Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 26 March 2007 (→Reguarding the Sandbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

A question about redirection during AfD

Hi. There's a problem about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sajdah. Sajdah article should have been redirected but a wikipedian had made an AfD. Then I redirected it. Is it correct manner?--Sa.vakilian(t-c)--08:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem solved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk · contribs) has been warned recently (on February 20 by myself and March 8 by Cyde) to start contributing to the encyclopedia and stop treating Misplaced Pages as a social network. If you look at the user's contributions, the last main space edit was October 14th. Since then, in the last 5 months, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has accumulated over 700 edits almost all to user space. Since the warnings to try to contribute to the project, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has continued to sign autograph pages and work on his own user page.

People argued on Qmwnebrvtcyxuz's talk page at User_talk:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz#What_are_you_doing_here.3F that blocking him is inappropriate because the user's 8. But at what point do we draw the line then? Do we wait until he's 10 before we force him to stop using this as MySpace? All he's been doing is working on his signature, his user page, and showing off his signature at other autograph books. Any thoughts on this situation? Metros232 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Contribution count for "Qmwnebrvtcyxuz" -- Ben /_HIST 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's just had a birthday recently, so he's 9 now, not that that's a key difference. His father's username and e-mail are on his userpage, so you might want to raise the matter with him as well. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I say leave him be. Hes 8 and by the time he has anything useful to contribute to the project he will be a wikimarkup wizard. Mike _{(T C)} 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We should offer him the compliment of treating him like a grownup, and expect him to abide by the same policies as grownups. If he's not ready for Misplaced Pages now, he can come back later, and he'll be welcome then if he's willing to contribute to articles. EdJohnston 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Mike said. If he had no edits to articles at all whatsoever, I'd be concerned. - RedWordSmith 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions."
– US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Oh, to be a Supreme Court Justice right now. As much as I might hate having to answer hard questions, I hate worse having to give hard cold answers. My soft sympathetic side, like that of others above, agrees with letting an nine-year-old learn-by-playing until he's able to contribute to the project. Aw gosh, isn't that cute. At the same time, I'm keenly aware that the moment an exemption for nine-year-olds becomes policy, we will suddenly learn that every poorly-behaving user is also nine years old. Among the many things Misplaced Pages is not, may I suggest we include long-term playground, day-care, or club-house? Everyone starts out new; we extend everyone a few (sometimes quite a few) chances to try things out, experiment, make mistakes, learn by doing. But, what, two years? Four? How long until Not-MySpace kicks in? I'm sorry, I really truly am, but MySpace is thattaway. -- Ben /_HIST 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why isn't he blocked under the username policy? JuJube 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  It passed RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He does have some article contributions, from last summer, when he presumably had more wiki-time and energy (and perhaps a collaborator). Newyorkbrad 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that RFCN debate sort of failed to come to a reasonable conclusion. _InBC 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the stated articles, most of the other edits to articles within the user's first 50 edits were removing "expert needed" templates from articles, which doesn't really constitute constructive editing, IMHO. MSJapan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The name is non-random, not even apparently random, if you look at a QWERTY keyboard. Top row left-to-right, interleaved with bottom row right-to-left, until you run out of paired letters. Clearly ordered, non-random pattern. -- Ben /_HIST 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You can say it is not random, but it is apparently random. The first 20 digits of Pi aren't random, they sure look like it though. _InBC 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet 3.141592653589793238462643383 hasn't been username-blocked, so apparently that isn't "apparently random", either. -- Ben /_HIST 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And the purpose of usernames—and the policy against random ones—is so that identifying them and recalling them is feasible. —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once the pattern of Q→U interleaved with M→Z (or Z←M) is seen, it's easily remembered and reproduced. Left hand on top row at Q, right hand on bottom row at M, taking turns and slowly crossing wrists. -- Ben /_HIST 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed that he's not actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and just social networking? No constructive edits since October of last year? It's time for a "time-out" block for this kiddy. ⇒ SWATJester 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assessment, however, it appears that it's not necessarily a popular opinion to hold...so that's why I brought it here for comment. Metros232 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages is a serious project, boys. No place for kiddies.--Kamikaze 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't go that far. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that includes "kiddies." We don't mind "kiddies" editing, so long as they're held to the same standards as everyone else, Metros232 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • • Ok, so if we hold everyone to the same standards, then we should block this kid just like we block full-age users that use wikipedia as a social network. ⇒ SWATJester 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Seriously, you don't think a 9 year kiddie can properly understand and apply the same standards as people past their 20s. This is only an example. Misplaced Pages is full of many. Just look at this sweet little fella--Kamikaze 16:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Ben, Swatjester and EdJohnston: we are not a playground, the rules apply to everybody. If he doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, let's just block him so that he may play somewhere else. Sandstein 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me. I like Misplaced Pages very much. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 13:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions?

Can any conclusions be made from this thread? Metros232 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That we can either have a set of rules for adults and a set of rules for kids, or we can enforce the same rules for everyone equally. _InBC 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that conclusion, but from looking at the thread I see differing opinions on the answer to that quandry. I think we can conclude that, yes, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has been relatively unproductive for the encyclopedia. We can also conclude that if he were held to the standards, he'd probably be blocked. So, what from here? Do we hold him to the standards or do we ignore the standards because he's 9? Metros232 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion is that we ask the guy to start making more encyclopedic contributions. If he doesn't then we ask him to utilize myspace instead. Btw, this edit on his sig page seems a bit problematic. (→Netscott) 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We've asked him several times already and since then he's only racked up more unproductive user space edits but no encyclopedic contributions. Since I warned him to start being more productive on February 20, he's made over 150 edits, only 3 were not to the user space (2 were to the RFC on his user name, 1 was to join the Wikiproject on...Userspaces). He was also warned about 2 weeks ago by Cyde to be more productive. He was also informed of this discussion but has ignored it and continues to edit in his sandbox and other user spaces. So he knows what's expected of him, yet he still continues, so I think that another warning is pointless. Metros232 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well do like his user page says and contact his (apparent) father who warned that this might be a possibility given his age. (→Netscott) 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion we can draw is that there is no benefit to Misplaced Pages in banning him, but a possible benefit to letting him be and seeing if he finds something to contribute to at some point. Unless some positive result will come from banning him, this entire thread is just a waste of time. There are better ways to show your annoyance with people who don't take Misplaced Pages seriously than hounding a 9-year-old. Milto LOL pia 08:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On what premises do you draw that conclusion? There is a positive benefit to banning him: we're keeping to policy and not making exceptions for violators. How many warnings do you want to give him? He's had two warnings already to stop, and he knows about this discussion. From a public policy standpoint, there is a potentially high cost to wikipedia to allowing him to stay (dilution of standards) and a relatively low potential benefit with a low probability of benefit over cost. However in regards to banning him, there is a guaranteed benefit of relatively high benefit, at negligible cost with extremely low probability of cost greater than benefit. Thus, a rational leader would block him. ⇒ SWATJester 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What positive benefit is there to him staying around? He's violating Misplaced Pages policy by using this as a social network. So basically, we're hosting his social and fun time and he's giving us nothing in return. Metros232 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had this exchange before, and my answer again is that any mainspace edit he may make would be helpful. He should simply be encouraged to find an article to edit. Now I've given you the courtesy of an answer Metros, maybe you'd care to do the same. Milto LOL pia 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I did give you an answer...he's not being productive, he's breaking policy, therefore, a block is appropriate. We're not "picking on a 9 year old" as you're making it seem. We're carrying out the policies as they should be carried out. Metros232 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is not so much how would this be inline with policy (although I understand that the block policy only applies to users actively disrupting), but what benefit would it be to the encyclopedia? Would it improve any articles? Would it stop any disruptive editing on discussion pages or policy pages? Would it prevent any disruptive behavior? Milto LOL pia 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that it's part of hte policy. If you disagree, then you disagree with the policy. I'm more concerned here with the actual enforcement of the policy than the policy. Metros232 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If he was 25-years-old would you object to action against him? Metros232 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: everyone below 15 years old should be forbidden using the internet. I can hardly get accumosted to the idea of treating some 9 year old kid as equal.--Kamikaze 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's meant as a serious contribution, but there is at least one 14-year-old who is a well-respected contributor and administrator, so that comment is not the least bit helpful. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason children are not treated as equal by grown-ups in real world. I, for one, have little trust in their abilities. I'd suggest you should tell me what you just told me when you will have that 14-year-old will become president. To be ontopic though, I agree we should block him.--Kamikaze 13:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I've put this comment in the wrong place, but I haven't found an instance where this user has directly damaged Misplaced Pages in the serious manner that some users have. A second point is that Misplaced Pages is partly a community, after all, and this helps people get in the mood for editing. Mrug 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. That might have been repeated so many times that it's become a cliche, but it's still true. -- llywrch 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me. I like Misplaced Pages very much. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 13:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But once again, you still haven't provided anything to the main space since October. Metros232 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz blocked

For complete refusal to contribute to the encyclopedia since October, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has been blocked from editing. He has been given ample time to stop concentrating on the user space edits and edit productively in the main space, but he has ignored such warnings each time. The block is set for 1 month. When the block is up, I strongly suggest that he edit articles and not user space or autograph pages. Metros232 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since October? That sounds more like someone who was not here to contribute to the project at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The last of his 84 mainspace edits (of his 1100+ edits) occurred on October 14. Metros232 20:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping to come here and try and save the editor from a block but this is a totally unacceptable editing pattern, I do feel harsh because of his age, but the only thing he's contributing to is autograph books, and this page seams a totally irresponsible use of userspace. Maybe in one month the user will come back and edit constructively, however I very much doubt it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd never have done it myself, but I strongly support the blocking of users who refuse to contribute to the encyclopedia. If they want somewhere to play, they can find somewhere else. As we've spent so much time debating this user when we could have spent that time doing other things, I do not disagree with the blocking. --Deskana (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

Please refer to User talk:Padawer. Padawer, who is Q..'s father, has just learned of the block on his son, having apparently been AFK for a few days while we were trying to reach him. He is also, apparently, autoblocked at the moment. I have advised him that since his computer his shared with a 9-year-old minor, someone will e-mail him to get the information required to unblock Padawer, which should be done forthwith, as he's done nothing wrong. I'm useless dealing with autoblocks, so will someone please attend to that.

Once Padawer is able to participate in the discussion, we can figure out what to do next. Personally I suspect the point has been made and if both are unblocked, the two will resume contributing. I certainly see no harm in trying. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the vandalism warning templates inappropriately

User:lewisskinner opposes the introduction of a unifield infoxbox for the whole of the UK (Template:infobox UK place and Template talk:Infobox UK place. There has been some opposition to the introduction of this new template, yet it passed consensus on 3 separate occasions after invitations has been posted to all talk pages for the old infoboxes for comments and help with the development at the beginning of the new development.

Lewisskinner has stated he opposes the new template, and, together with Captain Scarlet, he has suggested he will just revert any changes (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sheffield#New infobox.) Captain Scarlet has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation for similar multiple reversions of a infobox use, and now lewisskinner is reverting infoboxes and using the vandalism templates used to warn vandals on User talk:Jhamez84 when he has attempted to chamgeover to the new template. At the moment, the old template has around 0-10 articles that use it, with the vast majority of articles having been changed over. What are the views of admins about the use of the vandal warning templates in this way? For myself, it seems to be inappropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I haven't placed vandalism tags on article so Using the vandalism warning templates inappropriately doesn't have much to do with me.
2. Lewisskinner (talk · contribs) views your repetitive implementation of {{infobox UK place}} as vandalism, you should respect that. He, nor myself, accept your criteria for its implementation nor do we accept how you have dismissed and refused to accomodate our point of view in your implemenation process your comrades and yourself actually asked for ].
3. It is up to members of the project I am part of to decide which template on articles we maintain (not maintain, not own)
4. Your claim that the use of the vandalism warning is inappropriate is a PoV that Jhamez84 (talk · contribs) and Lewiskinner should discuss on their own templates, I'm sure both parties can sort their issues together, I am not part of that process.

This argument is between Lewisskinner (talk · contribs) and Jhamez84 (talk · contribs), let them sort it out. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the OP's question being brought here (edit: actually, ANI, village pump, or the help desk probably would have been better than here). Vandalism templates should not be used in content disputes like this. Plain and simple. Your WikiProject also does not get to make the decision as to what templates are used on pages relating to the project; the entire Misplaced Pages community does (WP:OWN). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain scarlet, please note that Ddstretch has not suggested that you are using warning templates inappropriately. You were mentioned as part of the wider context. Adambro 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say it's not an argument as Captain Scarlet suggests (I've posted one message to Lewis, and this was to point out that his vandalism tags were inappropriate and a compromise could be made), and the template is not my creation. I've reverted a few of these old infoboxes yes, but this is per the discussions made by a huge amount of editors.

These two users (who appear intertwined), keep changing six or so very specific articles so they not only use a superceded, poorly formatted infobox, out of line with the entirity of England's places articles, but also making content falsifications and breaching Misplaced Pages's style guides. Lewis has been invited to comment at template talk page but has thusfar declined. I've also posted to Captain Scarlet that I'm interested in working with him, perhaps to draw up a specific map for the region (I can provide a diff if requested), but this was dismissed. I really don't know what the problem is as the newer template is a wholly better (more compatible, flexible, functional) infobox that does nothing to breach the integrity of the article whatsover. It appears to be trolling for trolling's sake, and there are issues of WP:OWN for these articles too. Jhamez84 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, stay on topic user:Jhamez84.

Additionally, "These two users (who appear intertwined)" - hilarious! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Can I point out that the suggestion that I have engaged in "repetitive implementations" of the new Infobox which has resulted in them being reverted by Captain Scarlet or User:lewisskinner is not the case. There are problems interpreting the use of "you" and "your" throughout Captain Scarlet's message, and they should not be taken to always just refer to myself. I raised this issue here solely because of what I saw was the inappropriate use of the vandalism warnings. My apologies for not choosing the best place, but I was uncertain where it might go.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning warning

I've written and User:KillerChihuahua coded a vandalism warning warning template, {{vww}}, as a civil reminder/admonishment to those that use vandalism warnings inappropriately. Don't forget to subst. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Do we really need more templates like this? I remember asking another language project if they had a specific template for something, and I got a response that the English Misplaced Pages is template-crazy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean "templates like this"? Did you spend those two minutes actually reading it? Bishonen | talk 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Harrassment by posting my real name and my mother's maiden name

I would like to know what to do about a mesasage that has been posted on Template talk:Infobox UK place#UK county infobox maps in which a user, User:Cwb61 who seems to think he is dispute with me, has posted my real name, and my mother's maiden name (something which can be used to "verify" I am who i claim to be by various organisations). Neither information is available on Wikipedie, nor was it relevant to the discussion, save that it was in response to me (silently) correcting the spelling of my surname which is part of my i.d. when writing a previous reply. Althopugh it may seem minor to some, the fact that this user has searched out this information, and posted it, when it is not relevant to a discussion on wikipedia, is quite unnerving, and I feel action needs to be taken quickly about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm handling this. I'll check with you in 5 minutes. --Deskana (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now gone from the edit history. I'll look at the edits in more detail and try to decide what to do with the user in question. --Deskana (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See this. --Deskana (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You do have a lot of personal information on your userpage, so it's probably pretty easy to get information on you. John Reaves (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it, then. But the issue is that the information was not relevant to the discussion, and I chose not to include it on wikipedia. So, why is that user seeking it out and then posting it? I must express my thanks to Deskana in removing the message promptly.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seconded the warning on the user's talkpage and will also be watching for some explanation or promise that this will never happen again. This sort of harassment is not acceptable. Newyorkbrad 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the action on this. However, there does seem to me to be "unfinished business". First of all, the user requested his page was deleted. That seemed to me to resolve one issue, and yet leave unresolved another. It seems that the user has now re-creatde his talk page. Consequently, I wonder if the user has apologised and/or made any promise not to repeat this harrassment? This was one of the issues that Newyorkbrad mentioned. Without such an undertaking, the good faith of the user and his actions would seem to be still in a state of unresolved uncertainty. I do not say this in any attempt to unecessarily prolong the incident, but I do think until some kind of undertaking is given by this user, it will leave the situation unhelpfully unresolved.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. We're not normally supposed to delete user talk pages (userpages and user subpages are all right) except under special circumstances. See this guideline. One of the reasons is that the user can take advantage of it to disappear a history of warnings, as has apparently happened here. Deskana, was there a special reason? If not, might I suggest, now that the user has returned, that it would be a good idea to recreate the history. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. I will undelete the user talk page. --Deskana (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the main point of my additional comment remains unmentioned: that the user was allowed to return and was apparently unblocked after only a few hours without there being any requirement for undertaking not to repeat the harrassing behaviour nor any requirement for an apology, which Newyorkbrad (who agreed with me) should be needed. Indeed Newyorkbrad subsequently added a message to the talk page asking the user for this, but this would now be removed if the talk page is recreated. If so, the request needs to be added again. If not, the new content needs to be appended to the recreated page. The user concerned has returned at least once since asking for his account to be deleted, which had the effect of avoiding having to give any undertaking or apology, until I alerted Newyorkbrad.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to the user via e-mail, attempting to facilitate the unblocking of his IP address, which was autoblocked. I realise now that this wasn't clear to anyone else, but the user did promise me that he'd never do anything like that again. I understand the posting of personal information is a serious "offense" (as it were), but since he's promised never to do it again, and the circumstances of the previous posting weren't extreme, I believe this user should be given a second chance. I understand he's apologised to you now? --Deskana (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he has, and I see you were wise enough to accept the apology. Good on you :-) --Deskana (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting it out. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but of course I wasn't aware of your email communications with the user - my apologies. He has aopologized to all involved now, and has also given undertakings not to repeat the activity he did. So of course I must now accept and I am happy to accept them and now consider the matter completely resolved and over.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a couple of admins again for some deletions

Sith Penguin Lord (talk · contribs) uploaded, in good faith no doubt, images and articles from BattlestarWiki. However, as stated by the site's license at the bottom of every page, content is released under BY-NC-SA, a license incompatible with Misplaced Pages. I am currently working with the WP:SCV backlog, and would appreciate a couple of admins reviewing this user's contributions and speedy deleting the ones that have been copied straight from the wiki under WP:CSD#G12. I noticed, for instance, he uploaded images like Image:Antonypic.JPG (which are surely licensed under a fair use license there) and tagged them here with the {{wikipedia-screenshot}} tag. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done, as much as I, as a normal user, can do. I tagged all of the images appropriately (some with db-redundantimage), all the character bios (with db-copyvio), removed the fair use images from the user's page, and left a brief note, soliciting questions if there are any. --Iamunknown 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the images that can be deleted. There's a few that will be deleted in ~ 7 days, as unused fair use images. Titoxd 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. -- ReyBrujo 02:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Misplaced Pages cleanup day

For those that may not have heard, there is a proposal at User:Naconkantari/cleanup concerning holding a "cleanup day" where editing will be restricted to autoconfirmed editors only. There is also a non-binding poll to determine the specifics and community reaction to the proposal. Before commenting, please read through the entire proposal as it should answer most questions that may arise. This message has been crossposted to several noticeboards, please direct comments to User talk:Naconkantari/cleanup. Cheers, Naconkantari 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How many pages, and how many times per page, are you going to spam this notice? Corvus cornix 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is an essay that may become a guideline, in as many pages as necessary. -- ReyBrujo 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the sixty pages of acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the general heading of BJAODN. Not remove BJAODN, a collection of genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent archives. The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one, because it did not seem worthwhile tagging sixty articles if there was clear consensus. That didn't work: a lot of people think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or whatever, some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the whole lot is bundled. It's a mess. We'd like to know what, of anything, is the best way forward. We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.

The debate is at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind if anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to discuss this. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What an awfully funny suggestion. It's been done successfully before, you know. But you should be having this discussion at the BJAODN talk page, where most of the people in favor of deletion hang out... they can find a creative way to blank and redirect the current page-lot. +sj + 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We should just BE BOLD and boldly remove all the unfunny stuff that does not belong there. Perform a merge, clean out all the useless stuff, keep the genuinely funny (1 or 2 pages enough). Make a bold editorial decision. The problem with current BJAODN is that it is not edited in a Wiki manner: anyone can add anything, but then it stays, and no-one bothers to delete what does not belong. That's un-Wiki. If it becomes an accumulation of dross, just clean it. 131.111.8.97 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this gross violation of WP:NOT, it is like a childhood stuffed animal that is just not appropriate at big boy school. _InBC 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless I need some guidance and some guidance fast. Close and relist all? Make a policy debate? Ask for holy intervention? Leave it running per Guy's original suggestion? I don't know how best to proceed, honestly :) --kingboyk 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some or most of these will honestly need cleaning as GFDL violations (no attribution). Tracking down the original articles for most will be near impossible. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible; just find when the file was copied and pasted, check the closing administrator's deletion log for times around that time, then check those pages; unless, of course, the BJAODN addition wasn't from a now-deleted page. But the real questions is: do we really freakin' care enough to go to all of that trouble? --Iamunknown 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are ~60 pages chock full of these. I for one am not volunteering to take that on :P -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just kill everything from now-deleted pages then, except those that are funny enough to merit undeletion and moving to a subpage of BJAODN. The rest can be found easily enough if it's really worth it. --tjstrf talk 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to give interested parties say a week to salvage and legally source a few "best of" pages, and speedy delete the rest after that deadline as copyvios/housekeeping. Flameproof pants will be required. --kingboyk 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Who's game? And, perhaps more importantly, would anyone object to this approach? We don't want any wheel warring. --kingboyk 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Salvaging all the funny stuff and getting rid of the rest is probably worthwhile. Because the legal situation is so confused, it makes sense to only try to sort out the history of things people actually care about. To prevent rows in such cases, maybe all the remaining stuff could be merged together into the history of one giant BJAODN unfunny dump page? --ais523 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Give folks who want this kept (some of whom are admins) sufficient time to make a "rolling" page for new contribs and a handful of archives, then history merge everything else (60 archives, old special collections) into the history of the main BJAODN page. Nothing is actually deleted and no old unsourced edits stay current. Besides, I like doing history merges :) --kingboyk 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we advertise this solution on the VPs and in the Signpost? --Iamunknown 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this solution, but I'll wait for a few more responses. I will of course close the MFD if we take this route (or another admin may withdraw it on my behalf if I'm not around). --kingboyk 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I note with enthusiasm that ais523 is endorsing this view too, having previously recommended "keep". That's positive. Would you ais523 perhaps be interested in taking the admin role in sorting out a few compilation pages to keep? (somebody needs to have access to deleted pages). I of course undertake to do at least some, perhaps all, of the deleting and history merging. --kingboyk 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) It's not quite clear to me what you're asking; if you want me to have a look through recent BJAODN to try to identify some things that are actually funny, I might identify some things, but I suspect I'm not as easily amused as many people here. If you want me to help try to track down the GFDL history for some salvaged BJAODN'd material, I'd be happy to do that if and when I get the ability to view deleted pages on Misplaced Pages (I'd prefer it to trawling through the admittedly often-low-quality BJAODN). --ais523 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed you were an admin :) so, you don't have the ability to view deleted pages after all :( Never mind, I'm sure some help cleaning would be appreciated. --kingboyk 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely creative solutions can be found. Put most of it in User space and/or at wikia, perhaps? WAS 4.250 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics, but I imagine that I would not approve of userfying patently vandalistic and/or stupid contributions that would normally go to BJAODN; the precedent of userfying such material is not one I would support setting. Even if we transwikiied it to Wikia, that would not change the fact the material within BJAODN is a violation of the copyright owned by anyone who contributes to Misplaced Pages unless the revision history was provided. --Iamunknown 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'd like to keep BJAODN as an entity, I must also say it is one of the worst organized page on wikipedia project space. Reorganization is urgent. In all 60 pages, it is impossible for a reder to refer a specific joke and all these BJAODN entries are poorly sorted. Wooyi 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain irony that this is being discussed on a noticeboard that has over three hundred archive subpages holding old material. What is the harm in having so many archive pages for BJAODN? Bryan Derksen 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellently put. +sj + 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am almost always in favor of Guy's suggestions, but I must confess that this one flew over my head. I just don't see the big deal. BJAODN serves a purpose just like the list of stupid edit wars serves a purpose. And yes this was "just" the archives, but still. --Woohookitty 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear above, I think BJAODN and its archives are delightful. +sj + 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

BJAODN is part of a bigger problem that needs to be solved sooner rather than later. That is, most copy and paste merges around the project never include author information. Sure, this information can be found most of the time by doing lots of painful work by hand (checking individual diffs, contrib histories, undeletion logs). Sure, there is pretty much no chance of legal problems. But, it's a problem we should look at. Should we care that most merges are incredibly sloppy? Should we care that pages like BJAODN don't have the author information easily accessible? Should we care about hunting down the many "merge and deletes" that have been done in the past? Should we care about the lost edit history of all the articles edited prior to User:Conversion script? Should we be really fucking worried about this? --- RockMFR 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to care is is we think that there is a moral or legal reason to be concerned over the original contributors' copy-left copyright requirement that their name continue to be associated with their specific contribution in question. So ok, guys speak up. How maay here intend to sue (or claim a moral whatever) if your contibutions to BJAODN are hidden behind page moves? Are you using your real name? Does that make a difference? We can delete your contribution to BJAODN if you feel that being hid behind page moves is a problem. WAS 4.250 08:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This problem is easily solved. Whenever I introduce content that I found from another page I use the edit summary to provide a link to the permanent versions of pages I've integrated. Look at the edit summary on the left I utilize when creating Template:TOChidden. Folks just need to be educated about doing that. (→Netscott) 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

...are you attempting to solicit a legal threat from some unwary user, WAS 4.250? Other than that, no comment. --Iamunknown 19:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of BJAODN and GFDL was discussed here. One of the quotes, from User:Andrewa was "IANAL either but IMO any author who tried to assert their copyright over this stuff would get laughed out of court." Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny how folks can bend the GFDL to keep a load of old crap, yet those of us who want a sensible fair use policy over album sleeves get told to start a new wiki. We're either strict on copyright or we're not. --kingboyk 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The all-important difference is that BJAODN is not part of the encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And thus should be significantly pruned. After all, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, isn't it? --Iamunknown 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed, and a collection of user pages, and policy pages, and other miscellany, and pages that introduce joy or capture the lighter side of work on the site. +sj + 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and the community surrounding its construction. BJAODN is a part of the latter, but not the former. Chris cheese whine 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Best of BJAODN

I should point out that there already are five pages of Misplaced Pages:Best of BJAODN. Arguably these are funnier than the regular sixty-one pages. A good way to start this would be to zap the 61 and stick with those 5. >Radiant< 08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a wonderful contribution to a joke book wiki, not sure how useful it is to an encyclopedia. _InBC 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop discussing deleting parts of BJAODN here, where its contributors and editors are unlikely to see the conversation, and discuss it here. +sj + 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's a good idea to just keep the best and delete all the rest. Wooyi 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The "best of" aren't really that good at all. They are exactly the same as the other BJAODN pages. There are no barriers to entry for any of the BJAODN pages, so deleting a subset of them would be entirely arbitrary. --- RockMFR 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. --SJ

Yeah, I think it's time to get rid of BJAODN. I used to love BJAODN and even spent a fair amount of time on it, but in the intervening year, I've come to realize that it's a rather large waste of time (it has too much bureaucracy, especially regarding naming of pages), and it really does have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well neither do Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Jokes, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Bands, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Arguments, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Flash Game Contest, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Poetry/Peices, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Random Vandalization Page, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Thesandboxisgreat, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/scienter, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/lkd, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/revert war, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/World's Longest Poem, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Wikistory/Stargate, ... Uncle G 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, I didn't know we had this many subpages of the sandbox. Some of them can probably be deleted. --Iamunknown 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mike Church

• Mike Church (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

I'm not to familiar with this sockpuppeteer, but I just notice a fairly newly minted user removing the suspected wikipedia sockpuppets category from the sockpuppet category of this editor with the edit summary "rvv" on their 4th edit. Take with this edit, it's all a little bit suspicious. WP:AGF, but if someone who is more familiar with Church and his MO wants to have a look and monitor, it might not be a bad idea. I don't know the history enough to say if this is a WP:BAN evasion.--Isotope23 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. — Dan | talk 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the indef-block, but where's the ban? With a verifiable cite, I'll add him to WP:BANNED. -- Ben /_HIST 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed he was banned; but I could be wrong about that. Like I said, I'm not all that familiar with Church and the issues surrounding him, but WP:DUCK, that sure looked like a sock.--Isotope23 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite confused by this. It appears that the original Mike Church account may have been renamed, since it was recreated in May 2006 . This may be the original account Wxlfsr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), but the block log for Mike Church remains under his own name where it is clear he was indefinitely blocked. This seems to show that Essjay renamed his account. FWIW I'm quite familiar with this user and his activities; keep in mind that we have at least one vandal (the kid in North Carolina) who deliberately imitates him, so not all of the tagged sockpuppets are actually Mike. Antandrus (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible issues

Mayor Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was originally blocked by Nishkid64 for violating 3RR at Regina neighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since that time, he has been generally incivil with his original blocking, and repeatedly reposted a rant on his talk page, even after the block expired. I then blocked him indefinitely, and protected his talk page for a few hours so he could calm down. He then sent me this e-mail:

However, an e-mail I received from Alison has me a bit worried.

So, I'm afraid I just blocked the major of the city of Regina, Saskatchewan. Any thoughts?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has now taken to pmailing me though I was not the blocking admin, nor the page protector. I was actually attempting mediation but anyways ... I have just asked him to desist from further pmailing me and to take the matter to WP:RFC or even WP:RFAR instead when his block expires. I will not pubish any of the emails here as that would be wrong, short of saying that I've seen enough evidence to ID him as related to Pat Fiacco. - Alison 01:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the point is that as a WP editor, he enjoys the same rights, privileges and responsibilites as any other editor. Being related to the Mayor doesn't afford him any more. If he's updating an article, he needs to be accountable to using the same reliable sources as the rest of us - Alison 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Remind him of WP:LEGAL as well. Veinor 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just received an actual threat, although I'm not sure if "Unblock me or I will use every resources at my disposal to ensure that you are dealt with to the fullest extent of wikipedia discipline and legal consequences." implies off-wiki action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A shame to the city of Regina, that the mayor of the city was blocked for engaging in childish behavior on the Internet...anyway, just ignore the threat. They (they?) really have no grounds to sue you upon other than to intimidate you. —physicq (c) 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly; that accompanied with abusive edits like these and removing my legal threat notice are really uncalled for. I thank Pilotguy for dealing with this guy while I was indisposed earlier today.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate content on user page

What should I do if I believe a user has inappropriate content on his or her user page? Sancho (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, hang on, we probably need a little more information before giving that blanket advice. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up with the editor in question, point out what you feel is wrong with it and direct them to WP:USER? - Alison 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it really depends on what is meant by "inappropriate" - that's pretty vague. It could be inappropriate meaning "I'm here to stalk Sanchom, Ryulong, Newyorkbrad, Alison, and Natalie Erin and your mom " or it could be inappropriate in that the user has used a mild swear word. "Inappropriate" means different things to different people. Natalie 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The inappropriate content is a message that tells blacks and gays to leave his or her user page because there is material on it that may offend them. Sancho (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which user? _InBC 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nm, I found it, I deleted it per WP:CSD#G10 and warned the user about spouting hatred here. _InBC 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sancho (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

It seems that Matt Sanchez is editing the article on himself, as Bluemarine (talk · contribs). There seem to be WP:AUTO and WP:BLP issues. I have to go to sleep, so I can't deal keep an eye on the situation for now, but some other admins might want to watchlist the article. Cheers, and goodnight. -GTBacchus 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please kill the user page User:ThongWearer as a massive copyvio from ? Why is Bluemarine creating another user's user page, anyway? Hbdragon88 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the copyvio userpage, but cannot commit to watching the article. Natalie 07:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note to Bluemarine regarding editing one's own biography and conflict of interest. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tags at User talk:Conversion script

Someone might want to keep an eye on User talk:Conversion script, which it seems is getting copyright tag messages for images it might have uploaded. A few images have already been deleted, but this one remains: Diving cylinder oxygen label

Curiously, the file history reads: (del) (cur) 20:56, 6 March 2004 . . Conversion script (Talk) . . 500×375 (17,466 bytes) ((recovered file, missing upload log entry))

I'll leave this to someone who actually knows what they are doing when it comes to images, and the conversion bot. Risker 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker isn't going to take a risk in fixing a problem? Hbdragon88 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a Dev Bot. The MediaWiki Developers run it. Just leave it alone. Betacommand 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisan borderline-wheelwarring

Sorry this is long. I posted these originally at WP:RFC/POLICIES but I'm told that doing so rarely garners a response because that page is used mostly to "advertise" new proposed guidelines and stuff. I didn't get a response at WP:PUMP either. Things have changed since then, so I've intregrated some updates, and I've tried to link to as many #-spots in talk as seemed useful and relevant without making it look like an ArbCom case.

• Unprotection of WP:RS (and perhaps others): Page was protected along with WP:ATT on the basis of "stability" which is not a recognized reason for page protection at WP:PROT; a later reason that "editwarring is immiment" was brought up to preserve the protection, but there is no actual evidence of editwarring at RS at all; rather, there is consensus to restore material that was deleted without consensus before the protection - even the person who reverted that restoration (by an admin) immediately before the block agrees with the consensus and said they did the revert for the same novel "stability" reason. At both WP:RS talk and in a related, larger thread at WP:ATT talk in which an admin says there is no consensus to impose these full-protects, various parties (self included) challege the blocks as unilateral, lacking consensus and against policy and process, and that disputes about the future of WP:ATT have nothing to do with whether the policies and guidelines that were melded to create WP:ATT, and which have been officially restored to active status, need to be protected from editing. WP:RFPP seem reluctant to get involved on this particular issue, though not some of the related ones below. The issues raised also extend to the protection of WP:V and WP:NOR. So, broader input is sought on whether any of these page protections should remain, and whether WP:RS in particular should be unprotected immediately. Admin Centrx (who declined to act against the protection for conflict of interest reasons, because he had just been editing one of the related pages) pointed out in user talk that the protection has gone on for quite some time. It was only "intended to last a day or two at most" according to its imposer. We are now on day three. As the protection wasn't ever anything but one person's preference to begin with (later backed by an unreasonably strident editor (cf. Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#PLEASE - NO CHANGES RIGHT NOW), I ask that these protections be lifted immediately as radically unjustified, especially at WP:RS, though the rest of them as well. Whether intentional or not, the protections are serving only one side of the debate, and in the case of RS have thwarted the restoration of removed-without-consensus material from that policypage.
• {{Disputedpolicy}} on WP:ATT. Some parties to the debates relating to WP:ATT (which is being debated at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Poll and Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion among probable other places) believe that the {{Disputedpolicy}} tag should be placed on WP:ATT because of its disputed status as a policy (which is what the template is for, not for disputes over what a policy happens to say about something). Proponents of WP:ATT of course reject this idea, despite the fact that the first item in the poll is whether the merge has consensus at all, and a later one is whether to mark WP:ATT inactive (i.e. {{Historical}}.) After discussion (with no opposition that can explain itself), the template was added by an admin from WP:RFPP who is not a party to the WP:ATT disputes. A party to the disputes then immediately reverted it, with a rationale that actually has nothing to do with the template in question. WP:RFPP has been asked to restore it. Note that these are all admins at this point, since no one else can edit. Reverting the good-faith actions of an admin responding to well-justified editprotected requests at WP:RFPP, which are supported on the target page's talk page, and justifing the revert with a rationale that does not even match the facts relating to the template in question but certainly serves (I'll presume unintentionally) to advance the reverter's preferred interpretation and "message to be sent" about the page, strikes me as inappropriate, and I ask that the template be restored. No bad faith alleged; I think that there's simply a can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees problem going on in WP:ATT, and a certain amount of overcontrol (I do not allege WP:OWN, as I feel that would in fact be a bad faith claim), which is readily observable on the talk page there and in its edit history (and those of the related poll and community discussion pages, and related policies like WP:RS, etc.) Update: Someone else has separately called for this tagging.

• Protection of WP:ATT without {{Protected}} tag. Article was protected pending outcome of a poll that itself has been very contentious and does not appear near to proceeding. Req. made at WP:RFPP to tag the article with {{Protected}}, which is not only normal but highly appropriate in this case because WP:ATT is heavily disputed as to its status (see also clarification of frequent misquoting of Jimbo in his official capacity on this status matter, here) and as to its particulars (and {{Protected}} specifically references dispute as the defensible rationale for the protection under WP:PROT). An RFPP admin responded by doing the requested tagging. A party to the disputes at WP:ATT removed the tag. RFPP admin replaced it, dispute participant removed it again, and replaced it with a POV statement of the situation that is strongly disagreed with by other parties to the debates. The relevant RFPP material is here. The {{Protected}} tag was put back on this one (for the third time), and debate partcipants reminded to leave the article alone while it is protected, since the purpose of page protection is not to create an admins-only editing environment. As with the other template reversion, the repeated deletion of this tag looks to be heading straight into South Central Corewarland. I ask that the page be watched and that reversion of this template (or of {{Disputedpolicy}} after it is restored) be undone swiftly if it recurs, with discussions engaged in to try to defuse the "revert everything at all costs to protect WP:ATT" attitude that seems to be prevailing.

Again, I'm not alleging bad faith on anyone's part; I think that everyone involved at WP:ATT on all sides (and there are more than two) wants what is best for Misplaced Pages, but there is way too much editwarry over-control going on, and abuse of powerful remedies like page full-protection, and treatment of page protection as an admins-only editing haven for establishing a sweeping POV about whether WP:ATT is disputed at all and if so what the nature of the disputes are. I'm getting to where I almost no longer have an opinion on those latter matters because the handling of the situation is far more serious to me than what that handling is trying to "manage". Basically, two or three individuals are exerting an enormous amount of control over all of these pages; they have a significant investment of time and effort into WP:ATT, which I laud them for but which I feel has made them a tad too partisan when it comes to simple matters that have really rather neutral bases, such as when and why to protect a page, whether to make up inventive new reasons to explain full-prot status instead of using the standard template for this, and avoidance of a template that does nothing but let other Wikipedians know that a dispute has arisen and that they might want to participate in its resolution (cf. complaints throughout the relevant talk pages by numerous editors that they felt "blindsided" by the WP:ATT merger in the first place.) The situation is causing secondary disruption as well; editors with legitimate points are not being addressed civilly at times, when their concerns are addressed at all, and are becoming less civil and more strident and argumentative themselves, as they see their issues (some of which I do not agree with myself, just to be clear) ignored and shunted off to archive pages before they are resolved, but meanwhile pretty much ordered not to move their own material from one page to another, among other control-and-spin issues that could be raised, but probably don't need to be at this point. PS: The blocks are also preventing the application of appropriate merge tags, an issue recentlly raised at WP:RS talk. Someone else has raised this concern separately.

— SMcCandlish ツ 08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." — CharlotteWebb 08:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I just wasn't sure if brevity would be appreciated over evidentiary linking and history, since giving the links saves people time digging around for them in histories manually. I don't come here often, so please forgive me if I got the balance wrong. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary would help? —Quarl 2007-03-25 02:00Z

It's all coming out below. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The summary is that all of Misplaced Pages:Attribution, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources have been summarily frozen (i.e. protected) in the ostensible interest of having "stable" versions while it is discussed what to do about the general situation with these pages, i.e. the merger and aborted superceding by Misplaced Pages:Attribution of the other three. This is a pre-emptive (or non-emptive) protection despite no vandalism or edit warring that would warrant it (e.g. under WP:PROT), and if the justification is accepted it would entail the protection of these pages for several weeks more, given that the proposed poll has not even been finalized.

In addition, administrators who are deeply involved parties, specifically those responsible for the merger, have edited these protected pages to remove the standard {{Protection}} tag that states, e.g. that "protection is not an endorsement of the current page version", and have removed a {{Disputedpolicy}} tag added to Misplaced Pages:Attribution on the grounds that it was not disputed, when the person who added the tag evidently did dispute it, and when the deeply involved party is not in a position to neutrally make a decision on that matter. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

One possible option is to make copies of the pages that are frozen and stable, putting them somewhere else, while allowing the editing of the main pages, as is normal for a wiki process. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just unlocked WP:RS via a detailed request on WP:RFPP, and have received a message from User:Jossi, an involved admin on these pages, who continues to edit them despite my asking him to not, why I did. I want to stay as neutral as I can here, but I'm finding it incredibly difficult with this kind of thing going on. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: Jossi reinstated the protection immediately. I've placed editprotecteds on this and the other non-ATT pages so that hopefully someone can fix the very simple things that need to be fixed, which actually serve the interests of the WP:ATT partisans if they would just realize it. These are: a simple textual fix to RS that will make it agree with ATT again, which is something WP:ATT proponents want in the first place and have been insisting is the case but are simply incorrect on that matter because they won't just go look; and merge tags - the entire WP:ATT fiasco happening right now is largely because of the lack of merge tags the first time around. This is so simple and basic that my mind is reeling from the WP:PANIC resistance being met by these simple no-brainer fixes. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not "edit" any protected page. I only placed a header explaining the rationale for the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, you edited it. You also reverted the addition of {{disputed}}, and you reprotected the page after I unprotected it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

jossi is definitely revert-warring on the disputedpolicy/policy tag on WP:ATT, which I find really discouraging because it is this kind of intransigence that's led to the whole debate there right now. I'm told that admins who edit war over a protected document are wheel-warring, so I hope jossi can calm down and discuss this in a friendlier manner. Xiner (talk, email) 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: Slimvirgin also participated in that revertwarring, and has been problematic in other ways that are pretty self-evident just skimming the related talk pages and edit summaries. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if that is the impression. There is no dispute. See Jimbo's last comment:

I very much support a straw poll. In the meantime, after an excellent discussion with SlimVirgin, we hammered out a compromise until we can have a fuller discussion. What the pages say now is that WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those. My big beef with this merger is that we often need to send people to a page like WP:NOR which explains in a rich and persuasive way what the policy is about and why it is a good idea. This involves sometimes saying things which overlap with parts of WP:V. (They are not the same idea!) The combined page provides a handy way to keep policy consistent and have a tight presentation of what policy actually is. The separate pages can be more detailed and understandable.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are users that are disrupting an important discussion on this subject by placing spurious notices in ANI pages. Please do not encourage them further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:ATT, and let the chaos ensue while the discussion about the future of these pages is ongoing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that being a justification for the protection. The above would seem to be a satisfactory conclusion to the problem. I haven't been following along on the talk pages of WP:ATT or Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what the issues are, mixed with a healthy dose of "a) Why exactly are you pestering everyone on their watchlist about this? Spam is not a good thing. b) Who gives a shit? Policy around here tends to be full of nonsense anyway, we have WP:IAR, and people will continue to act exactly as they do already regardless of what is policy or where is written" and numerous queries of the general sort common to policy talk pages irrelevant to the merge, about "how does policy apply to this article". If no one is edit warring, problems are best solved by "the wiki process" of open editing. Certainly, after 3 days passions could not be so inflamed as to cause heated edit warring, if they were in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, go ahead and unprotect, I just hope I am wrong about the chaos that will ensue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no chaos before protection, so why would there be afterwards? If there is, the pages can be protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have been missing on the actions of certain editors... in any case, do what you see fit. I support the protection of RS, V, NOR and ATT for the reasons already outlined, if you and Centrx see this differently, go ahead and unprotect. Just keep an eye on these pages after you do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The pages began to descend into chaos, along with the mayhem and controversy on Talk:ATT, before I protected them. I firmly believe that unprotecting them at this time, when we are trying to achieve a modicum of stability to be able to cast votes in the straw poll requested by Jimbo, is wrong. The objects we are voting about should remain as stable as possible so we know what the vote is about. Unprotection now, with heated spirits all around, will lead to even more disruption and chaos than we already have with our core content policies, and will clearly impede the mandated voting process. Crum375 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, there wasn't any more editing (just plain editing) between the merger was undone and the protection than there was any other time. In fact, there was a lot more editing the day before the merger was undone. —Centrx→talk • 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is good reasoning; let us hope the discussion and poll will be soon. There clearly are some editors who do dispute the policy status of WP:ATT. I am not one of them; and I doubt there are enough of them to refute the wide consensus on the matter. But the existence of such consensus is one of the things Jimbo doubts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That can be done without protection. If there is edit warring, the pages can be protected. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support keeping protected for the moment. I can confirm Crum375's statement that the pages began to descend into chaos. So much so that I've found it difficult to join in the discussion, even though I'm interested. It would be worse if they were unprotected. I've found in the past that when a page is protected, it almost people to begin to discuss problems. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That being said, at the very least keeping the editing to a minimum on the protected pages (templates included) will probably help folk to find the situation more tenable. Bitnine 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I have declined all the {{editprotected}} tags that were placed on them. CMummert · talk 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RobertG has resigned

User:RobertG has asked to have his admin powers terminated, deleted his user page, and turned off his bots. This appears to be in response to what happened after this DRV of this CFD, and his interchange with User:CalJW on Robert's talk page. I find the incivility and lack of good faith distressing. -- Samuel Wantman 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I totally agree. I think the vehement bile towards RobertG on his talk page was and is wholly unwarranted. No matter what the outcome of the DRV, a suggestion that a single closure of a CfD nomination should be cause to find "no confindence" in an admin who has closed innumerable discussions is, I would think, ridiculous, to say the very least. I sincerely hope that RobertG reconsiders. I know I, for one, value his contributions greatly. - jc37 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:CalJW has been incredibly rude here. One wonders what the best approach is to an editor who has been sufficiently aggressive as to drive off another Wikipedian? Of course, as his user page makes clear, he considers administrators to be below editors in the Misplaced Pages hierarchy (everybody knows that admins never edit and that too much editing will see your AfD fail). Guy (Help!) 10:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments such as and , over the entirely insignificant matter of one CfD, are completely unacceptable: they're essentially bullying and harassment, which in turn constitute personal attacks. We block for some of those, don't we? Moreschi 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • • Some, but apparently not all are blocked, even when it is absolutely unacceptable, if my own experience of being harrassed is anything to go by.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We also have barely any admins managing CFDs as it is, so to lose one of them is like losing a person who can read cuneiform. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps somebody should talk to User:CalJW. Sancho (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. There was no "admin abuse" here, except in the sense of number 37 here. RobertG was one of our best editors and admins. Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean when we say someone's actions here are 'unacceptable'? Tom Harrison 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I don't see any vile or vitriolic bile on CalJW's part (ahem ). I do see annoying moaning and bickering, but I don't really see anyone leaving the project over something like this. Maybe there are other reasons? Maybe, still, we can ask CalJW to do the job RobertG has been doing before he drove him away :) dab (𒁳) 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting to me because it is just what I asked RobertG to do (like, yesterday) due to his having a hand in driving me out of doing serious edits on wikipedia. Life. What a place to live. Carptrash 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban clarification

If a person is banned by community consensus (that is, on WP:CN) here on Misplaced Pages-en, is this ban supposed to extend to Wikimedia Commons? I'm assuming the ban is not supposed to extend there, that if they are to be banned there, Wikimedia Commons can deal with it. --Yamla 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, each instance of wikipedia is separate. Explained further at WP:BAN. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN

It's been nominated at MFD today - see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense for details. --sunstar net 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't have been helpful given the present effort to clean up and reduce; but it's been speedy closed anyway :) --kingboyk 16:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-identified underage user

gives a fair amount of information (name, age, school, myspace & bebo pages etc), ostensibly for . Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy suggests counselling/oversight, but I'm not sure where to post or who to tell. Advice please. Mr Stephen 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (sentence modified by Sancho (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

The usual MO is to inform the editor, remove the identifying info from her/his talkpage, and delete the page, restoring the innocuous content as the new page. Anchoress 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the only issue of concern seems to be her age (other than the general 'myspace'yness of it - or maybe fanfiction.net), so I think just asking her to remove it would be OK. Anchoress 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left her a note. Regards, Mr Stephen 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a followup and let her know that I'll delete it if she likes so it won't appear in her edit history - Alison 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(Ahem)   You might want to do something like that to at least part of the first sentence of this section. -- Ben /_HIST 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just have a question, is the display of myspace or other blog information generally frowned upon or allowed on Misplaced Pages userspace? Wooyi 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - lots of editors have links to personal sites or similar. In fact, I imagine it would be preferred to filling one's userpage with all that information... Natalie 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowed, I'd say. There's even a range of userboxes for advertising your website/LJ/mySpace, etc. - Alison 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hopkins meme

User:Lobsterkins has been using Misplaced Pages to attempt to spread some sort of meme. I've had to SALT the Christopher Hopkins meme article and talk page, and Lobsterkins then took his/her campaign to other pages, as well as my talk page. I've indef blocked the user for the mean time, as every one of their edits from yesterday and today involved this particular meme. Block review welcomed. Natalie 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals get blocked, this vandal got blocked, good riddance. There's my concise review. Seraphimblade 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from unblock review patrol, they now say they've seen the error of their ways and won't do it again. Granting an unblock for another chance might be appropriate here, if they can tell us in what way they would like to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages. Sandstein 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy isn't going to do anything other than disrupt. GeeCee 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of that thread, block endorsed. Patstuart 08:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Grrr. I knew there had to be some internet forum involved. Keep an eye out for this spreading to other places. Natalie 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was an idiot on an internet forum, you may note that the forum itself yelled at him and eventually banned him. Idiots are universal. --Golbez 15:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, I should clarify - I didn't mean to suggest that this had the sanction of some internet forum. But the meme page was being used for conversation by a variety of IP addresses from different ranges, so I assumed that this had been advertised on an internet forum and attracted some of those universal idiots. Natalie 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mike Tyson.jpg

Could I get an admin to delete this image, as I have now uploaded an image with the same name to the commons, and this image has passed the 7-day mark for deletion. Thanks. Patstuart 06:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done! The page Mike Tyson has the new image scaled correctly, far as I can see - Alison 06:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you!! Patstuart 06:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

2 users seem to be just spamming/promoting their comic

User:Phantomlady4 and User:LadyLeaMarie. While Phantom has one edit, almost all of LadyLea's edits seem to be for the user page and the comic itself (which doesn't seem to assert much notability). Seems like the users just made the pages to promote a comic. I don't know if there is any policy against this? I would think there would be. Feel free to move this, if I posted in the wrong space. RobJ1981 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the userpages are pretty obvious violations of WP:USERPAGE. I've deleted the article about the comic per WP:CSD#A7 and issued both users warnings about their userpages. If they don't clean them up, I'll MFD them. -- Merope 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Knotts (talk · contribs)

Sorry, this probably won't take long, but I've got to go somewhere! This user seems to be spending a lot of time creating what appears to be hoax music articles. I have managed to delete some of them, but there are still a few left to consider (including his userpage). There is at least one unlicensed image there and an article on an AC/DC album that nobody seems to know about (redirected to band article for now). None of the articles are sourced and seem to have spurious claims about sales attached to them. Would deal with myself, but have to run. Bubba hotep 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Good catch. I've indef blocked as a vandalism only account and blanked the user page per WP:NOT. Go ahead and put up everything for speedy deletion including that redirect. Durova 14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal matters

So who handles legal matters with Brad Patrick gone? I ask because of this edit, which appears to be true. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad's not gone until the end of the month, and are you sure that's Misplaced Pages not Wikimedia? Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the "WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION" mentioned as a defendant. I am sure they know about it, when you get sued they send you a letter. _InBC 13:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has now been deleted by Doc glasgow with the rationale of "per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media interest.". Now what's this about? I can't find any reference to WP:BLP on WP:CSD. Has adherence to deletion policy suddenly become unfashionable? Sandstein 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

G10 includes "a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to." One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:

While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

So I do believe Doc glasgow was well within policy by deleting this. Metros232 17:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected as regards CSD, but this article appeared on the surface to be neither negative in tone, nor was it unsourced. Also, I don't think that "deleted" in BLP should be taken to mean "speedy deleted" , but rather deleted through the appropriate process (in this case, AfD). Sandstein 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Cached version. Full-on speedy? Probably improper, and I've been contemplating DRV since I noticed a few hours ago if only to get a discussion about it in the proper forum, but yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, having looked at the article immediately before it was deleted, the article was a good stub about the subject, followed by a two-paragraph section about the controversy around her literary agency. While not a featured article candidate – I'd say that the lengthy quote from Writer Beware could probably go – the material is scrupulously sourced and footnoted.

I'm also not sure why 'deleted' was chosen over 'stubbed' in this case, seeing as there was a reasonable amount of sourced, non-controversial, well-written material. If the Foundation is aware that they're being sued, perhaps we might let their counsel advise us on how to proceed? Jumping right into deletion (with the risk of an ensuing wheel war) seems a poor idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's at DRV now. Interestingly enough, these concerns were brought up last summer and the discussion ended in a consensus keep. I know we're allegedly "stronger" on BLP than we were before, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation has not said anything, but that is understandable given that the Complaint was apparently filed on Friday and probably has not yet been served. I have suggested on the mailing list that the Office provide any advice/instructions that may be applicable in this situation. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki until the Office has had a reasonable time to provide its input, if any. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Office representatives are entirely capable of instructing us on how to handle this, and can tell us to stop discussion if need be. I don't think such urging is necessary or productive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a Sunday and it only just appears to have been filed; I think demanding action from the Office right now is excessive ;-). The Board has certainly been made aware of it; I briefly discussed it with Kat earlier today. Shimgray | talk | 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PRC

Since admins have powers to (un)semi-protect, can someone add a template to this effect on China?martianlostinspace 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make your request at the request for page protection noticeboard including the reason why you want it protected. We don't protect pages unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Thanks, Gwernol 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg

Could someone list this at MediaWiki:Bad_image_list? I've already added the necessary template to the talk page. Thanks. Nardman1 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It already is listed. --Iamunknown 18:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

More than a hundred problem images left to tag

Hi, I need some help. Johnbrillantes (talk · contribs) has uploaded more than 100 images using either {{PD-Philippines}} or {{PD-user}}, apparantly confusing "has been published" with "is in the public domain". We've gotten one copyright holder complaint already. I've tagged all the images up through November 13 2006 already, but there are more than a hundred left to do. He identifies himself as the author for a small number of the images, so they actually need to be looked at individually. Jkelly 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to help, but I don't have experience in this, so I hope I don't make more work for everyone by doing it wrong. If in doubt, I'll come back to you, and I'll look through your contributions to see what tags you used. ElinorD (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Jkelly 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Teke 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The images that were invalid PD-Philippines and PD-User are gone, I left the handful that were just unsourced and untagged to run the prod process. Some I out and out deleted for the congruity of articles that he uploaded other bad images for. Teke 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

more Christopher Hopkins

The children are unhappy that I SALTed the Christopher Hopkins article, if the following post on my talk page is any indication:

Dear Natalie: I see you know a lot about the Red Scare. If you would let Christopher Hopkins defend himself, you would recognize the significance of the meme. Unfortunately, you and your cronies have blocked his IP addresses. Unblock them or deal with an endless torrent of reposts all over Misplaced Pages. I would rather it stay on the Christopher Hopkins meme discussion page. Thank you.

I'm not really sure if the Red Scare reference means they're going to report me to HUAC or sic Roy Cohn on me, but those with blocking powers may want to keep an eyeball out. I would not be adverse to blocking these folks on sight, but will not do so if others disagree. Natalie 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given a warning to the IP that left the posts on your page. Please advise if problems continue and you want an uninvolved admin to respond. Newyorkbrad 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content and assuming bad faith

When I was patrolling on recent change, I spotted a mass removal of content by anon user (209.244.188.131, now blocked) on Diana Ross and quickly reverted it using TWINKLE. However, he repeatedly did it, and I had to revert it multiple times. Later, an established user began to remove the content and accused me of being a vandal and edit warring. What I did was simply automatic reverting mass removal of content using TWINKLE and this happened also because the user did not put up an edit summary telling why he removed the content. I have never been a vandal or engaged in any edit warring, my record can tell. Wooyi 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment on his behavior, but why did you not stop and discuss it with him, instead of just reverting again? I have yet another example of what happens when people use vandal-reversion scripts too rapidly... -Amarkov moo! 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did message him polite notes first using TWINKLE's user talk message generating function though. Wooyi 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the removal of that content was justified by WP:BLP, and shouldn't have been repeatedly reverted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It definitely should not have been edit-warred back into the article, violating WP:3RR on top of everything. Jkelly 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally perceived the removal as vandalistic, so I thought reverting vandalism would not violate 3RR (reverting obvious vandalism is an exception of 3RR). I did it all in good faith and did not intend to violate any rules. Wooyi 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the above it sounds like TWINKLE is being used as an excuse. ... How does one open an RFC against software? ;) --Gmaxwell 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse TWINKLE. It is partly my fault of not examining what content the user was removing. I only saw that he didn't give an edit summary and I just skimmed the content to make sure it wasn't frivolous. But the subsequent editors assumed bad faith and accused me as a vandal, which is clearly false. Wooyi 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another case

• Note User:83.18.164.198 has vandalized editor User:Gracenotes's userpage, as you can see from edit history. But he not only used spurious edit summary but also abusively insert vandalism warning template on my talk page. Administrators please take action. Thank you! Wooyi 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz and Padawer update

An update on the Qmwnebrvtcyxuz situation, near the top of the page, can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Update. I'm posting there to keep the thread together, and here to keep the update from being lost. Could someone please send an e-mail to User:Padawer as suggested there. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding the Sandbox

As Iamunknown linked to above, the sandbox has a massive number of worthless pages. The purpose of this post is to decide if it is worth MfDing most of the pages, what might qualify to kill outright, etc. For example, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Mafia. Absolutely no purpose, Misplaced Pages is not a host of MMORPGs. Thoughts, opinions welcome as to some cleaning that is needed. Teke 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note if a sandbox has over a 1,500 revisions do not delete. the develpers will eat the admin in question. (I am not joking some admin tried to delete a sandbox with 10K edits, realy pissed them off) you might try asking a dev to kill the pages instead of a normal delete. Betacommand 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards