked, and rightfully so. It's obviously Johnny the Vandal, who has an obsession with retired administrator User:Hephaestos. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the background. Natalie 05:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New admin action review

I recently move protected Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to an apparent move war. One of the users involved is protesting my action claiming my protection is an endorsement of the current title. I've told them they need to work it out on the talk page. Opinions? John Reaves (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were biased and did it out of spite. See m:The Wrong Version. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep I sure am, Heimstern left me link on the talk page. Thanks for the feedback. John Reaves (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Through the usual vandalism that seems to hit the standard pages, I have indefinitely blocked Johnny89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is the source for all of the "Johnny the Vandal" activity in the past few months. By going through the user creation logs of the following, I was able to deduce that a user who originally claimed that he was not Mike Garcia to be Mike Garcia. The following is a full list of the users involved.

• AHephaestossucksatfreeq.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John G. Hephaestos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John Glover Robinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Johnny the Swedish Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John Arwel Hephaestos Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Jack Malakian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Johnny89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John G. Tankian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Samuel Tankian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Trent Liles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John G. Odadjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• John G. Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Robert Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John G. Mayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charles Danell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Tommy G. Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael Ness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Charlie Danell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Jack Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Arwel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Johnny Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A. Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Thomas G. Jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Michael Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
• Jack Odadjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are all that I have found by going through these logs. As such, I have indefinitely blocked the home-base IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a side note, I have fully protected User talk:Johnny89 as he pulled the same bullshit that he usually does when he gets blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Super duper kudos. Viridae 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ry, you should have filed a check user case to confirm these users are confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user, in order to lessen collateral damage. My 2 cents. Real96 08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these users were created from a single account. If you go from Johnny89 you can get to Jack Odadjian through the creation of other usernames by an account, not an IP. That is why I linked them all. And there were checkusers run that show that these come from a single IP that I blocked tonight that was only unblocked under good faith because Johnny89 claimed he was not Mike Garcia, which was a blatant lie.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• This seems to demonstrate that updating a block to an IP only block should not be done lightly. I notice the IP in question was blocked via checkuser and had a block message indicating not to unblock without reference to the blocking admins, I would guess if this had been done they would have said not to believe the sob stories from that IP. The second part of this is that the IP only block takes precedence over any auto blocks, hence the ability to perpetuate this without being impacted by autoblocks. Don't think that changing to IP only is a low risk option, it isn't. It also shows another issue, but per WP:BEANS I won't reveal that just yet --pgk 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking action against this idiot. As one of those who he's been stalking for something like three years now, I'm getting fed up of his activities. He threw away no fewer than 27 named accounts last week alone attacking my talk page, in the latest upsurge in his activities after being quiet for a few months. All his accounts should be permanently blocked instantly they're noticed. -- Arwel (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-meta

There's a request on the talk page to fix up the template so the automatic deletion summary works. Since the problem is currently breaking every instance of {{db}} with a space or punctuation in the reason, could this get fixed quickly? -Amarkov moo! 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaaveh Ahangar

This user is blocked on persian wikipedia because of persistent violation of NPOV policy (I'm an admin on fa.wiki). Now on english wikipedia he lied about an article on persian wikipedia. He knows very well that we don't have any Featured Article on persian wikipedia yet but he added "fa" as a Featured Article on Bahá'u'lláh and when User:Jeff3000 asked him about this matter he again didn't tell the truth about FA articles on persian wikipedia. Then in several edits he attacked users on persian wikipedia. I think he should be blocked or at least be warned for these uncivil acts. Regards. Hessam 10:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For more information see Basij. He was previously blocked on persian wikipedia for calling others Basiji. This way of general accusation is uncivil either. Hessam 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Stopterror (talk · contribs) left this on my talk page. It's in relation to my reversions of their additions to Khalistan Liberation Force as seen here and in the history and 69.158.156.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was making the same edit. Because of the edit summary I don't think that I should be replying to this editor so if someone else could have a word. Thanks. Oh and if you were wondering I'm more an Urban Guerrilla than a "terrorist sympathiser". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This "Please be aware that any ,misrepresentation by wikipedia may be dealt with a lawsiut on behalf of terror victims in Canada" (bolding mine) is defintely a legal threat. --`/aksha 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection question

Is it technically possible to protect a deleted page ("salt") the page without the "deleted page" notice appearing? A situation has arisen in which this would be desirable for privacy reasons. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PT. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a deleted page notice appears for that too, it is coded into the interface. I suppose you will need to create the page, and blank it if you really want to avoid the deleted page message. May I ask what page? Prodego 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the userpage of an editor (not an admin) who wants to change to a less identifying name for privacy reasons. Feel free to e-mail if you are interested in more specifics. Newyorkbrad 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is enough :). Is there an actual need for protection at all then? Why not just delete the page? I think Special:BlockIP is the tool to defend the page with, if you keep having that problem. Prodego 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the situation appears stable, but I wanted to know the answer in case the problem recurs. Thanks for your interest. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion

Theres a considerable backlog at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Just thought I would post a notice here. --24fan24 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal Concerns

In the Vintage Nude Photographs section on wikicommons http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Vintage_nude_photographs I am concerned about several photos that I believe consitute Child Pornography. I believe that these photos should be removed to avoid potential legal trouble for wikipedia. -Vcelloho 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I am no legal expert, I believe that child pornography is defined in American law as visual depictions of minors in explicit sexual acts (or similar wording). These do not resemble overt sexual depictions, and hence are not legally defined as child porn. I am in no way defending or lawyering on child porn, however. —physicq (c) 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Acording to United States vs. Dost the six qualifiers are.

1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genital, pubic or anal areas
2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

I believe that qualifiers 1,2,3,4,in my opinion 5, and in my opinion 6. Due to this I belive that It constitues child pornography. I am meerly concerned about a potential legal issue that could be caused by three of the photos. -Vcelloho 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed over at commons? They are more well-versed in image stuff than most of us here. PTO 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very well versed on commons and I was much more familliar with wikipedia. -Vcelloho 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the WP:OFFICE been consulted on these issues? Newyorkbrad 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't know about that. -Vcelloho 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I've looked for the Wikicommons administrators but I couldn't find them so I posted to the village pump. -Vcelloho 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are looking for commons:COM:AN. Prodego 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -Vcelloho 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I notify WP:OFFICE? -Vcelloho 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The folks at Commons may know whether the Office has already been consulted. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was raised at the Commons yet, but since many of us who admin at the Commons also admin here (like myself), I think it would be best to ask for OFFICE support, since I am starting to agree on some of the points Vcelloho has discussed. User:Zscout370 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Vcelloho did not specify which photographs out of the large number in that category that he was speaking about, I assume he was talking about the works of Gaudenzio Marconi whom is a notable early photographer. Personally I think you'd have to be a quite a pervert to see anything sexual about his pictures of children. --Gmaxwell 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments like that stifle debate. I think some of these images sexualise children, so you've just called me a pervert. Hesperian 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You said it, not me. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling people "perverted" or "(insert phobia here)-phobic" is absolutely inappropriate. Congratulations. You've stifled conversation by deeming somone to be unsound of mind, thereby creating a wall between that person and the other people who would engage in conversation but don't for fear of being labelled likewise. --Iamunknown 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

shrugs I don't know what else to call someone who thinks an image is sexual because it has nudity and children. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You had an opportunity there to withdraw or refactor your comment, and you chose instead to re-iterate it. I was disappointed that you called me and anyone else who disagrees with you a pervert. Now I am absolutely disgusted with you. Hesperian 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats okay. I can cope with you being disgusted with me. Now you have an opportunity to cope with me suspecting that you might be a pervert because you're more willing to see images of children as sexual than I am. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that one of the admins on this board takes a stand against this; you've made a very serious personal attack. Leaving that aside, I never said that "an image is sexual because it has nudity and children", nor do I think it. But I do think that one of these images sexualises its subject. Hesperian 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm surprised. In your conversations with User:Tony1 about fair use media, you seemed so civil; now, you seem so...not. --Iamunknown 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Geesh, I'm not trying to be rude. It's my view that folks who would view random images of naked kids as objects of sexual interest have issues. It was a general statement, don't blame me that Hesperian decided to jump in after the fact and turn it into something personal with his first comment on the subject. Take a step back and consider what I found here, ... enwikipedia going nuts and talking about urgently calling the office over some 130 year old photographs. You might not agree with me that it's ridiculous, but I hope you can understand why I might see it that way. --Gmaxwell 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, your original statement was "you'd have to be a quite a pervert to see anything sexual about his pictures of children." That's light years away from "folks who would view random images of naked kids as objects of sexual interest have issues". Its easy to accuse someone of over-reacting if you revise your brutal attack down to a perfectly reasonable statement.

Secondly, sometimes I see these discussions and think "Gosh, that user is protesting way too much; maybe has some personal issues there" or whatnot... but that ain't nowhere near publicly declaring folks to be perverts. As for me "turning it into something personal", you don't get to claim the moral high ground just because your attack was originally aimed at anyone and everyone who is worried about these images. All I did was give your target a face by publicly declaring myself to be one of the people you're attacking.

Hesperian 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we are drifting further and further off the issue at hand... ~ UBeR 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think vintage black and white nude photography counts as child porn ... Cyde Weys 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked at the pictures, however, if these are nude photos of actual children, I cannot see how it would not qualify. As far as I know, the controversy is about drawings of children, not photos of real children. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be important to note that these photos are well over 130 years old. That being said, the general purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect the children. These laws were created in the 1990's and given that the subjects of these photos would be at least 135 years old (and thus are long gone), I don't feel that this qualifies as "child pornography". Also since the works could be works of art and in the public domain only compounds the unlikeliness. Per the info above, in my opinion, I feel only maybe number 3 (and obviously number 4) apply, but I still don't think it qualifies. _{Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.} --MPD 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I see them meeting the fourth criterion, but no reasonable person would say that these are sexually suggestive photos or are focused on the anal or genital area. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I really honestly don't see any big deal here. These pictures are 130 years old. Pick up any decent book on art history and start counting pictures, paintings, sculptures of naked children, going all the way back to antiquity. They're everywhere. Some of them even have wings. Antandrus (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! That was a funny comment in the middle of a hectic day. :D --Iamunknown 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. ~ UBeR 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hows this for stifling debate: Take this to commons. Misplaced Pages can not make policy decisions for wikicommons. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Per UBeR above, "I believe we are drifting further and further off the issue at hand," let's get back to actual thougths. I really appreciate the citation from United States vs. Dost. Unfortunately, criteria #2, #3, #5 and #6 are rather subjective. Arguably the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, but arguably it is not. Opinions can be tossed back and forth, but how is this defined objectively? Criterion #3 is a bit less subjective; personally, I feel that the children, who seem to be standing in somewhat natural poses, are not necessarily in unnatural poses. I consider criterion #5 kind of as a double standard: the children do seem coy, but not willing to or leading up to engagement in sexual activity. Criterion #6 is also subjective: I personally did not feel a sexual response to the images, but I can see that someone -- for whatever reason, or maybe simply not because of any particular reason -- could feel a sexual response. In general, I think that because these images are important artistically and historically, the Wikimedia Foundation or the uploaders of the photographs should not worry about pending litigation. Arguably the images are child pornography, but arguably they are not. It is inappropriate to enforce one's values on others -- and, as is apparent, some people consider these images pornographic and others do not -- and since these are not as blatant as children engaged in sexual activity, I consider it appropriate not to delete them. One last thing, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. --Iamunknown 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Need advice about speedy deleting images with dubious license

I need some thoughts about Lazauk (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) upload log. Apparently, he uploaded images with an incompatible license, got them deleted, and then reuploaded them with a license that implies he is the creator of the image. I am sending four to copyright problems, but since there seems to be a bunch of them, I am thinking a variation of I3 could be applied to them all (uploaded under a wrong license originally), or maybe even IAR. Anyone agreeing with me? -- ReyBrujo 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A last thing: I am guessing those images are free because they are military ones (probably US army), but there is no source for them that I see. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for 24 hours to try to get their attention. Continuing to upload images the way he is is disruptive and it needs to stop... one way or another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they are images of Burma - I rather doubt they are genuine.. from what I understand it's hard to get a camera out of that country. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If this a personal attack

I would like everyone to consider this. I have a content dispute over Politkovskaya article with user Biophys. I have inserted criticism of Politkovskaya which was constantly deleted by Biophys who claims that it violates BLP policies, although the source is respectable Russian newspaper published in English - Moscow News. Afterwards, article was rightly protected by Alex Bakharev who wrote that we should reach consensus.

Then, here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Biophys&oldid=114456838#Other_important_edits, Biophys wrote that Politkovskaya article "(***) Articles currently vandalized by a wikistalker. Please help!".

Moreover, Biophys has a long history of bad relations with me. His friend Colchicum filed the RfC on me here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov, but it failed, since their third collegue had withdrawn his signature, after administrators wrote comments not supporting their allegations.

Could anyone stop this witchhunt waged by Biophys? When I add something to the article he deletes it and writes it violates BLP policy, or writes it is unreliable source. It's really stupid, my sources are awlays wrong and unreliable, according to Biophys. And everything I do here - he's calling vandalism, just see his edit comments where he adds comments like "rv vandalism by Vlad fedorov" and etc. Vlad fedorov 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

diff-links that support your allegations would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=111852221. Vlad fedorov 05:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community noticeboard

As you probably know, the Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard is a reasonably new noticeboard. Its purpose is somewhat unclear; it would seem that most topics there would belong just as easily on the village pump, or the admin board. Several people have pointed this out on the talk page, and suggested it be shut down. Now obviously we need noticeboards with a variety of functions, but it seems to me we should have a good discussion about which boards those should be, before we get a bunch of redundant boards. Having a lot of unclear-purpose boards encourage misposts, crossposts, and divergent discussion, and confuse people and force people to needlessly look in multiple places.

In a fit of insanity an attempt to get people to talk, I've posted a 'temporarily suspended' notice on the board, and protected it because I thought someone would blindly that (indeed, someone did while I was typing the protection summary). Please let us discuss to create a useful set of noticeboards, for clarity's sake. >Radiant< 11:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's now protected a page he's a dispute on, what a shocker. There's no such consensus for a suspension, hopefully someone with good sense will reverse it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that Radiant! is under dispute there... Viridae 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the history. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather, there's no consensus for having that board in the first place, as indicated on its talk page. Like I said above, I protected the page to get a good discussion on what boards we need, and to prevent people from having to look in multiple places for topics. >Radiant< 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You protected the page for no other reason than to force the result you wanted during the discussion. There is no legitimate need for protection except to keep what you want there. That's a problem, and not the least bit surprising. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The best place to discuss this is probably on Misplaced Pages talk:Community noticeboard. >Radiant< 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hard to do with the page itself suspended. Kind of removes the ability to see it in action during the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• This really is bloody silly. The community noticeboard was opened as a place to discuss community sanctions, rather than have them on the admin noticeboard where there is an implication that only admins have suffrage. There have been several productive discussions on there, and ArbCom appears comfortable with the existence of the board and the use to which it is put. I am goign to boldly unprotect it, which will not stop the discussion from proceeding. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have the Village Pump for community discussions and notices. I don't understand why this function has apparently been duplicated by yet another page. --Tony Sidaway 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The primary function of the community noticeboard is proposing and discussing community bans. This used to be done on ANI, with its crowdedness, vertiginously fast archiving and, as Guy says, it's unfortunate implication that only admins have suffrage. WP:CN is perfect for its purpose, and ensures that the important and sometimes lengthy ban discussions don't get lost in the crowd on the Pump. Don't fix it, it ain't broke. Please put it on your watchlist. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards