Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 25 March 2009

• 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)

I need some assistance

After recently dealing with DreamGuy in another page (and a fairly long and unpleasant history elsewhere in the wiki), I am coming here first. In Dan Schlund, the result of a few AfD's found first keep, and then no consensus. Despite this, a few editors (read: approximately two) have been trying to end-run the decision to keep by consistently redirecting the article to jet pack. Now, maybe I am mistaken - I often am - but I am not sure that people (even Californians) are jet packs. I am pretty sure that DreamGuy (and the other editor) are aware that humans aren't jetpacks, either. This has been pointed out within article discussion repeatedly, and yet DreamGuy (and another) keep redirecting the article. I have no real interest in the article (though the idea of flying a jetpack sounds pretty freakin' awesome), but I am concerned that two editors are taking it upon themselves to game the system to neutralize the effect of two different AfDs which decided to keep the article. I think that most redirects are done in good faith, but this one seeks to conceal the article in a nonsensical way.
Due to my often contentious contact with this editor, I would appreciate some guidance on how to approach this problem and this article, as any contact with this editor often devolves into being called a wiki-hound who "blind-reverts" and "OWNs" the article. I'd really like, just once, to have a conversation with him that doesn't turn into a rant by him. Help, please. - Arcayne () 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The essence of dispute resolution is getting input from the wider community. Archived AfD discussions are a good record of community consensus (or indeed lack of consensus). Although "delete & redirect" is always an option at AfD, the only editor I see suggesting that is the nominator at the second AfD, and there is certainly no consensus to do so. I can only suggest that all editors involved try further dispute resolution steps and try hard to assume good faith of others. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some WP:OWN issues to me. He redirected, you reverted. Fine that far. If he redirects again, he is being disruptive and he probably knows that (see WP:BRD). Seeing that the last AFD was without consensus, I'd suggest a RFC on the issue. SoWhy 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sheffield, i should have noted that DG has redirected the article X times (before Philippe dispute-locked the article: 1, 2, 3 and after Phillipe removed the dispute-lock on the article: 4,5). I think I am not the only person who has found DG unwilling to work politely and professionally with others (which is why I have some history with him; I tend to react poorly to personal attacks). I am seeking a handle on how to interact with him that doesn't get him (or myself) in hot water; being under ArbCom civility parole, he has a lot more to lose than me. I personally don't like the guy, but I am not seeking his head on a pike. I just don't want to be relentlessly attacked again. I've left articles because of him, and know of at least two noobs who left the Project because of his tendentious behavior.

I am not sure that he will abide by the RfC, as he hasn't been willing to note the prior AfD's. If you folk genuinely feel this will work, I will try it, but I would like to confirm that this is the right approach. - Arcayne () 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth my experiences with Arcayne have shown him to be exceedingly difficult to deal with in any reasonable manner whatsoever. It doesn't surprise me that he has so many issues with so many editors. Erikeltic (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why so many people here assume that the person who reports an edit war is in the clear (not necessarily happening this time, but I've seen it in the past). Arcayne has a long history of edit warring and blind reverting -- in fact he has for years now following me to articles he's never looked at before solely to revert whatever I did. Arcayne not only has WP:OWN issues (he has pretty much single handedly blocked ALL edits I ever make to Jack the Ripper, regardless of how noncontroversial they are), he has WP:HOUND issues, and this report is just the latest in a long, long line of attempts to provoke controversy with me in the hopes that he can run off here to make a one-sided, deceptive complaint and get someone to take the bait and act upon it without checking into it first.

Current discussion on the talk page of Dan Schlund shows more people support a redirect that support keeping the article as is. The only reason it is currently an article at all is that some people who refused to accept that edit warred to have their way and happened to end up having that version there when the article was protected. I maintain that if there is no consensus that the version that should stay is the one that has MORE support, not the one that has less. This whole thing seems to be just a crass attempt to game the system to get their own way despite not having consensus and not having sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. I specifically discussed the issue on the talk page and did not revert immediately after protection was lifted, but I wholly reject the article being held hostage by the people who do not even have simple majority, let alone consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This is sorta what I was talking about. Note that precisely the sorts of comments I said would occur, are occurring. Again, the logic is inescapable: Dan Schlund is not in fact a jetpack. He has a single notation in the article being redirected to. Let me play it out for everyone, as I see the likely tactic here:

1. The editor sets a redirect for Dan Schlund to Jet Pack.
2. The editor would then remove the linking of the name in the Jet Pack article (calling it circular linking), thus removing the existence of the independent (and cited) article.
3. The editor then calls for yet another AfD, citing the fact that the article isn't being read (due to the redirect).

All in all, its a fairly simple and elegant plan, except for the fact that its one or two editors determining that they are smarter than the consensus (as created by two independent AfDs), and last time I checked, we don't work that way..

I have little desire to be drawn into responding to DG's inciting remarks. I've kinda said what I needed to. Unless DG is up to participate in an RfC, I don't really want to talk to him. - Arcayne () 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would note that I did not participate in either AfD; as I said, my involvement if only in regards to what seems a less than genuine tactic. - Arcayne () 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so you invent up this wild scenario in your head, have no evidence anyone plans on doing anything of the sort, no examples of me ever doing such a thing, and use that assumption of bad faith as an excuse to enter into an edit war with someone you have a long history of baiting and filing bogus reports on? Wow, just wow. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The last AFD was a month ago. Nominate it again. Arguing that you think the first admin was wrong on the AFD and that the second no consensus should somehow total into a delete is ridiculous. I don't think it's notable at all but at least list it and get it over with. If the decision was wrong, nominate it again and get a clear consensus. It really shouldn't be that hard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Schlund (3rd nomination) is there. Go for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am hoping it curbs the behavior, but I have my doubts. - Arcayne () 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A redirect is not the same as a delete. A no consensus vote in an AFD in no way means you can't redirect it, especially when more people are in favor of the redirect than opposed. But thanks for the relist if you'd rather participate there than on the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not but you weren't merging all the information in the redirect, so there is a clear difference. An article on all people who use jet packs or something I'd be more sympathetic to but either way, an AFD should at least help settle things or just move on. It's not the worst article out there that's bizarrely survived AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that DreamGuy's behavior in this matter is disruptive and uncivil. Compared to most of the BLPs I've checked out lately, this one is policy-compliant and no worse than harmless. Raising this big a stink because his view did not achieve consensus is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, and does more damage than allowing borderline-notable articles (if it is that bad) to stand. I find him very rude and uncivil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're aware of Arcayne and DreamGuy's long running conflicts. Arcayne has a habit of appointing himself law enforcement and neighborhood tattler over a number of editors. He's public asbout his actions in this regard to DG, and to me as well, and we're not the only ones. Arcayne finds things HE thinks are problems, provokes a bit more, gets something he can say was a reaction that concerns him, then runs to report it. Hilarity does not ensue, Drama slightly more so. Looks like the AfD should sort this out, and since it doesn't look like excessive edit reverting or any warring went on, it's just another scene in the drama. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you had taken the chance to read the original post in this thread (canvassed as you likely were), but I had actually pointed this out quote clearly" "Due to my often contentious contact with this editor, I would appreciate some guidance on how to approach this problem and this article, as any contact with this editor often devolves into being called a wiki-hound who "blind-reverts" and "OWNs" the article. I'd really like, just once, to have a conversation with him that doesn't turn into a rant by him." Had you taken the time to read it a smidge closer, you'd have seen that I was asking for help in dealing with an editor with whom I've collided with before. Now, aside from having been blocked for your own actions at my reporting, do you actually have something substantial to add - I mean, aside from your own animosity? Frankly, for someone who's claimed to want to cross the street to avoid me, you seem to keep popping up. Hmmm. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More to directly address this specific complaint, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's actions on this AFD fall way short of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and include some statements that are simply outright false in an attempt to sway other editors' opinions. I don't know if he didn't bother to look into it beyond a quick glance or what exactly the cause is for the inaccurate claims, but he's certainly not in any position to complain about anyone else's behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe start a thread elsewhere about that. This isn't really addressing that. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds really familiar. It's comforting somehow to know that others have had to deal with this stuff from Arcayne too. Erikeltic (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? You've been called on something you've done wrong, too? Oh that's right, a sock/meat-puppetry investigation, and your own problems with incivility. Is there a reason you are stalking my edits, Erikeltic? Without a proven (ie, administrative) reason, that's fairly uncivil. You should go away. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, why am I not surprised by this latest bit of Obfuscation? The fact remains that you're a bully and you treat other editors like they're your subjects. You're very proud of your 20,000 edits and should be, but have you ever actually worked with anyone here and didn't get everything exactly the way you wanted without starting a huge blow out, opening up various investigations, abusing people verbally, etc.? My comments have nothing to do with me. They have to do with you and your smug and condescending attitude towards everyone you encounter. Erikeltic (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you took offense at being looked down upon for gaming gthe system (ie, canvassing, meat/sock-puppetry). You might have noticed that this discussion wasn't about you. Re-read the actual initial post, and then kindly go away. I don't like you, you don't like me - the best solution is for you to go away. If you are the person I believe you to be, you will be blocked/banned soon enough. The converse it also true. Now, please go away; this discussion doesn't concern you. - Arcayne () 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me: you actually think I'm somebody you've dealt with in the past! Holy cow... no wonder you've been coming after me. All this time, I thought that this was just how you opperate. Fine then. I'm about to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's see what the SPI reveals, because I'm not afraid in the slightest. After that (when you see I'm no puppet) we'll continue our debate in Project Star Trek. Fair enough? Erikeltic (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are someone I've dealt with before in another guise (it hadn't occur to me, either), and I am not "coming after you." You are an admitted meat-puppeteer, an uncivil editor who makes personal attacks, canvasses for causes and treats the wiki like a grudge match. My comment that begins "if you are the person I believe you to be" refers to this aforementioned behavior, and how it will lead you to an unhappy state. As for the sock-puppet investigation, awaiting the backlog is precisely what a number of editors are doing right now. until then, stop trying to reframe the question.

Now, assuming you will re-read the rest of my post, I don't see a real need for us to interact further. - Arcayne () 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent!) Coming in from the AfD. Seems like an obvious keep to me. Regardless, it's not polite to blank and redirect a page during an active dispute. Especially if a AfD nomination has already failed (twice!). Dreamguy should get a slap on the wrist for this. LK (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is a long history of slapping User:DreamGuy on the wrist which does not seem to have been effective. Please see WP:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 for some details of his past misbehaviour and the sanctions and blocks placed upon him. DreamGuy recently made a personal attack upon myself and another editor. I asked him to retract this incivility but he was defiant and repeated his attack. He recently reverted the article in question back several years, undoing numerous good faith edits and continues to edit-war in support of this disruption. This is not helpful to the other editors who are seeking consensus and compromise by reasoned discussion. Does this editor ever make constructive edits? Does he add value to the project? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn versus Tennis expert!

Tennis expert is trying to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, which I am not because I have tried in good faith to get it out their I have multiple user accounts and s/he keeps on removing them. Tennis expert does take Ip address that are harsh about his edits and attributes them falsly to me, which I am not using them. The only Ip address that I have ever owned is User talk:69.247.19.250, and not these

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎ (Undid revision 275673778 by 76.16.99.162 (talk))

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎

04:18, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎ _BLuE 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. A bunch of plaintext doesn't tell anybody anything about what's going on. //roux   07:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What the... — neuro 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This gave me a chuckle. GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case on this user because I dont know who would need alot of so called "legit" alt accounts. GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:STBotI, a bot against fair use

Concerning User:ST47's bot User:STBotI i.e. User:ST47's opinion "say no to fair use", both Travis (chimpanzee).jpg and File:Travis the chimp.png have always included a fair use rationale from the moment they were uploaded, re: message left on my talk page by a bot. It seems nobody read the image description pages and that the bot simply opposes all fair use. Also, yes to fair use makes more sense. If it's fair use in an article here, it's fair use when that article is used. Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia, and Wikimedia Commons is a database of media files. --Chuck (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that the bot does not recognize {{Film screenshot fur}} as a valid FUR. This is a matter of a malfunctioning bot, rather than a more sinister plot to eliminate fair use (the botop's personal opinions notwithstanding). –xeno (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You should contact the bot operator and ask him about the problem. --Tone 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which would be fine, except the fair use rationale for File:Travis the chimp.png is incorrect. It states that the image is not replaceable by a free one, which is clearly false as given the subject, there is clearly a high possibility that a free image could be found. On a separate issue, "Yes to fair use" actually makes less sense. Misplaced Pages is a free encyclopedia. As soon as you use a fair use image in an article, it makes the article unable to be re-used in many jurisdictions as it will involve a copyright violation. Black Kite 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's reasonable to expect volunteers to get a shovel to produce a free image. In any event, any use that's anywhere near our requirements don't make re-use any more difficult than it already is, unless the re-use is highly transformative. Can't do anything about that. WilyD 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's be reasonable about it though; some subjects are going to be horribly difficult to find a free image of. This one - an animal that had been photographed thousands of times during his life - shouldn't be. Not to be mention that the non-free image is of dire quality. Black Kite 16:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I doubt the bot made it's decision based on this, if it did, that's one clever bot. –xeno (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Artificial intelligence at work :) No, it was clearly just a bot error. Doesn't change the fact that the rationale is wrong, though. Black Kite 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
          • ST47 noted that he has fixed it. I've broken the below section as it's unrelated to the bot issue. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

discussion of the legitimacy of the FUR itself

• I have nominated this image for deletion, as it is basically an attempt to get around G4. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since when do we allow template-based boilerplate like Template:Film screenshot fur to be used as FURs? This basically says that any screenshot from a film can be used as a fair use image. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do - use of templates has been widely accepted. This must just be a new one. That's a different issue from the question of whether the rationale applies. Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear example of abuse of the template- that template should be used for articles on the film only. {{Album cover fur}} is fine to use for an album cover on an album article, but it is no good to add that template then wap the cover into the article on the artist. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The album cover one makes sense as an album cover is almost certainly going to be relevant in the article about the album, but this is basically a blanket approval for any film screenshot, regardless of how relevant it is. Even on the article about the film, there's no guarantee that any random screenshot is going to be relevant enough to pass WP:NFCC #8. Mr.Z-man 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that users believe that if they attach a completed FUR to an image, it automatically makes it OK to use in an article. Then they complain when they fall foul of WP:NFCC (and to be fair, how would they know?). We don't deal with this issue well - Special:Upload should make non-free usage a LOT clearer than it does. Black Kite 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to rememeber that this template previously dealt only with the covers for films, for infobox use. I completely agree with Mr. Z-man that screenshots can in no way be given the kind of automatic approval that this template implies, and I would support deprecating or even deleting this template. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Five years" as a block option? Is it necessary?

I noticed "Five years" as a block option recently on the block form, and in looking at it for a while, I was like, "why?" After all, we can't block an IP address for more than a year at a time (unless there's been a change that I don't know about yet), and for a registered user, five years (aka half a decade) might as well be indefinite. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When a vandal has gone beyond the year limit, I see 5 years as the escalation in the block. Some IP vandals should be blocked indef, but 5 years is the next best thing. For everyone else, a link to this block would be helpful. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 21:43

You *can* block a user for 1 year, 3 months, 12 days, 7 hours and 28 seconds. Doesn't mean you have to though.... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is commonly used when issuing a {{blockedproxy}} block. Tiptoety 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandals should never be blocked indef and rarely long term, instead they should blocked based on the nature of the assignment of their IP address. Five year blocks are only really suitable for open CGI proxies on static professionally hosted server IPs. I tend to use this option a lot, but I don't think it should be a generally available option as these are rarely correctly identified, and many open proxies are not of this type. It's very rarely suitable for other types of block. -- zzuuzz 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's more what I'm getting at - it shouldn't be on the drop down menu. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always keep it on the dropdown with a warning. — neuro 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

People can just type any duration they want there. I live the option of 5 years, though I have not yet used it. There is no problem with it being in the drop down menu, we can resist the temptation when we need to. Chillum 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:BEANSY perhaps, but yeah, it serves a purpose, so I don't see a reason to remove it. — neuro 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything that goes past 2012 doesn't even make any sense to me. -GTBacchus 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Three years is the new five years. John Reaves 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because, of course, we'll all be dead and gone thanks to an asteroid commissioned by the 2012 Olympics committee to avoid any scrutiny about schedules. — neuro 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we could remove the five-year option and replace it with "until December 21, 2012". –Juliancolton 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think five years is far too long of a block duration for an IP. Actually, I'd say anything longer than a year is excessive (outside of exceptional circumstances). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that 5 year blocks are only suitable for open proxies. Since blocking open proxies requires a certain about of technical knowledge I think we can trust people doing it to be able to type in their own block lengths where appropriate, so there is no need for it to be in the drop down list. --Tango (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the 5 year option in the drop down box. I have not used it yet, but when I do need to it is nice to know it is there. I don't need any pressing need to remove it. Chillum 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls into the category of fixing something that ain't broke. –Juliancolton 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But of course, I agree with Tango. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question - Since open proxies are normally frowned upon, why not block them indefinitely? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 03:52

Simply because they do not remain open proxies indefinitely. The vast majority of open proxies IPs are not open proxies after only a few months. This is especially true for Tor proxies, zombies, vandalbots, spambots, and misconfigured squids. One of two things happens: either the IP is reassigned (see ), or the proxy gets closed and the IP is no longer available to abusive users. The same logic applies to normal IP vandals, including the ones used for sockpuppetry or death threats. Even professionally hosted server IPs get reused after some time; they can also be blocked longer because they are likely to remain relatively static but the collateral is likely to be less. -- zzuuzz 09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some reports regarding indefinite and excessively long blocks at WP:DBR. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think Pedro's option mentioned above should be in the dropdown menu as well. Keeper | 76 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Necessary" I don't know about. "Useful" yes; approprite to have as an option, I think so. I've been an admin since early '03, and sometimes put repeat vandal ips on my watchlist. I've had some ips go from 1 day block through the gradual steps to 1 year block-- and then come back vandalizing more each time the block expires. There are ip#s that have been vandalizing for years whenever they're not blocked. Policy is not to indef block non-proxy ip#s. If the vandal ip# vandalizes yet again after the second year long block expires, why not give 'em 5 years time out? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the gods might consider it to be hubris. Otherwise, I can't think why not. -GTBacchus 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It all depends from what one thinks the mathematical progression actually is. I made a 1 year block of an IP address not so long ago (for persistent vandalism over a period of 4 months, starting up where xe had left off each time the prior block expired), and I noticed in the block log that the account had exactly followed the pattern 1 day—1 week—1 month—1 year. The next mathematically logical length in succession after that would be 1 decade. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Of course, use of this option would be very rare, but I don't see why its existence is problematic. Heh, this'll shock you - in 2007, I think it was possibly to block someone for up to 38 years. —Anonymous Dissident 06:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You can do that today as well, AFAIK, there is no upper limit on the "other time" option. If you want to block for any arbitrary time, you can... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• As long as administrators generally know that the 5 year option should only be used for open proxies, I don't see a problem leaving it in there for the convenience of admins who work on rooting out those same open proxies. –xeno (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I am not knowledgeable enough on open proxies to make the determination so I avoid those and have never used the 5yr option (but was tempted once on a returning two timer for two consecutive 1yr blocks). Leave it there. -- Alexf 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that we block named accounts as well as IP addresses. So only looking at it from the point of view of whether it is appropriate for IP addresses is missing half of the potential uses for the drop-down list item. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked a few school IPs who vandalized right off one-year blocks for five years, and I haven't had anyone complain. I really don't see a problem with doing this to fixed IPs that only vandalize over and over again ... I think using longer blocks on school IPs has measurably reduced the vandalism we deal with. And some admins were already doing this before the "5 years" option began appearing in the dropdown box months ago. If you want the five year option to be available only for open proxies, have the block page say so because I don't think a lot of admins, especially those of us who are out at the front, know this. Or better yet, take it out of the dropdown box entirely, or limit the maximum block time to a year. As it is, there's nothing to let people know it's intended only for open proxies. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

This noticeboard needs a serious influx of fair-minded administrators. As it stands, administrator Jehochman is practically having to enforce arbitration rulings single-handedly. Thirty-three editors concurred with the idea that more administrators are needed at the recent RfC, yet there are few non-Arbitrator administrator comments at WP:AE at present. I appreciate that arbitration enforcement is a quagmire few wish to get involved in, but this situation is untenable. Please consider helping out. Sincerely, Skomorokh 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to helping out, but most requests do not provide all of the information required per Misplaced Pages:AE#Using this page and/or are not compiled in an useful fashion (who violated what remedy by making which edits ), so I tend to ignore them. There ought to be a template...  Sandstein  17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted what I thought was a well-formed request on AE several days ago, containing case, remedy, prior topic ban, and current diff showing violation. I was dismayed that it was ignored by enforcing admins, and bot-archived with no action either way. A template would have at least informed me that I was barking up the wrong tree. Skinwalker (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh; Hardly anyone is willing to do arbitration enforcement, and yet there are always people willing to critique someone else's enforcement action. Tom Harrison 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating/ deleting current page

A previous staff member set up the log in details and information currently displayed on our page. We are unable to find any of the log in details to update the information on it/ delete the page so we can start afresh and upload the current details of the organisation. Does anyone know hoe we would go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.161.237 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it would help if you linked us to the article you are talking about. Secondly, you do not need to log in to edit Misplaced Pages unless the page is semi-protected. Thirdly, you may wish to be careful about editing an article of which you have a significant conflict of interest with. All additions should meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS at least. Also see WP:COI. Finally, deleting a page must be done through WP:CSD or WP:AfD, but there's usually no need to do so for simple editing of information. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that user accounts should not be shared among a number of editors, each editor should have their own account. Please see WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the article is the Salisbury International Arts Festival, and 85.189.161.237 is wondering why xyr wholesale copying and pasting of a promotional press release into that article was rapidly reverted. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Bulldog123#Signature

It did: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Badagnani -GTBacchus 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have anything to do with this thread's subject though. –xeno (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bulldog123#Signature. User made his discussion page signature non-clickable (s/he has disabled the link to his/her user and talk pages in his/her signature) and seems not to want to change it back despite requests from at least two admins. Please advise if this is the wrong forum for this incident. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this has been discussed before and people are allowed to do this as long as they aren't signing with a different name than their account name. It's annoying as hell, but it seems people have been granted license to be annoying. –xeno (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He is signing with a different name than their account name (User name is "Bulldog123", signature is "Bulldog" with no link). That's a problem. So is his non-sequitur response to admins asking him to remedy that. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the user must use their full actual username rather than a short-form. I've left the user a note to this effect, whilst notifying them of this thread. –xeno (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I added the three numbers. Satisfied? It should be noted that Badagnani has a certain amount of animosity toward me because of content disputes and only bothers with posting this to continue his trail of intimidation. Bulldog123 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is written at WP:SIG#Links that at least one of either the user page or talk page must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. -- Darth Mike  20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, making signatures useful has nothing to do with anyone's animosity. It's just a basic element of Misplaced Pages courtesy. Don't worry, you're not "in trouble" over it or something. Still, you really ought to make it link to your user page or talk page, unless your goal is to be a jerk. -GTBacchus 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this report has very much something to do with Badagnani's personal vendetta, given the fact that this report was made after Bulldog123 commented about Badagnani's mediation and behaviors and ongoing disputes on List of Hungarian Americans where Badagnani happened to violate 3RR again right after his recent 3RR block. He is luckily not blocked yesterday for the disruption btw. Besides, since Badagnani has known that two admins already started a discussion on the signature with Bulldog123 about 18 hours ago on the user's talk page, why he needs to raise the issue here and even to WP:UAA as mistreating Bulldog123 (talk · contribs) like a vandal with an inappropriate name? This report is a tit-for-tat drama. If he really concerns about Bulldog's signature, he should've talked him directly first, not with this way.--Caspian blue 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Caspian blue. I'll reiterate: Making signatures useful has nothing to do with anyone's animosity. The report here may have been filed as part of a campaign to blow up the sun, but that's not at all what I was talking about.

Be careful, by the way, that you don't come across sounding just like Badagnani. -GTBacchus 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate; The matter has been already discussed at his talk page. There is no need for you to accuse Bulldog123 of being a jerk for the signature. It is not a best way to handle the matter and I expect objective eyes from you. As for the last sentence, I suggest you to study Badagnani's contribution further. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse Bulldog123 of being a jerk. I said that if his goal isn't to be a jerk, then he ought to link to his user page. I fully assume his goal is not to be a jerk, and that he'll therefore realize that it's helpful to include the link, and include it. I also respect him enough that I brought the matter directly to him on his talk page, with a direct question. If there's something I'm missing, I'm sure he'll apprise me of that.

You might as well know, given recent history, that I'm already watching Badagnani's contributions, and that when I say "come across sounding like Badagnani," I mean making these accusations, rather that handling disputes in a different manner. I suggest that you handle these disputes in a different manner, but we've already had this conversation. -GTBacchus 23:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because my AGF to Badagnani is really dried up after my good faith advice on OTRS image failed. (ironically the user has been still following almost every my edits to cuisine articles) I am also disturbed by his attempt to divert from his various problems on the spot light. Anyone who can't assume good faith and see others in disagreement with him as enemies, does not deserve constant generosity any more. I think I'm done talking with you on this user. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you are. I didn't think I was talking about anyone's AGF to Badagnani. Weird. -GTBacchus 23:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:ANI#Persistent "Filibustering" of List of X-American sourcing that Bulldog123 has raised.--Caspian blue 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kevin Mosley

An editor has expressed that the discussion is heading towards WP:SNOW, might be worth closing it. --DFS454 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you rotate images somehow

Sorry I put this here. I was not sure where this would be appropriate and it's just a real quick simple question.

Is there some way that you can rotate images? I'm trying to take an American flag image and put it downwards like it's up on a flag pole (with the union at the top). Is there any way I can add something to the code to make it do this?

-Axmann8 (Talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

right|thumb|upright|60px

Only by manually rotating it and uploading a new version. Although, would File:US Flag Vert.png be what you're after? – iridescent 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages as a place for competition

Resolved Nothing to worry about Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to a part of Russian National Student Competitions in English Language would include writing Misplaced Pages articles "about themselves, their team or their University" (thanks to User:Torin for heads up). While articles about Russian Universities are badly needed, I think we should delete or userfy the articles "about themselves or their teams" per A8. If somebody could contact organizers to inform them about WP:N it would be great Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• … and about Misplaced Pages:School and university projects as well. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have phone to Tolyatti to the organizers. The alarm was false: they would use their own university wiki and would not interfere with us Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Eolld

I am posting here upon the advice of others, forgive me if this is the wrong place, and please point me to the right place! This user has made no contributions other than nominating articles for AfD, seems rather suspect, which may be worth looking in to? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

They all look like "legitimate" AFD taggings, in that while they might end up as keep, in every case one can see why someone might think they should be deleted. It may well be an IP regular who uses the account solely for AFD tagging (as the process involves creating a discussion page, IPs can't tag for AFD/MFD). – iridescent 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just felt that to be on the safe side, it was worth bringing it to someone's attention. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

99.249.224.61

Could an admin check in to this users actions, as they seem to be engaging in disruptive editing (, . I originally reported it to WP:AIV, but removed it as didn't seem to constitue vandalism. NanohaA'sYuri 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting biographies in Category:Living people

There are about 30,000 biographies that are not in Category:Living people that need to be examined and put into the category if necessary. The false positive rate is about 1 out of 3. There's no way to automate this—it requires human checking. I've been using AWB to add some of the pages to the category, but it's simply too monotonous for me.

Generally I would just release the list, however, I don't want people to duplicate each other's work by checking the same pages. If anyone is interested or knows anyone interested, please feel free to post here. Even taking a section of the alphabet to check (like all of the Y biographies or something) would be incredibly helpful. It's critical that our biographies of living persons be trackable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do this, and you come across any that are unsourced (but not negative), please tag them with BLPunsourced as well. There are currently only some 10,000 articles in this cat (Category:All unreferenced BLPs), but there are probably some 20 to 30,000 of those (truly unsourced ones, not counting all the badly sourced ones). Negative unsourced ones should be either sourced or deleted of course, but tracking all the unsourced ones is a necessary step in getting them eventually sourced. Fram (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he wants to do it himself... and secondly what you want done can be done by a bot once they are put into the category. All you have to do is take the intersection of the various "missing sources" categories and cat Living people and you have a list of unsourced BLPs. —— nixeagle 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride, my suggestion to you is to post a list in project space somewhere that has sections, perhaps 100 items to a section and then invite people to take on a section or two. If you have to put it on more then one page that is ok :). I'll do a section if you do this. I'm sure others would do a section too. —— nixeagle 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do we find the 30,000 biographies? i.e. is there a way to run AWB on "People whose living status is not known", or better yet "People whose living stauts is not known, but are likely to be living." John Vandenberg 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

August–December 2007 in Iraq

An anonymous user (76.190.143.147) has spent most of a day adding every piece of bad news from http://antiwar.com and removing any good news. I warned them that their edits might get reverted on their talk page, but they have continued their edits in the same manner... I considered reverting the edits myself, but due to the sheer magnitude of effort they have put in, I thought I would get a little backup first. --jhanCRUSH 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted him (as has another editor). I'm not inclined to protect the page because that is unfair to whoever is adding the material. Hopefully they will come to the talk page and discuss changes. For the life of me, I can't see why we have an article like that. Oh well. If this continues you can ask to have the page protected over at WP:RFPP. Protonk (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it appears that these edits have been going on for some time at 2007 in Iraq and that recently, 2007 in Iraq was split into monthly articles due to its length... I have started a discussion at Talk:2007 in Iraq where I have proposed undoing all of these edits and putting them back into one article. --jhanCRUSH 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Arlington Cemetery (Washington Metro)

As per the page their is a difference of opionion between myself and user:SchuminWeb over the picture in the infobox. The third party picture which i added to the page has been repeatedly reverted by the said user, even though the picture (Arlington Cemetery Metro station.jpg) appears to be of superior quality. It seems the only reason why this image has been reverted is due to the fact that the picture prefered by the said user (picture Arlington Cemetery Metro.jpg), has been taken by him. Can an admin please take a look at this issue to end this once and for all. thanks--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You could - and probably should - try other methods of dispute resolution first; I'd suggest a third opinion as a good starting place. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 09:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I see you've now done, thanks. WP:3O may not resolve this, but it should be a good basis to proceed with other forms of dispute resolution. Administrators typically won't use their admin powers in content disputes, so WP:3O is a better venue for this matter than WP:AN unless the situation deteriorates markedly. Good luck! This flag once was red_deeds 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) not an admin, by the way.

Thanks for the advice.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I've marked this as "resolved"; if WP:3O doesn't work and you exhaust other forms of dispute resolution I guess open this again? Until then, good luck! This flag once was red_deeds 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cimbri

Hi, I am somewhat concerned about behavior from an administrator named Berig over an edit I made a few months ago. First, he assumed bad faith, by claiming I was a vandal despite the fact that I was updating the article to reflect similar information in the Sulla article, to which I probably should have gone farther. (The Cimbri were an important Germanic tribe during the late Roman Republic, their article said they arrived in 1000, so I assumed that editor meant 1000 BC. They were certainly in northern Italy at an undisclosed time before 150 BC).

Then he accused me of attempting original research despite the fact that fact was in those other articles, which he did again, the second edit putting him dangerously close to 3RR.

I can't speak for Cimbrian language, but I can say with certainty that the Cimbrian people were in northern Italy sometime in BC or BCE (whatever formatting is preferred), or alot of other articles and historians are wrong. That's not really the point here, that can be addressed on talk pages.

What i'm concerned about is an administrator, a person who represents this website, has behaved so poorly in this. Administrators should be paragons of what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be in principles like Assuming Good Faith and not edit warring. If my editing on Cimbrian Language escalated this, please excuse me. That wasn't my intent, and I was under the assumption that this fact was made clear on Cimbri and not necessary to be taken to the talk pages. I apparently was wrong, so that's why i'm here to avoid any further conflict while hopefully obtaining an apology for Berig's poor behavior. Spinach Monster (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly OR to add "BC(E)" after the year 1000. It is preposterous to claim that the speakers of the High German dialect called "Cimbrian language" come from people that settled the region 1000 BC. Even if there were a connection between the 2nd c. BC Cimbri and the "Cimbrian language", claiming that they settled there in the Bronze Age is plain OR.--Berig (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been best if those claims (both of them) were backed up with reliable sources? When they are not sure of what they see, people naturally start to assume things. Spinach Monster, I don't think Berig was assuming bad faith, but when you see BC being added to an year that was actually hundreds of years after that, you'd think that someone was messing with it. If someone sees something being changed that they know definitely to be correct, it wouldn't occur to them that the user was trying to help but would assume that it is an attempt to add false information. That's why sources are needed. And btw, we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source. If this is the case, then a reference should be added to the article about the year (and for some other important points too if possible, since the article currently has none) to avoid problems like this again. If it is actually BC, then again a source should be added for the same reason. It won't be any use arguing about something if both sides don't have anything to back up what they are saying. Chamal 12:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Note: Spinach Monster opened this thread six minutes after about the same time Berig started a thread over on ANI, so there are duplicate threads. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Scratched part of comment, it's hard to say when a user actually started a thread, only when they hit "save". --64.85.214.78 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying To Clarify The Points Here

• "1000"

The "1000" edit was made several years before I came to the article. I had nothing to do with this.

• "BC"

What I put in was that the Cimbri were there in Northern Italy (to my fault, they were also in southern Gaul), in BC. I do not have sourcing for or against 1000 BC, so I left that alone, but I knew 1000 AD was incorrect since all of those articled, as well as articles where it is sourced like Gaius Marius say that the Cimbri were already there in the 2nd Century BC, 1100 years before 1000 AD. We can put in referencing or not, but that's not the real issue here.

• Berig's Bad Faith

Despite all those other articles, despite the five seconds it would have taken to either change 1000 BC to the 2nd Century BC (I had completely forgotten about this, but Berig edits these articles often), or even just congenially asking me what the edit was about, he just plain assumed I was a vandal because the fact that the Cimbri were in this area before he wants to admit goes against his views. That's the real problem here, and once he apologizes, we can move forward very quickly here. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you certain that the "Cimbrian language" arrived with the Cimbri. Do you have a reliable source for this information, or is it your own analysis based on similarity of names?--Berig (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask the same for you, but that isn't the point here. your poor behavior is. Please apologize so we can move forward. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather remind you of WP:NOR and WP:RS. If you heed WP policy there's less risk that you make mistakes that are so extreme that they are interpreted as vandalism, as you did in this case. As Dbachmann said: "...just changing a date by 2000 years with an edit summary of "bc" and no other explanation is clearly out of line".--Berig (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As an uninvolved, non-admin observer I'm trying to see where Berig breached WP:AGF. As far as I can see the accusation is that Berig created a section heading titled "Vandalism?" on Spinach Monster's talk page - that doesn't strike me as a breach of WP:AGF but rather a query. If Spinach Monster isn't happy with being asked whether their edits are vandalism - and that question seems reasonable when confronted with an edit summary of "bc" - then perhaps they need to rethink their editing style? Even assuming bad faith, surely there are other venues for this discussion - numerous talk pages, WP:WQA, etc - it's difficult to see why this merits admin attention, other than the tired "OMG an admin was rude to me!" which seems to migrate towards WP:AN for reasons I can't fathom. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Singnel (Singapore) blocked

One of the largest ISPs in singapore is Singnet. However, edits are disabled due to vandalism and such and the block implemented is quite harsh (since last year, 2008). It's not right to block the whole userbase from editiing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kth6 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which IP are you referring to? -- lucasbfr 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

For several days, in the Derby of the eternal enemies, User:Galis and an IP editor (I don't know if they are the same person) have alternately started an edit war removing a particular paragraph of the article which is well sourced, due to their fanatism and without any serious argument. Could anyone help with it? - Sthenel (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an improper venue for this. Looking at the page, page history, and talk page, this is a content dispute that could be resolved at WP:3O, or if the parties are uncooperative, try WP:RFC. You should be careful at this point not to violate WP:3RR, even though it is over a period of a few days it can still be applied to all involved editors. --64.85.215.3 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New mail handling procedure

The Arbitration Committee receives a substantial amount of e-mail each day on its mailing list, arbcom-l. To streamline the process of handling arbcom-l traffic and improve response times, the Committee has adopted a new procedure for handling incoming mail, which supersedes the current mailing list coordinator position.

The procedure was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Stephen Bain, Wizardman

The Committee wishes to thank Deskana for his diligence as mailing list coordinator over the past three months. Deskana went above and beyond the call of duty in continuing to assist the Committee despite having no obligation to do so following his retirement; if not for his efforts, the Committee would be in a significantly worse position at the moment.

For the Committee, Kirill  00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure

One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.

The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Stephen Bain

The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: FayssalF, Vassyana
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Risker, Stephen Bain

The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.

For the Committee, Kirill  00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused

Why can't I redirect my page to my talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwps (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You ought to be able to be. Try opening the page for editing, removing all the text and replacing it with #REDIRECT ]. In future, you might want to ask questions like these at the Help Desk. Regards, Skomorokh 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

However, please be aware that you cannot redirect pages from the mainspace to userspace. TNXMan 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite schoolblocks

I came across a bunch of indefinitely blocked IP addresses blocked with the templated reason {{schoolblock}} and as far as I can tell these were not OTRS requests. I think they should be unblocked as they've been in place since 2007. No prejudice to reblocking with an expiry if they resume vandalism. This came up because of a seemingly good faith request here: User_talk:216.120.198.130#Long term block. –xeno (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 193.63.87.227 ChrisO 20070226123640.00 schoolblock
• 206.176.111.212 ChrisO 20070226182141.00 schoolblock
• 216.162.84.225 ChrisO 20070226195622.00 schoolblock
• 4.2.176.222 ChrisO 20070227141541.00 schoolblock
• 170.161.70.98 ChrisO 20070227163507.00 schoolblock
• 168.212.152.20 ChrisO 20070227164240.00 schoolblock
• 164.58.184.212 ChrisO 20070227194436.00 schoolblock
• 72.2.102.246 ChrisO 20070329132857.00 schoolblock
• 202.146.15.20 ChrisO 20070515090723.00 schoolblock
• 142.22.16.58 ChrisO 20070426184518.00 schoolblock: Incessant vandalism unblocked with blessing of blocking admin
• 83.31.112.163 El C 20070929090203.00 schoolblock unblocked, user had no contribs (oversighted?)
• 64.56.135.200 Ilmari Karonen 20070214190558.00 schoolblock
• 209.188.169.34 Ilmari Karonen 20070506114002.00 schoolblock unblocked by blocking admin
• 198.236.64.24 Jossi 20070601194730.00 schoolblock
• 38.116.200.68 Jossi 20070604160351.00 schoolblock unblocked (admin retired)
• 62.171.194.4 Netsnipe 20070309170114.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.5 Netsnipe 20070309170129.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.7 Netsnipe 20070309170141.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.8 Netsnipe 20070309170155.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.10 Netsnipe 20070309170213.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.11 Netsnipe 20070309170225.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.12 Netsnipe 20070309170243.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.13 Netsnipe 20070309170255.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.36 Netsnipe 20070309170314.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.37 Netsnipe 20070309170326.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.38 Netsnipe 20070309170339.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.39 Netsnipe 20070309170351.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.40 Netsnipe 20070309170403.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.41 Netsnipe 20070309170422.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.43 Netsnipe 20070309170500.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.44 Netsnipe 20070309170506.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.45 Netsnipe 20070309170514.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.42 Netsnipe 20070621125518.00 schoolblockunblocked, lets see how it goes.
• 210.11.188.11 Netsnipe 20070327171426.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.12 Netsnipe 20070327171440.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.13 Netsnipe 20070327171455.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.14 Netsnipe 20070327171514.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.15 Netsnipe 20070327171541.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.16 Netsnipe 20070327171557.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.17 Netsnipe 20070327171611.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.18 Netsnipe 20070327171629.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.19 Netsnipe 20070327171650.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.20 Netsnipe 20070327171657.00 schoolblock these were requested by school personnel
• 194.83.57.155 Netsnipe 20070605112137.00 schoolblock this one too
• 166.109.124.231 Ocatecir 20070917194053.00 schoolblock unblocked by blocking admin
• 138.37.7.247 David Gerard 20070518201018.00 schoolblock: blocking anon only
• 68.160.100.226 Duja 20070523140043.00 schoolblock: Nothing good ever came from this IP, apparently unblocked

Resolved – Dealt by ChrisO, move proposal closed as WP:POINT. Húsönd 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Legitimate accounts. MY stupidity never ceases to amaze me... ;)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards