Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:49, 12 November 2007

User 70.106.191.94 > Racial Slur_Racial_Slur-2007-11-06T19:53:00.000Z">

70.106.191.94 (talk · contribs) makes a racial slur here. ~ WikiDon 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)_Racial_Slur"> _Racial_Slur">

This looks like a typical piece (although of extremely poor taste) of vandalism, I've given the user an only warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We see this sort of thing every day, it's just people who are bored, I wouldn't worry about it. Qst 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We-e-e-e-ell, I worry about it in a society point of view manner (although the spelling is the self referential model rather than the white supremacist term) but as far as WP... slap a warning on the talkpage and take it to AIV if it happens again. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support instant blocking for any edits which use racial, sexual or any other slurs. Such vandalism doesn't deserver a second chance. (not advocating indefinite blocks, though, just warning blocks to make a point) Corvus cornix 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shininycoal suspicion

(Not sure if this should go here or on the incidents noticeboard...)
User:Shininycoal, for a user whose editing history spans the last 12 hours (although the account was created October 22), has a short but quite odd string of edits. Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but it seems odd for a new editor to move the archives of MediaWiki:Blockedtext , put an (apparently spurious) ArbcomArticle tag on Talk:Jeff V. Merkey , create a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey , and some edits to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles and its talk page.

Is this a odd thing that might require some reversals, or should I turn down the sensitivity of my oddness detectors? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I blocked this as a probable SCOX troll. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He may have returned using TOR exit node 122.17.15.125. Only a single edit was made with that IP, restoring Shininycoal's changes to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles. I reverted. Please correct me if I was wrong to do so. --MediaMangler 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am reliably informed this is user:Amorrow, who is now unfortunately out of jail. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed

The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing Burntsauce remained unblocked all this time, when he arrived here it was so obvious that he was just mimicking JB196 that it was a almost WP:DUCK case, the only thing that separated both users were different IP addresses. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did give Burntsauce an indef back in April for that reason. Alkivar lifted it. Durova 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a vivid demonstration of how successful the small crowd of banned abusers currently running Misplaced Pages Review have become in manipulating and exploiting our good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"...Misplaced Pages Review..."? That would be a Certain Site, would it not? LessHeard vanU 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily so successful anymore. :) Durova 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing a cut and paste move

Can a more experienced admin walk me through (or show me how to go about) fixing the cut and paste move of Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. A user named User:Pickywiki performed the move, and I saw it when it happened, but this was before I was an admin. Later, he came back and undid my fix. To complicate matters, it should probably be at Full distance triathlon, rather than Full Distance Triathlon. So, the history pages need to be merged and then moved to Full distance triathlon, but I'm not sure how to do it. Leebo /C 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First move Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. It will say that you have to delete the page before the page can be moved. Check the ok box, and delete away. Next, go to view deleted edits from the history tab of the Full Distance Triathlon page. Click the option to restore all edits. Wait up to 5 minutes for the database to catch up, and you should have a history that has been merged. Next, make sure that the current version of the article is accurate (it will most likely still have the redirect showing, so you'll have to edit an earlier version to get the latest version of the article). Finally, you can move that to the new name. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.-Andrew c  18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it, and the log for the page says I restored the deleted revisions, so now I'm just waiting for it to actually show them in the history. Does it often take much longer than 5 minutes? Leebo /C 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, it worked perfectly, and I think I've cleared up any double redirects and talk page issues. Fantastic! Thanks Andrew. Leebo /C 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One additional trick I tend to use when doing history merges is, before the move, I open an edit window on the latest version of the destination page. Thus, right after I do the move, I can flip back to the open edit window and do a save to restore to the latest version at once. I do this restore even before I go undelete the deleted revisions. By doing this, there's no need to wait for the history to catch up, because as soon as you restore the revisions, you are done, and can move on to other things and let the server catch up whenever it gets to it. :) - TexasAndroid 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

request a disambiguation?

How do I request a disambiguation? Specifically, there are two people with the name "Kent Larson" listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Kent_Larson_%28disambiguation%29

Searching for "Kent Larson" list only the gay porn star. How can a search for "Kent Larson" return the MIT Media Lab faculty (or both names)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kllmit (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you moved Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star) and made Kent Larson a redirect to Kent Larson (disambiguation), I think you'd have the outcome you're looking for. Leebo /C 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't redirect an article to a disambiguation page. If there is no article at Kent Larson, then the disambig page should be at Kent Larson, no Kent Larson (disambiguation). See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Hut 8.5 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but someone seems to have done this already, so my comment can be disregarded :P Leebo /C 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has happened here ? Now we have to pages with identical content and someone has crushed an article with a disambiguation page. Let me try to sort this out. Use the move function in the future please. Jackaranga 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting deletion of Kent Larson (porn star) to make way for move. Jackaranga 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of these copy paste moves, it now requires admin help and is much more complicated, can an admin please: delete Kent Larson (porn star), then move Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star), then delete Kent Larson, then move Kent Larson (disambiguation) to Kent Larson, then delete Kent Larson (disambiguation). Thanks. Jackaranga 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference all you needed to do was move Kent Larson, to Kent Larson (porn star), then create a disambiguation page at Kent Larson. This way you don't need admin help. Jackaranga 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Whitney.jpg

Could I get someone to speedy delete this? It's already been uploaded to commons as Image:Ryan Whitney2.jpg, and it's blocking another commons image. I know this may not exactly follow policy, but it seems to make sense in this instance. Thanks. 71.58.97.225 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that images have to wait five or seven days, before being deleted if they're correctly placed on Wikimedia Commons. Qst 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just stop waiting around and just do it. --Haemo 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tasmin Jahan article

Hi I was wondering if a full length factual article could be entered on Misplaced Pages regarding the playwright Tasmin Jahan? Tasmin Jahan's details did appear under the TONBRIDGE article but now it is not appearing.

please let me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.115.165 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeking WP:U add'l opinions

...on Flourishadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reported by a bot at WP:UAA. This may technically be a vio for "admin," though I suspect the user may be the administrator of this mailing list. What I was going to do was e-mail the person specified on that site and ask them if this is their account, then suggest that they create a more personalized account name. I'm reluctant to just block and put up a template. Thoughts? Dppowell 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see what he or she does with his or her edits. If they look promotional, I'd block. In any case, doesn't this fail matches the name of a company or group or email addresses etc likely to be promotional username violations?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right--I was so focused on the word 'admin' that the other vio didn't even occur to me. However, because the user (if I'm right about the connection to that mailing list) may have many ties to the academic community, I'm inclined to assume good faith and IAR for the moment in the interest of informal community outreach. That said, if someone else thinks a block is in order, I won't object. Dppowell 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)

I'm sure that everyone is aware that Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours a couple of days ago for incivility. This was increased soon after due to block evasion using an IP to post at the block review on AN/I. At the point that Dorftrottel was incivil, he was drunk. I suspect that Dorftrottel is now sober and probably is upset at his actions. Scars can be left from drunk actions, in this case he has that in his block log. I believe that the block is no longer protective and merely serves as a punitive measure due to Dorftrottel no longer being under the influence, and given that the original block would now have expired, I would like to suggest that he is unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support, with the understanding that Dorf will hit the sack instead of committing an EUI the next time he's got a surplus of sheets to the wind. Dppowell 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, a funny occurence. Support the unblock--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the unblocking. Everyone deserves a second chance. Qst 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Not the first editor to have been busted for EUI - Alison 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. If I've overstepped, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) Dppowell 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the right move, I was hoping to wait for comments from Picaroon and kwsn as they were responsible for the blocks, but I guess it doesn't really matter and we can re-evaluate if they are against the unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on IRC, no problems on my end. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC? I-R-C!(?) Did we not ban the word? The insolence of that medium. Anyway, hopefully this will inspire more assumptions of good faith on his part. He was excessively playing the persecution complex card —which upsets me because that's my bit. El_C 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. You've been very patient with me. A fair warning though: Please stay away from Chilean red wine! Beer or moonshine never had that effect. Beer only gives me the typical 5-beer-homosexuality where I begin seeking more physical contact to other guys, while booze makes me hug the toilet. Maybe we should include some disclaimer on Chilean wine? And the hangover it gave me, you wouldn't believe. Even my usually helpful cocktail of Aspirin and strong coffee had no effect. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you could still type straight and make sense. Different people are affected in different ways. I've seen drunk people unable to complete sentences or click the right buttons, and even leave themselves logged in to public computers... Carcharoth 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, typing half-way straight and making some sense don't take too much effort for me. Not being anti-social does, so it's the first thing to go down the drain. — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I can always think, talk and type coherently when drunk - it tends to be walking in a co-ordinated manner that takes an effort. :-) Walton 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But I've never had a hangover. (Hint: drink gin and tonic. Good stuff.) Walton 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from User:Rubber_cat

User:Rubber_cat has vandalized a number of pages today, though I have reverted all of them to this point. User should be warned and/or blocked for their edits. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user based on the nature of both his vandalism spree today and of his troublesome editing past, however next time such a report should be filed on WP:AIV where it will receive the attention its supposed to receive, this is not a board for reporting vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can an admin delete this page of mine

Hi there,

thanks for your attention to this request.

I would like to post a note about an academic survey invitation to this noticeboard. This was recommended to me after substantial discussion involving several administrators about what was the appropriate way of my contacting administrators to inform them of this survey. As the survey is intended only for Misplaced Pages administrators, it was also suggested that I first ask for the survey invitation page to be deleted so that only admins can access it.

For full details of the previous discussion with admins as well as the page I would like deleted, please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zhanliusc/Survey#Survey

If that looks okay, please can an admin delete that page, and then I will subsequently post the actual note to this noticeboard when I properly open the survey.

If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks very much Zhan Zhanliusc 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're the only contributer to a page, you can just add {{db-author}} to the top. Someone will eventually take care of it for you. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I've added the tag. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. Zhanliusc 11:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it for you. Woodym555 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Zhanliusc 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMan

User:TheNightmareMancontributions continues to unilaterally archive featured article of the day talk pages by moving them and leaving the message "This page has been archived." The user has been warned but seems not to respond to anything. 128.227.126.232 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "It has become apparent that your account is being used only for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely. --Yamla 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)" Looks like this has already been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from bollywoodblog

There is something wrong about all these images. The license summary claims that OTRS has received permission from the blog owners releasing these pics on CC-3. But the blog itself tells a different story. This image for example, is taken from here. Now, if we scroll all the way to the bottom of that page, the blog tells us -

which forbids commercial use. Also note that many of the pics are cropped derivatives of the original. Can somebody here explain whats going on? Or should all these pics be deleted? Sarvagnya 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And oh, btw.. some of them have watermarks on them. Atleast those can be speedied I guess. Sarvagnya 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this issue was brought up before. I thought the user was Hindu Boar but I can't find that name. I will continue searching as I swear this was resolved. spryde | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

and I was right... spryde | talk 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• If some have watermarks then they should be deleted. In my view, if any are provably not the copyright of the blog (i.e. simple crops of a non-PD image) then all should be removed as not having a trustworthy free license. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been questioned many times -yes I can confirm that I contacted the director of caledonian publishing and received permission . He actually said "They would be delighted to help wikipedia" and if you check the system verification you'll see we are permitted to use these images under 3.0. PLease confirm with User:Videmus Omnia or User:Riana who overlooked it. And yes we are trying to avoid watermarked images where possible. Under this license we are indeed permitted to crop images and use commercially. Why am I not surprised Sarvagnya is the editor concerned here? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes it was Spyde who saw this last time. This is turning into a joke . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion Guy but if you spoke to the director of Caledonian publishing who owns that site you would think differently. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• You might care to read it a b it more carefully. What I said was, watermarked images should go (existing policy), and if we find any that are provably not the copyright of the blog then we'd have to delete them all because the claim of copyright ownership would lose credibility. Nobody's disputing that the blog owners have sent the release, the question is whether the rights are, in every case, theirs to release, and if not, what to do about it. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check the OTRS system here which will indeed confirm this 3.0 agreement is legal ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Actually on the Bollywood site there is clear confirmation that wikipedia is permitted to use the images under a 3.0 license and in doing so realises it is allowing them to be used commercially on other sites or whatever for all. Admin made certain this was correct before finalising it. Now would you like the email address of the director to confirm this yourself? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing this brought up repeatedly, it implies I don't know what I'm doing ;) The permissions checks out completely - I did a lot of back-and-forthing to get it all right, mainly because it just seemed frankly a little unbelievable at first that they would be so generous. But we got the all clear. WRT the site notice - I also e-mailed them about this, explaining that they couldn't license one way for us and one way for everyone else, it had to be all or nothing. They offered to take off the site notice about the nc licensing, which sounded agreeable to me and I OK-ed it. The fact that they have not done so is not my/our responsibility. They understand that a cc-by-3.0 license means that their images may appear throughout the internet (and further afield) due to mirroring. They understand that it means derivatives can be made (including the removal of watermarks). They understand it means that the images may be used in a commercial manner. I have gone through all this with them. I don't know what else to do short of actually reproducing their e-mail here, which I'd rather not do, and I'd also rather not see this pop up every few weeks. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And regarding JzG's question (which is perfectly legitimate and I had the same issue at the beginning) - please, please use some judgement when uploading from the blog - obviously professional images are probably not created by them... ~ Riana ⁂ 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, it is probably your fault if this has come up as often as you say it has. After the first discussion, you could very well have updated that category page with a FAQ link to the discussion. All image summaries also should have been updated with a link to the discussion which addressed these 'FAQs'. Of course, its never too late and you can do it even now.

Having said that, your response raises more questions. Especially, when you say that 'professional' looking photos are most probably not theirs. To me many of the photos look professional. And if they're claiming copyright over even one work which is not theirs, then their very credibility is suspect, imo. in other words, is there reasonable evidence that they're themselves not hawking stolen goods? i think this is a pertinent question to ask because this source is an obscure source and we know nothing of their credentials. Who was the photographer of all these pics, for example? bollywoodblog isnt exactly Time magazine. They're not well known for anything and we dont have to take their word at face value.

Furthermore, you say you/we are not responsible for them not changing the licensing info on their site. Can somebody confirm that we can indeed wash our hands off it so easily? Do CC copyright policies allow a work to be simultaneously licensed differently by the creator of the work? Is it not anamolous? Also what if tommorrow they deny the veracity of your email conversations and haul us up for cpvio. Considering how easy it is to spoof emails and email addresses, isnt the hard coded license on the site itself more overwhelming and conclusive proof? Should we be taking these pics down until such a time as they change the info on their site? We obviously cant have them make us look like we're stealing from them!

I dont mean to nitpick here, but given how seriously wikipedia takes cpvios and also how sanctimonious it is about such things, I feel we shouldnt go along with deals like this unless everything is watertight and there are absolutely no loopholes.

Also, why cant I see a copy of the permission which lies with the OTRS? Whats so secret about it that it cant be put out in the open? Sarvagnya 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In US Copyright law, the owner of IP can license the IP anyway they see fit to whomever they see fit (even if the licenses make no sense taken together). And OTRS is a private tracking system to protect privacy and provide official communication channels. spryde | talk 20:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised I have to explain the difference between professional and amateur photography here, but OK. This is a professional photograph. This is an amateur one. This is an obvious screen-cap. This is an amateur. I am going to mark all the obviously professional ones I can find for speedy deletion. I can contact their webmaster again - it will be the 5th time I am doing so, please do not imagine that I'm sitting on my hands here - about the sitenotice. The blog does not have the right to onlicence copyrighted images, quite plainly, under CC. Which is why people should exercise judgement.

The deal is watertight unless you bargain with people's stupidity. Which I should have, I guess. People - only the shitty amateur shots are to be uploaded, not these. The blog does take its own pictures but nowhere does it guarantee that all its pictures are taken by them. Exercise some judgement.

And there is a reason OTRS communications are private. If you doubt my word any of the other hundreds of users with OTRS access could verify it for you. ~ Riana ⁂ 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait... I thought all the images from bollywood blog were owned by them? The license text we are using states, "All photographs used by this site are exclusively created by their own photographers based in Mumbai." If this is not the case, we are going to have to revisit this issue. I think we'd need to require evidence for each image that it is owned by bollywoodblog and this is going to be a huge pain in the behind. I know Blofeld has gone substantially out of his way wrt this whole matter and I have the utmost respect for him and for Riana, but I do note that we are claiming all the images they use are owned by them. --Yamla 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not claiming that - they are :) I asked Daniel to delete all the images I marked as obvious copyvios and he kindly agreed. I think that all we need is for people to exercise a little judgement when uploading. Either that - or scrap the whole deal, because there are too many loopholes which we are willing to fill but they are not. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but if they are claiming that they own all the images and we know they don't, we can't use any of their images. We could never be sure. Note that every time I tried searching for duplicate images, the only duplicates I found were used on other sites after bollywoodblog had posted them. --Yamla 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Right, but if they are claiming that they own all the images and we know they don't, we can't use any of their images." - Precisely my point. And Guy's too, if I've understood him correctly.

"....Either that - or scrap the whole deal,..." - I say, scrap it. Most if not all the images are obvious copyvios and several of them have ugly watermarks on them. Misplaced Pages aint no billboard.

Also Riana, I appreciate that you've taken a lot of pains with this thing, but please dont make it sound like its my fault that I brought this up. Nearly 40 cpvios have already been deleted as a result of this discussion, so dont hold it against me. This deal leaves several questions unanswered and I dont know of any useful precedent either. And imo, this deal will set a bad precedent. Frankly, I strongly suspect that the blog is hawking stolen stuff and we shouldnt be so eager to play into their hands and give them free advertising space on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User THEunique

RE: User:THEunique

I just can't seem to get through to this guy. I add cleanup and Wikify tags, he just yanks them out. All entries to his talk page, User talk:THEunique, just get blanked. He/she has had several image notes added, but he/she just does nothing but blank them out. This is strange one: "14:12, 7 November 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) m (moved User talk:Ochahill to User talk:THEunique: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ochahill" to "THEunique") (undo)"

If you can either get through to him, and tell him how to edit in Misplaced Pages, go for it. Otherwise, I would like the account blocked. This person might also be German, and that is part of the problem, English is a second language.

Thanks, ~ WikiDon 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:USER, editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages. Do you have diffs that illustrate the editor's other issues? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "strange one" you quoted above was a username change request as per Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Archive32#Ochahill → THEunique. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like this is the kind of thing WikiDon is referring to. THEunique has removed tags without addressing the problems listed in those tags. I agree with the above comments though that users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages as they see fit. Username change requests are also not unusual. Also, I'm not really sure where the guess about the user being German is coming from, as the user identifies as a college student from Illinois whose first language is English. Leebo /C 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages" - I have gotten in trouble for doing that to my talk page in the past, the admin said that I was vandalizing. ~ WikiDon 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They were mistaken. IMHO, it's very poor form to do it, and I think many (most?) would agree...but it is allowed. Dppowell 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How long ago were you admonished? The official WP:VAN policy was clarified to explicitly state that editors could remove messages at will from their own talk pages 672 days ago . --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DIFFs

Sterling Trucks:

• he takes out the tag
• I put it in
• he takes it out
• I put it back

Daimler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Chrysler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Fifth Third Bank

• here is with tag
• very next edit, he yanks it

He signed up his account on an IP address that was 68.75.173.255 (talk · contribs) that was being used abusively and blockeb by Admin: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)

If you check the history of his talk page, he received numorous COPYRIGHT IMAGE VIO Notices , plus a Copy Vio for text lifted from Daimler.com. Plus numorous other notices about image removal for lack of proper usage. He just doesn't seem to care. He just lets them get deleted, and then just uploads them again.

• I warn him to stop
• he just blanks the page

He makes no effort what so ever to fix the problem or communicate with other Wikipedians to make the articles better, just bulls ahead with his own personal agenda.

He is also sockpuppetting under at least 216.82.180.23 (talk · contribs), 216.82.180.24 (talk · contribs), just look at all the warning at that talk page. I think that this might be his work address.

~ WikiDon 03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've notified THEunique of this discussion so that he can present his side if he wants. He may choose not to, but it's appropriate to at least let him know his conduct is being discussed. Leebo /C 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good, he has more than abused 3RR, and uses IPs-SPs to help to it. ~ WikiDon 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this ... why did you give the user both a level 3 and 4 vandalism warning at the same time? Applying escalating warnings non-sequentially is highly unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert irreversible page move of Template:Soviet occupation

User:Dojarca recently irreversibly moved Template:Soviet occupation to Template:Soviet occupation zones unilaterally without any WP:RM process to gauge concensus first. Please move this page back per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves. Thanks. Martintg 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, no comment on the merits of the move. east.718 at 04:19, 11/9/2007

Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Misplaced Pages process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegan 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to modify that, you need to work things out with User:Dojarca in a forum other than the template talk space. I'm going to be bold and move protect the page after reading some more. Any admin may revert. Keegan 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree, in controversial cases like this we should defer to community input, and this can best be done via WP:RM and User:Dojarca is free to initiate such a case if he so desires. Martintg 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.

If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty lame edit war to me... and I was involved in the Great Cow Tipping Edit Wars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the case before commenting. After his XfD failed, Dojarca moved, renamed and changed the template without any consensus (everybody but he was against it). No one could care less about the name of the template, it was the content change that was problematical. -- Sander Säde 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally I would absolutely agree with you. However since this discussion has been about the template's move rather than its content, I too feel that the people unilaterally moving pages need to find something better to edit war about. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While User:Future Perfect at Sunrise makes a valid point, the issue here is behaviour. If we allow relative newbie User:Dojarca to get away with this, he may well imagine it is also okay to unilaterally move articles against consensus too, which would be much more disruptive in the long run. A stitch in time saves nine, and all that, for his sake as well as Misplaced Pages's. Martintg 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearing a copyvio notice

Hello. I'm not entirely sure that this page is appropriate but anyway. This article Brent Crude has been cited has being in copyvio. The fact is that the url linked cite wikipedia has it's source. Can some administrator "clean up" the copyvio notice ?—Esurnir 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User 69.249.107.205

This user vandalized the article on Hopewell Valley CHS graduate and rapper "Keyz" by adding the following quotation: "Keyz is notable for his being awarded "punk-ass bitch" status by the Real Gangsta Association of America. This honor is bestowed only upon those who not only lack talent, but have built their reputation upon a completely fabricated biography of poverty and hardship."

Just giving you a heads-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.126.162 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this; I've warned the user. Next time, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. That's the page designed especially for reporting vandalism and you'll likely get a faster response there. Raven4x4x 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial merge straw poll needs closing

Talk:Imaginationland#Merge_poll <- Please can an uninvolved admin read the discussion and close accordingly. I must stress not to just simply vote count, but to leave a rationale on why you've closed the merge that way. This seems like the simplest and most painless way of resolving this squabble. Thanks, Will 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll stay away since I became tangentially involved when I protected Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, and Template:Infobox South Park season 11 episode list. It should be noted however that the straw poll is old, and there is an ongoing RfC here. east.718 at 08:27, 11/10/2007

UAA Backup

The WP:UAA board is backed up right now. Could an admin please take a hack at it? Thanks! Icestorm815 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, it's been cleared now. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, a backup at this page isn't really important enough to warrant a post here. Someone will eventually get to it. -- John Reaves 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Block/ban for further consideration

I've just blocked ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for continued edit-warring, and I'd like some input on what to do with him further.

This is the same user as Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-declared), FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pretty obvious from the editing profile), and likely also the earlier VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus possibly another sock account too. Together, these accounts have a history of almost incessant edit-warring over Macedonia-related articles of well over two years. Even though Foreigner is now quite adept at gaming the 3RR system, staying continually just below the mark, I count a total of eleven separate blocks on these accounts spread over the course of 24 months.

Here's just a representative sample of what editing on these articles is like. Foreigner is obviously not the only edit-warrior in this domain, but I do see him as one of the principal instigators.

• Kiro Gligorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007; all his previous edits during the last months are also reverts
• ASNOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007
• Struga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 6 Nov 2007; previous slow edit-warring all through July and September
• Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv between 2-4 Nov 2007
• Nikola Karev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4rv between 30 Oct - 4 Nov
• Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4 (semi-)rv between 28-29 Oct
• Toše Proeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) revert-warring on 21-22 Oct 2007

I'm open to all suggestions how to proceed further. Community-imposed topic ban? Revert parole? Handing the case off to Arbcom together with the whole rest of the Macedonian-Bulgarian fracas? (That one is going to become the next Armenia-Azerbaijan case, if you ask me.)

Note that I've also handed out shorter blocks just today to two other participants of the same set of disputes (Dzole (talk · contribs) and Jingiby (talk · contribs)). Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I ought to state here that I've myself been editing one or two of the articles listed above (I keep getting asked to intervene in these disputes by this or that side.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of this ongoing Misplaced Pages disruption, I'd say it's time for the ArbCom. — madman bum and angel 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to come up with some policy to handle contentious subject matter like this. That is, some way we can short-cut the whole arbitration committee and just go with 1RR or some such. I have no idea how such a policy could be worded and applied fairly, though, and I firmly believe it should take far more than just one single admin dictating that this is now in effect. Personally, I try to stay away from such conflicts though I am not always successful. --Yamla 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent passed principle in an ArbCom case that when "reasonable efforts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed... seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Presumably, this doesn't extend to administrators; something like this should be considered though. east.718 at 04:26, 11/9/2007

Well, we've always had the authority to do community bans, and community-imposed restrictions such as revert paroles or topic bans are only a logical consequence of that, being simply a selective use of that same authority. The question is just, are we confident doing that in the case of this account, or can we hope for a more comprehensive solution comprising other potential troublemakers? I loathe the Arbcom process, but I must admit for a deeper investigation of the whole field Arbcom might be more suitable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I think it is time for those involved in the articles and outside editors and administrators to have the community sanction discussion. Whether that takes the form of general 1revert parole for everyone or something else the topic area seems to be disrupted by ongoing inappropriate editor behavior. --Rocksanddirt 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now at WP:RFAR#Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey of Misplaced Pages Administrators

Dear Misplaced Pages Administrators, if you are interested in being invited to take part in a brief (about 10 mins) academic survey, please take a look at the contents of the following deleted page :

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zhanliusc/Survey

Please note that this page was deliberately deleted to make sure that only Misplaced Pages administrators can see it. Please do not undelete the content.

This notice on WP:AN and the deleted page technique are being used on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages administrators in order to avoid spamming and to restrict the survey to admins. Please see the deleted page for links to relevant previous discussions with admins, and for further information about the survey (including links to my university site and full contact details).

(Note: I understand that the noticeboard may become busy and there is a possibility that this notice becomes archived quickly (I see this noticeboard page is already quite full). In that case, I may want to post a reminder if that's okay. I only imagine one reminder being needed, if it is at all, as the survey closes after a few days)

Thank you very much Zhan Li, University of Southern California email: zhanli at usc dot edu

Zhanliusc 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zhan. I've seen that you have posted this same message at many admins' talk pages and believe that is sufficient. Could you please stop as posting the same message everywhere would be considered as spamming? Thanks for your consideration. -- FayssalF - 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the best place for the "notice". (As opposed to canvassing...) - jc37 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that's why there has been no reason to revert this thread. However, Zhan can now stop using admins' talk pages i believe. I personally participated at the survey yesterday. -- FayssalF - 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped posting it to admins' talk pages, as far as I can tell from his contribs... Leebo /C 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) -- FayssalF - 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to publish the results so the rest of us can see them? -- Kendrick7 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, I'd like to see the results as well.  ;) Mercury 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! --Masamage ♫ 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He might not be able to publish the results here prior to acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as publication here might constitute "prior publication". Most journals have a policy to not publish previously published material (though things do slip through from time to time). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this project for an intro-level class; I didn't assume that he was intending to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the teacher of the course or an academic collaborator might wish to expand on the work and to include him as a co-author. I agree that he quite likely would not be the first author on such a publication. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of control admin

Hello, it is regretful that it's come to this but I feel I must complain about the recent actions of admin: Duja who in the past few months has moved a few controversial articles without consensus. First was the Myanmar article. Before the anti-government protests came into the Western news and sparked outrage from activists, the Myanmar article was named Myanmar for a very long time without any proposals to change it to the British imperialist name of "Burma". With anti-junta sentiment running high amongst Westerners, there was a proposal to move the article to "Burma". The debate was heated, but, as the archives show, clearly there was no consensus. Despite this, Duja moved the article to "Burma" (1). I requested a move back to Myanmar shortly after (2) but my poll was locked immediately under the premises established that second votes are not allowed until months after the article has been moved. I let it go and forgot about the Myanmar article. Then came the FC Dynamo Kyiv article. There was a vote to move it to FC Dynamo Kiev. There was no consensus so the proposal failed (3). A little over a month later a second vote was held, despite the precedent from the Myanmar article to NOT hold a second vote shortly afterwards, but get this... the second vote failed too (4), more editors voted against the proposal than voted in favor. Does this stop Duja, who also moved the Myanmar article? No. He has the arrogance to move the article to Dynamo Kiev even though two polls were against it, and the second poll should've never have even been held! There is a small, but vociferous movement to move all football (soccer) club articles to that of old, English names such as Sporting Clube de Portugal (Sporting CP for the short) to Sporting Lisbon (the old name) or FK Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (old name). Yesterday, Duja, moved Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (5), again without a consensus. WP is suffering at the hands of these iron fisted admins who ignore common sense and the wills of the editors. This needs to be stopped. At least revert Duja's disruptive edits. If this is the wrong place to post a complaint about an admin then I apologize. --Tocino 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, doing a quick headcount due to that even the closing said both sides arguments were valid the decision to move the article to Burma from Myanmar at Talk:Burma/Archive 3 was 47-19 in favour of moving. I have no opinion on the matter but felt the numbers should be in play as there are arguments of no consensus. –– Lid 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls are a poor way to gauge actual consensus and contribute to meaningful discussion. I agree though, the non-consensus claim seems rather suspect. ~ UBeR 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will note a particular discrepancy between the users portrayal of two events - he noted that his poll to move the Burma article back to Myanmar was speedily closed while the Kiev article was not and continued stating the second move debte should not have happened. The second Kiev debate did take place rather "soon" after the first, a month or so, however the users poll to move Burma back was posted only 24 hours after the first decision. There is a clear case of misrepresentation here as the user has omitted that their attempt to move the article back was pretty much as soon as the last poll had closed. –– Lid 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there was enough opposition in order to nullify the consensus claim. Also, many of the people who supported the move were anons and editors who had political messages in their profiles such as "Save Burma" or "Free the monks" etc. When the vote closed and the protests died down, it seemed more and more editors came out in favor of keeping Myanmar. My case against Duja does not just circle around the Myanmar article though. --Tocino 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we close this discussion. The close by Duja at Talk:Burma/Archive_3#Requested_move does not seem to be in any way questionable. The premise of the complaint is without foundation. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Tocino the move of the Kiev article is interesting as it was a roughly 4-1 result in favour of not moving the article that was overruled on the grounds of google results. –– Lid 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Kiev move should be reexamined. The consensus of the editors should be followed in this case. ~ UBeR 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline: For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used., but I don't know Ukrainian at all, so I don't know how to convert the name of the town from Cyrillic to European using the "Ukrainian National system". Jackaranga 06:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And for FK Crvena Zvezda, there was not a move request for the article except in 2005. This was just made out of the blue, with the comment of "this is the official club name in English." I think the article should be moved back to FK Crvena Zvezda, then a discussion should be made about it. User:Zscout370 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's one thing to be bold but it's another to be bold out of the blue on a subject that has precedent against you. This may be the English encyclopedia but it is not the Western encyclopedia. –– Lid 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true. hbdragon88 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, edit wars related to etymology largely to do with debates between British-English and American-English have a lot to do with the names of Eastern European clubs in an Eastern European organisation. (Use of organisation on purpose). –– Lid 09:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA Deletion Review

Could some additional adminsitrators step in on the deletion review for JAMAA? We won't get anywhere with Metros and I, as we already have a past of disagreements and Metros is using his bias towards me to delete a legitimate page. Please review. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second request. In the last eight hours we have only had one additional administrator join the discussion. I would really appreciate the assistance of someone who has no affiliation with Metros. The way I have been treated by him is absolutely appauling, and despite the many requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration I have filed, and the proof that Metros is abusing his administrative powers by stalking my contributions and reverting them, regardless of their content, my complaints have completely been ignored. This is an absolute outrage, and I do not appreciate that a notable article was deleted within 5 minutes of its creation, due only in part to the fact that Metros has a bias towards me. Rhythmnation2004 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Admins are obligated or need to join into the discussion. An Admin will evaluate the discussion and close it (as with AFD), but anyone can contribute to the discussion - one need not have admins contribute for the discussion to have validity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please comment, and I would like to speak to an admin privately

I have some opinions on Misplaced Pages administration policies. I've posted two topics on Village Pump, called "Administrative policies of banning and blocking editors" and "How to deal with users of questionable mental stability." I'd be pleased if both regular users and administrators could give their opinions. Please view the Village Pump (policy) page to read the postings. Also, I'd like to speak to an administrator(s) privately (possibly through email) about a certain issue. Any admin is free to contact me. - Cyborg Ninja 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another self-admitted sock

CanIBeFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sockpuppet who has rekindled a page which was one of the ways banned POV-pusher Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sought to deflect criticism of his campaign of original research on Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Checkuser confirms this is probably not Awbrey, but I am still left with the question: what long-standing editor would have a reputation that would actually be damaged by proposing such a measure, to the extent of making a sockpuppet account permissible? Or is this just yet another rebuffed POV-pusher trying to reverse engineer a system that will give them the upper hand in a content dispute? It is extremly hard to take proposals like this at face value when we have no idea who is behind them, and such use of sockpuppets is, I think, corrosive, undermining those of us who are prepared to put our names to controversial debates. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point to this post? You have shown your displeasure about allowing sockpuppets for use when editing controversial subjects before, and this clearly isn't the place to garner support for a change in policy - take it to the relevant policy talk page... Viridae 11:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point is to gain other people's input. WT:SOCK shows that I am far from being alone in my unhappiness over the increasing use of sockpuppets in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)