Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:19, 2 March 2007 view sourceMichael Snow (talk \| contribs)Administrators19,335 edits →Rcade's place in all of this ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:20, 2 March 2007 view source 72.94.158.49 (talk) →Unblock of Thekohser?: Don't sweep this under the rug until Durova can respond!Next edit →
Line 156:		Line 156:
	----		----
	Suggest closing this discussion per ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)		Suggest closing this discussion per ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Durova, please don't <s>hide</s> close this discussion until people have a chance to see what you're going to say in response to the heap of evidence that your claim against Kohs (that I've "given misleading information to journalists") is bogus. --] 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Vandalism at Costa Rica ==		== Vandalism at Costa Rica ==

Revision as of 05:20, 2 March 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is up to no good again on Sweetest Day and various related pages on both here and on Commons, despite being blocked several times for disruption and being warned countless times on his talk page about not resuming the issue. His recent contributions consist of edit warring over previously-removed links to a Commons gallery of articles related to Sweetest Day (the talk page there contains much POV pushing), and in late January he was again POV pushing (here, here as "reverting sophisticated vandalism", etc.), though nothing was done. Almost all of his edits are to things related to American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and he has a long history of personal attacks and accusing other editors of being part of a corporate conspiracy (see ANI links below).

Previous ANI discussions: , , , .

This user clearly has no intent to change his ways or otherwise stop pushing his POV, as he has come back again and again despite being blocked or warned. Therefore, I propose a community ban. --Core desat 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had numerous, numerous dealings with this editor and was really close to filing an Arbcom before he took a break around the beginning of the year. The Commons thing is kind of a final straw for me because it pretty much cements the fact that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is absolutely dedicated to gaming the system to push his POV by going outside the Misplaced Pages space to circumvent the consensus here. As Coredesat (talk · contribs) stated. he is nearly a single purpose account here and without going into too much detail about off-Wiki matters, There is evidence out there that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) could never be neutral about these topics; he has an axe to grind here. I've spent so much time pointing out to him why his contributions are POV that I'm fairly certain I would not be viewed as a neutral outside party to this. This could be considered an endorse if anyone wants to see it as such, though I completely understand if my opinion is discounted here.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the observation that there is a serious issue here. The community restriction could probably be limited to Sweetest Day, Hallmark Cards, American Greetings, their talkpages, and related articles, with the ability to expand it to other areas if necessary. (I suspect if banned from these pages he will cease contributing altogether, but we would see.) Newyorkbrad 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose topic banning this editor. I issued a 72 hour block back in November (one of several by various admins). Appears to have a strange greeting card industry conspiracy theory. This has drawn out too long to be a joke. Durova 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can we do community topic bans without an ArbCom case? I think it's been brought up before, but there wasn't much discussion. --Core desat 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Arbcom seems to support the idea, have a look at the arbitrators' vote summaries in this case. Seraphimblade 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    - In that case, the idea proposed by Newyorkbrad seems fine to me, seeing as it would end up being equivalent to a ban or block anyway (since he doesn't edit anything unrelated to those topics). --Core desat 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      - I'd agree with that so long as it is clear that related articles are covered too (he has recently taken to editing articles related to those company's IP; Holly Hobbie, Strawberry Shortcake etc.) as well as the Hallmark holiday aritcle, where he has tried to POV push as well. To be fair, he as at least one edit to a topic related to A Course in Miracles which seemed fine.--Isotope23 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        For the record I'd support either a topic ban or an outright ban on this editor. 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        I frankly believe it is time for an outright ban on this editor. He is the dictionary definition of a single purpose account with some COI mixed in, as well. There has been too much time and effort wasted in trying to get him to reform or simply stop.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support article ban, maybe other restrictions. I cannot recall a single edit to that article by that user which was not egregious POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. User:Miracleimpulse is the only person to contribute ANY new information to this article whatsoever. I support his efforts 100%, and it mystifies me that so many people want to see completely factual and relevant information removed from the article in question. It almost seems like there is a team of people assembled here specifically to keep every edit he has ever performed permanently reverted, when every edit he has performed has been completely factual and relevant. A scan of a census form of the purported ORIGINATOR of this holiday? Scans of newspaper articles reporting on the holiday's INCEPTION? How can these be considered irrelevant? How can these be considered "POV pushing"?

meisterchef 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that other than 1 edit to Halo, meisterchef's only contributions here have also been in regards to Sweetest Day, supporting the position of Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs), and disputing a block for being Miracleimpulse's sockpuppet (which a checkuser I initiated disproved). He has chosen the same assumption of bad faith as Miracleimpulse in regards to the motivations of editors who have challenged Miracleimpulse's novel synthesis of ideas.--Isotope23 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I would prefer it if you would address the questions I've posted, rather then immediately attack my credibility, or the validity of my opinion. It's not very polite, and certainly not an assumption of good faith on your part, isotope.

meisterchef 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of the points you've made has been exhaustively covered on Talk:Sweetest Day. I'm not going to rehash it here. If you read through that and still don't understand why the article versions Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) favors are original research and why the images belong at commons instead of in the article, I'd be happy to discuss it on your talkpage or mine. I never attacked your credibility; I pointed out the fact that you don't have many edits here and the ones you do have are primarily in your own userspace. What I did is no less polite than suggesting "there is a team of people assembled here specifically to keep every edit he has ever performed permanently reverted".--Isotope23 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what purpose would bringing up my edit history serve in a forum such as this, if not to cast doubt upon my credibility? Please, let us call a stone a stone.

I've read Talk:Sweetestday quite thoroughly. Adequate answers to my questions have never been posted, despite the fact that there is clearly a consensus in favor of User:Miracleimpulse's tremendous contributions to the subject. meisterchef 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I answered your questions point by point if I recall... and clearly the consensus is against the version of the article Miracleimpulse tried to keep adding. In fact you were the only one to support him. Nobody questions the fact that he produced some valuable sources in regards to the topic (namely the Cleveland Plains Dealer newspaper articles); the problem is that he then took those articles and tried to push a series of his own novel theories into the article based on the sources. The sources don't support his additions (he is inferring and interpreting them to mean something different than what they actually say) and when confronted with a clear consensus against his POV pushing; he chose to be disruptive. That is the issue. If we could somehow separate Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) "the researcher" from Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) the "POV warrior trying to bring down the greeting card industry for a past slight" that would be great. That isn't a possibility though and the bad far outweighs the good here.--Isotope23 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Last year, I was a MedCab mediator for this case and I firmly believe Miracleimpulse is a highly intelligent, thoughtful and sincere person. Essentially, Miracleimpulse's view is the 'holiday' was cynically invented for commercial reasons, which isn't really disputed by any of the editors involved. Obviously, the article has to use reliable sources and indicate the contrasting view. Miracleimpulse's arguments are entirely compelling and the use of evidence is flawless. However, building a solid argument regarding a historical event isn't really within the scope of Misplaced Pages or any of the current sister projects. If we had a sister project of Wikimagazine or similar, the evidence could be presented and Miracleimpulse would probably get a barnstar. Also, there has been some disruption and in this context, I regretfully agree with the article ban. Addhoc 18:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article folks. References 1, 2, 4, 12, and 13 are all unsourced internet websites. The ONLY sourced references provided were provided by User:Miracleimpulse. I cannot believe there is a discussion here related to BANNING the most valuable contributor to the topic at hand.

We follow the rules to point of nit-picking when we're looking at User:Miracleimpulses work, but ignore them altogether when blatent violations of policy are present in the article itself. Why?

meisterchef 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's Meisterchef's contribution history. I smell socks in this small (under 50 edits) laundry bin. Durova 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, a Checkuser suggested that is not the case, even if WP:DUCK would suggest otherwise.--Isotope23 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your concerns meisterchef. Reference 1 is from the St Petersburg Times, reference 12 from The Chicago Tribune and reference 13 Mount Vernon News. The only industry sites used are 2 & 4, and these are only used to explain the industry view.

1 ^ Cridlin, Jay. "A sweet day for Hallmark", St Petersburg Times, 2006-10-21. Retrieved on 2007-02-21.

2. ^ Sweetest Day, retailerconfectioners.org. Retrieved on 2007-02-21.

3. ^ The Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 15, 2005.

4. ^ Sweetest Day History and Facts theromantic.com. Retrieved on 2007-02-21.

5. ^ The Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 15, 2005.

6. ^ The Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 8, 1921 and October 8, 1922.

7. ^ The Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 8, 1921 and October 8, 1922.

8. ^ The New York Times, October 8, 1922.

9. ^ The New York Times, October 10, 1927.

10. ^ The New York Times, September 25, 1937.

11. ^ a b c The New York Times, October 18, 1940.

12. ^ Arnett, Lisa. "Sweet wine o’ mine", The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 2007-02-21.

13. ^ Orsborn, Kimberly. "Sweetest Day born in Ohio", Mount Vernon News, 2006-10-20. Retrieved on 2007-02-21.

Addhoc 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs at Talk:Sweetest Day where we've already exhaustively discussed the difference between Primary and Secondary sources and why the contention that those so called "unsourced internet websites" are perfectly valid sources for the statements they source.--Isotope23 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, another assault on my credibility, and a yet another veiled accusation of sock-puppetry. At least we're consistent. Are you going to ban me again for voicing my opinion next?

Reposting the original references here doesn't magically make them into sourced or verifiable references.

Do what you will folks, but this is wrong.

meisterchef 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say to that is please read WP:ATT and WP:RS; you apparently have the same misunderstanding of sources and how they are used here that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) has.--Isotope23 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Meisterchef indefinitely, and I will explain myself in full here. This user's first edit ever was to Talk:Sweetest Day. Sweetest Day is one of the most obscure holidays/observances that I have ever heard of, and I've celebrated Mole Day and Pi Day. Checkuser evidence came back inconclusive towards this editor being Miracleimpulse. However, based on his edits alone, it can be said that this user is at the very least a disruptive meatpuppet of Miracleimpulse if not Miracleimpulse himself. The fact that Meisterchef suddenly appeared again after two months of inactivity to prevent a ban on Miracleimpulse is plainly enough evidence that I needed (again) to firmly state that Meisterchef is not here to contribute to the project and he is a sockpuppet of Miracleimpulse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His response—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive meatpuppetry is just as bad as abusive sockpuppetry. I don't think a simple topic ban will solve the problem anymore. --Core desat 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Thekohser?

Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz

Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Gregory Kohs, the guy who was running WikiBiz (and is now busy with Centiare) is asking to be unblocked. He says he's given up the paid editing stuff for good and would like to be able to edit Misplaced Pages just to improve the encyclopedia. So, what does the community think? I'm not opposed to the idea. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose. Until ~~last month~~ this week he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. Durova 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the sockpuppet's name? Anyway, Greg is saying that Jimbo is amenable to an unblock, but I'd like to hear that from Jimbo personally, of course. --Cyde Weys 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

JossBuckleSwami was indef blocked on January 23 as a disruptive sockpuppet of Kohs. Durova 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, could you please cite where, specifically, Kohs "has given misleading information to journalists"? Without such support, that could be construed as a defamatory comment. --72.94.152.27 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to double check for the exact instance, but it was linked through the Misplaced Pages Signpost in mid- to late- January. Also see this frivolous complaint he lodged against two editors in good standing last fall while he was sitebanned. He actually tried to run for the arbitration committee after Jimbo banned him. Incredible. Note also that User:72.94.152.27 who poses this question (which treads on the margins of a legal threat) is a suspected sockpuppet of Gregory Kohs. If that suspicion proves true then Kohs is violating WP:SOCK in the attempt to manipulate his own unblock discussion. I support this siteban with every fiber of my being. Durova 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the AP story from 24 January 2007. I corresponded with its author Brian Bergstein afterward. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Kohs heavily spun his version of events. Just to cite one example: Kohs says he got about 10 clients into Misplaced Pages this way over the next few weeks. (He won’t name the clients because he wants their entries to stick.) Well, obviously that version of things makes no sense to anyone who knows how to read an account contribution history. To summarize the main stuff, Mr. Kohs articulated a good understanding of site policies in his initial correspondence with Jimbo, which was why he got a tentative go-ahead. The actual MyWikiBiz edits were highly problematic. Some articles had to be deleted and others required heavy re-editing. This is someone who games our site to make a buck and who also games the media. Given his record of misleading promises, heavy sockpuppetry, and unfounded allegations of misconduct I have absolutely no reason to trust his promises now. To the best of my knowledge, MyWikiBiz was never an approved role account so there's no need to doubt whether the ban applies to Gregory Kohs - it does, and if there had appeared to be any doubt I would have indef blocked him myself at the conclusion of his frivolous request for investigation. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Here there is ample evidence to the contrary. Misplaced Pages doesn't owe this man a living. Durova 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, your commentary above indicates that you lack even a basic understanding of the actual course of events. The "account contribution history" of User:MyWikiBiz would not reflect my paid editing, per the agreement that Jimbo made with me! This was pointed out critically many times by esteemed Wikipedians like User:Hahnchen in posts such as this. I, too, had expressed concerns that the "Jimbo Concordat" was an inferior solution to what I had initially proposed to do -- edit in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure. But, when Jimbo tells you that his framework will be "nice mutually beneficial ground", you listen to the man.

So, here's the timeline for you. In August, Jimbo told me that I could author paid-to-edit content and post it on a GFDL space on my own website. Then, if respected editors of Misplaced Pages independent of MyWikiBiz.com felt that this content was appropriate and worthy of inclusion into Misplaced Pages, they could scrape that information into Misplaced Pages themselves. It would be their "account contribution history" that would show up on Misplaced Pages, not MyWikiBiz's. Brian Bergstein must have been awfully confused by you, if you didn't even understand (or properly convey?) this basic premise of the editing history process. You've certainly shown here that you don't know how my business was actually operating (under the clear instruction of Jimmy Wales).

Throughout late August and September, this transfer of articles from our GFDL site to Misplaced Pages was exactly what was happening (see Arch Coal if you must have an example), and "about 10 clients of MyWikiBiz got into Misplaced Pages this way". (Just to keep score, this phrase is apparently how you think I misled AP reporter Brian Bergstein. Still feel that way?) In the case of Arch Coal, User:J.smith elected to make the copy into Misplaced Pages on September 19th. I never contacted, prompted, or goaded User:J.smith to make this copy. Do you notice that nobody had any problem whatsoever with Arch Coal for two weeks, until the night of October 4th? That's when I had e-mailed Jimbo to ask for his clarification on WP:COI, which had been mysteriously promoted to "guideline" from "discussion", all while it seemed to have tenets that were in conflict with the principles of the Jimbo Concordat. So, naturally, I wanted to hear Mr. Wales' thoughts on resolving this disconnect. That's when Jimbo went ape-shit and deleted Arch Coal and blocked my account.

Now, if you are saying that User:J.smith is a sockpuppet of mine, then I will concede your point that I had "given misleading information to journalists". If you are saying that User:J.smith was paid by MyWikiBiz.com, then I will concede your point. If you are saying that User:J.smith was somehow duped and had the wool pulled over his eyes, that he couldn't see that the original version of "Arch Coal" was a "travesty of NPOV" (as Jimbo critiqued this particular article, to the confusion of many other independent editors), then I will concede your point, but I hope you'll also help educate User:J.smith on how not to be such a gullible nimrod in the future. Are these the claims that you are making? If so, then you win, and I most certainly gave "misleading information to journalists". However, if you are not making these claims, then you are just perpetuating your own fictional brand of personal defamation. Furthermore, I'll be happy to live with it, because it just exposes you (and many other Wikipedians) for having some kind of personal agenda here. --72.94.158.49 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Greg, if you've got a problem, go write a letter to the Times or something, but just go away. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser should probably be run on Ray Regan before Greg's unbanned, at least. See this diff, for instance. His contribution history shows he's clearly somebody's sock puppet. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Private conversation that I've had with Mr. Kohs makes me believe that he would not be able to edit without significant controversy. His beliefs about both Jimbo and the rest of the community are absurd to the point of assuming not just bad faith, but assuming a culture of censorship. Ral315 » 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the sockpuppet's name? Plural. Also throw in JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I just see no good coming of this.--Isotope23 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~My opinion remains neutral until more information provided. Jimbo blocked the role account/business account, or the absolute individual behind the account? If the user has given up the controversial paid editing, is there any inherent harm in allowing this user to start "good faith" editing? Navou / _contribs 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This blog comment exchange gives me no hope that he can fit in. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That blog comment exchange shows fairly well that Kohs has made some very clear points -- especially the one about how he and Jimbo came to a mutually beneficial agreement to write GFDL content off-Wiki -- but that most of his detractors seem to ignore or disregard that, even though MyWikiBiz was operating fully within the terms of that agreement. I think everyone SHOULD read that blog comment exchange, because if you come away still thinking that Kohs can't be a productive contributor, you're not reading carefully. --72.94.152.27 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Calton's blog citation and Isotope23's succinct summary. --A. B. 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Someone who views WP as a platform for "content" (sic) raises a big red flag, waving frantically to and fro. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Reserving judgement We need Jimbo's opinion on this. JoshuaZ 05:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I support unblocking, because, ~~unlike the rest of the cabal~~, I actually looked at his contributions, and I see that he contributes.--GordonWatts 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's posts like this couple with your constant wikilawyering that I've been observing on the ArbCom page that make me think you need to be indefinitely blocked. Please stop trolling. – Chacor 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Who are you? And what exactly is your problem? I wasn't talking to you -and I wasn't talking about you -lastly, I wasn't talking about that ArbCom page, so kindly butt out and get back on topic here. Either vote for the guy, or against. Any more stalking comments like this, and I will seek sanction.--GordonWatts 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  - On reflection, maybe it was not so nice to label you as a cabal for your vote, but I still think that you are bullying this guy, and I don't like it. Remember: I have some experience in the area of being bullied by those who violate policy (such as WP:Consensus policy), and I know what I'm talking about. I redacted my thoughts -true or not, they were insulting. That is my way of apologising, and showing I intended no harm on your part. Get mad, but don't be insulted or hurt.--GordonWatts 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Go ahead. You have no right to tell me to "butt out" of anything. You are on the verge of a community ban. You need to get your act together. You wikilawyering over the arbitration request was ridiculous. It's edits like this that just go to show why you shouldn't be a part of the project, because you refuse to listen to others. – Chacor 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      - That's enough of this here. The debate is not being helped by this argument in any way, so I suggest that this be continued elsewhere, where it won't get in the way of an ongoing discussion to which it is only tangentially related. Daveydweeb (/_review!) 09:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        FYI:GordonWatts was sitebanned yesterday. I doubt any closing admin would count his vote. Durova 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This decision is not going to be effectively made by voting. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Be patient per JoshuaZ; at the least, we need Jimbo to clarify whether or not the block was just for the paid editing stuff, or whether the person behind it was intended to be blocked. Nothing productive will come on insufficient information. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Regardless of whether "the person behind it" was blocked or not, I'd support (effectively) a community ban because of the blog posts (and past edits), which suggest that the person will never be able to edit constructively, and show a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COI and WP:OWN. On the other hand, we could give him another chance (if Jimbo and Co. agree), but keep him on a "short leash". --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Note - According to his schedule, Jimbo is currently in India, and will not return to North America until April. I highly doubt whether he'll see this anytime soon... Scobell302 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Goodness no - take a look not only at the post that Calton linked to above, but also his reply to JzG two posts down. That whole thread has actually been very enlightening about several things. --BigDT 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. COI edits are not why he was banned, he was banned for block-evading sockpuppetry and attacks. As far as I can tell he is still engaging in sockpuppetry (who else would suggest that a subject be taken to Kohs' website in an AfD debate?) and off-wiki attacks. Above all, every interaction I've had with Kohs indicates that he fundamentally does not accept Misplaced Pages's principles and policies. His view appears to be that Misplaced Pages shouold be a directory and should allow article subjects to have editorial control over their articles. Plus his MyWikiBiz account was indef-blocked by Jimbo, so this accounts is itself a ban-evading sock. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you SAYING that Kohs thinks Misplaced Pages "shouold" (sic) be a directory does not mean that Kohs thinks Misplaced Pages should be a directory. I think he realizes the difference, and for you to speak of "interactions" with him, when you've said yourself that you ignore his e-mails, is rather hypocritical, don't you think? --72.94.152.27 13:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop referring to yourself in the third person, Gregory, and the answer is "no" because (a) I didn't ignore your emails I just didn't waste your time or mine pretending that your deliberate conflict of interest editing is ever likely to be acceptable - and I already told you that, you are simply repeating a known falsehood - and (b) it is pretty much in your own words that you think Misplaced Pages is a failure as a business directory because it does not allow COI edits and does not allow article subjects control - see your posts to the mailing list and various on-Wiki debates. Sure, Misplaced Pages is not a great busienss directory, sure I can see why businesses would not want to add themselves. Guess what? We're quite happy with that! Guy (Help!) 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I just don't think he can be trusted. -Hit bull, win steak 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links:

Any discussion of Thekohser must include a look at JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), believed to be his sockpuppet or meatpuppet from November until blocked 23 January
Beyond that, skim this discussion for a sense Swami's outlook on Misplaced Pages as of January. The discussion can sometimes ramble -- the diffs and other links near the end are probably more useful than all the verbage:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#User Talk pages
For an off-Misplaced Pages update on Centiare, take 5 minutes to check out the external links at:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#Centiare/MyWikiBiz update
If you're still interested, skim the following tedious arguments:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Wikia.com links

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Angela spamming list hosted by Wikimedia Foundation
And if you're unfamiliar with the orginal MyWikiBiz controversy, the following will bring you up to speed:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Aug#Company offering vanity articles commercially?

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Oct#MyWikiBiz.com spam articles

--A. B. 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Checking the link right here it looks like although Jimbo issued a permanent block, it appears that a motion was started for a community ban that garnered no !votes against and a number of yes !votes. I am unsure if that ever got wrapped up as formalized, but I figure at least some people consider him effectively community banned in addition to Jimbo-blocked. Bitnine 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support. Kohs relationship with WP has been quite rocky, in part due to his own behaviour but in part also to our community having passionate, not fully developed, and not fully consistent opinions on COI-related issues. But let's forgive and forget, AGF, and try to bring him in from the cold; if it doesn't work, we can always re-ban him. In in order for this to have a hope of working, I would propose the following 4 conditions. 0) Only possible if no objections from Jimbo, given his prior involvement in this situation, 1) No linking by Kohs to centaire, mywikibiz, or anything like it for any reason -- nothing anyone could ever think of being spam. 2) Only edit under a single account, and 3) Don't participate in policy discussions for 3 months or attempt to influence policy by controversial actions. The last one is I think the most restrictive, and normally I would not dare suggest it, but experience has shown that Kohs has been trying to take WP in a direction it is not now comfortable in going and interactions between him and other community members about this tend to degenerate. Without assigning any blame to anyone, Kohs' participation in any such discussion would serve as a lightning rod and not be beneficial for anyone at the present time. However, Kohs bonafide attempts to help the encyclopaedia would be welcome, and by participating in this way he may earn back the trust some members of the community are not currently prepared to give him at minimal risk to the encyclopaedia or community. Martinp 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup. Gregory, it's clear there's too much bad blood between you and the community for the community to be comfortable welcoming you back. You've created all sorts of accounts which sooner or later gravitate to the same types of discussions where you try to push WP in a direction where a significant part of the community is not willing to go, maybe not now and maybe never. Because you do this, these accounts get "found out" and blocked. You correctly sense anger and maybe glee in some of the blocks, and you get more and more frustrated, your words get more and more strident, and the situation deteriorates. While I'm sure the process hounds will dislike this suggestion, if you really want to participate in Misplaced Pages, I think you should create (or choose) an account, not tell anyone what it is, and spend 3 months learning what the community thinks, warts and all, by participating in a completely uncontroversial way. Even though you'll technically be violating a ban, nobody will care or know if you're not being disruptive. If you can't resist and gravitate back to your old behavior like a moth to flame, you will get burnt -- the sock will be blocked. Martinp 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose (and I rarely say strong anything) He has a drawerful of socks and his last sock puppet was blocked two days ago. He fails to understand why his behavior was problematic and thinks Jimbo, the admins and everybody else was to blame. Banned users are never unbanned under these circumstances. It's pretty simply really. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest closing this discussion per WP:SNOW. Durova 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, please don't ~~hide~~ close this discussion until people have a chance to see what you're going to say in response to the heap of evidence that your claim against Kohs (that I've "given misleading information to journalists") is bogus. --72.94.158.49 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Costa Rica

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the Costa Rica article has been suffering a spat of vandalism lately from numerous anonymous users. I'm suggesting a temporary limited protection on the page to prevent anonymous and new users from editing the page. croll 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for Page Protection. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected the page. N Shar is correct about where this sort of request normally goes. Best wishes. Durova 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion

Please note: Unlike User talk:Essjay this thread will not be left as a platform for any form of trollery. Commentary here is to be directed toward what measures Misplaced Pages should be taking in order to maintain its overall creditability relative to these developments.

There has been a very acitve discussion on User talk:Essjay but given the increasing prominence of this story it is time that a more community wide forum of discussion be engaged. Misplaced Pages is going to be taking a beating for this and frankly the community needs to be expressing itself about how Misplaced Pages should be proceeding relative to these revelations of possible misconduct. (→Netscott) 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling exactly. However, I was a little too bold and moved the whole section of his talk page to a subpage of this noticeboard. Anyway, please note that this is not the place to talk about your personal disapproval of Essjay's actions; those comments should be reserved for his talk page. Instead, I feel that discussion here should be about what we do next to help "contain" this, for lack of a better word, or for whatever other issues that need to be addressed. Cheers, PT O 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

STRONG WHATEVER - two years of service, dispute resolution and cleaning up after other people's crap pretty much say all that I would like to say but don't have the time. 99.9% of the voluminous contributions (and I don't mean edit count, I mean every thing he's ever done) he has put forth have 0% to do with a PhD. Some Wikipedians are POV-pushers, edit warriors, jerks, abusive this way or that - Essjay's biggest fault is that he made up an identity for himself. This is the internet and it's not a big deal, stop pretending to be Misplaced Pages's PR committee and start thinking about benefit/detriment to the encyclopedia. I can't believe I'm having to tell people this. Milto LOL pia 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when his RFA and RFB both mention his contributions to theology. – Chacor 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does being a "scholar" mean you are a professional, or someone with deep knowledge about a topic? I am a Dragonlance scholar, does that mean I hold a degree at Fantasy? He does know about the topic, studied it, and that is enough for the "scholar" nomination, as far as I know. Finally, our verifiability guidelines do not apply to user pages. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it was inevitable... Ryan Jordan (Misplaced Pages). --W.marsh 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- And the equally inevitable AfD. How predictable. --W.marsh 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay has been using fake credentials to justify edits for as long as his account's been on Misplaced Pages. Here's one from April 2005, referring to a book he cited as authoritative: "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility." If Misplaced Pages's willing to excuse this, what won't it excuse? The notion Essjay will sit in judgment of anybody on the Arbitration Committee is hilarious. Rcade 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If I count correctly, that was his fourth or fifth edit in Misplaced Pages. Can you find a more recent one? I am sure if you dig the first thousand of my 25k or so edits, you will find stuff that would question my position as administrator. However, since my first edits almost two years have passed, I have matured, and have learned from my mistakes. Unless you can find he was using his credentials recently as you state, I am open to consider that a "misstep", a bullish statement from someone new in Misplaced Pages. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone else cited others. Rcade 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who once dealt with a person who was a member of an organisation with terrorist links, I'm glad that I can edit wikipedia anonymously. If Essjay were a bad person, I'm sure that people would be able to find something more serious than inflating his academic credentials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andjam (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

In my initial commentary about this I was taking a forgiving view of these revelations but with what appears to be more and more evidence of impropiety (ie: Kelly Martin's diffs of credential citations while editing) my view is shifting from one of forgiveness to one of severe disappointment leading me to believe that some serious measures need to happen here in order for Misplaced Pages as a whole to have some hope of staving off further heavy project creditiability hemmoraging. (→Netscott) 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages Essjay is respected for his years of service. Unfortunately - if the reports about his actual background are true - this casts a shadow not only upon himself but on the project. It's inappropriate to brush off this revelation as insignificant: it is significant. I sincerely hope that no other administrator has misled the community about credentials. Even more sincerely, I hope anyone who has will step forward promptly to admit the truth and apologize. Durova 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you expand on the point of "casts a shadow not only upon himself but on the project"? In my view it does more to cast doubts on other projects such as Citizendium whos models depend on the work of experts than it does to cast doubt on this project. I've never seen any study which showed any significant dependence on disclosed experts on Misplaced Pages. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he means it casts a shadow on Misplaced Pages if it looks like we put up with credential fabrication here. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate, I consider it appropriate for Essjay to resign all special privileges he holds. Administrators (to say nothing of arbitrators, bureaucrats, and checkusers) bear a responsibility to uphold the site's highest standards. We set the example for others. Although I fully support the right of any user to participate anonymously, the creation of fictitious credentials is abhorrent - especially when the user abuses the fiction to get the upper hand in debates. The site has no shortage of trusted sysops who can replace his services. It would deepen the shadow upon the project to countenance this fabrication. Durova 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As a PhD and a professor (no, you have no way of confirming that with me any more than you did with Essjay, but you'll have to take my word for it), I wish to say that, though the New Yorker part of it is unfortunate, in general I have no problem with what Essjay did. As I can assure you, having an academic credential gets you nothing around here, so it's not like his current exalted status owes anything to the deception. Given some of the harrassment problems people have had, I've sometimes wished I had dropped in some misleading info here and there (and, if you're a troll, maybe I have. . .). Chick Bowen 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a serious ethical issue, but it has nothing to do with the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is edited by many users who have no PhDs -- if Essjay is one more of those, so? --N Shar (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started Misplaced Pages:Honesty with the goal of getting community consensus behind our expectations of each other moving forward regarding the clear delineation between anonymity and fabrication. I wouldn't have thought the project would need something like this, but perhaps the time has come. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've long suspected that Essjay was not a tenured professor or any other such, a suspicion I have brought up off-wiki in IRC in an off-handed way several times over the past six months. I was poking around to see if there was any other similar thought, but nothing came about. I stopped believing he was what his page claimed six months ago and I moved on. This lie trapped him into a biographical corner, but it in no way hampered his judgements or actions that I have ever seen. He has not caused skewed content or an improper resolution because of false professions. A lie does not a liar make. Teke 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for discussion regarding AfD

Given what we've seen on User talk:Essjay, I have grave fears for what Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Jordan (Misplaced Pages) could do - turn into troll central, and the debate will become incomprehensible. As such, I want to semi-protect this under an IAR action (as it isn't exactly included in SEMI). To do so, however, I would like a consensus prior to making the action. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Support for reasons stated. Newyorkbrad 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, and also I already did it. Chick Bowen 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Obvious best option. alphachimp 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment As long as the AFD newbie message is replaced by a very clear note stating anonymous and new users can give opinions in the talk page, and that any solid argument given by them could be either pointed from the page, or moved from the talk page into the page, I have no problem. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, though probably unnecessary. They have to be clicking just the right links to get to that article. Milto LOL pia 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the latter comment, if this stays open for five days (and I doubt anyone's going to be willing to close it early), then I fear it will be linked from everywhere. Newyorkbrad 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Oh Yeah :( I forgot they ran so long. Milto LOL pia 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment the discussion on Essjay generally moved here from his user talk in the quest for an appropriate open forum (WP:RFC might have been better). Deletion discussions are an established format. We expect inappropriate comments when a media event happens. Shifting the discussion from one page to another wouldn't change that reality and might be construed mischievously. Durova 05:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some things to think about

(I posted these earlier at Jimbo's talk page, but this is obviously a better place) There are really 3 separate issues here, and they should be discussed separately:

AFAIK, Essjay is not a foundation spokesman, and Misplaced Pages doesn't have official press contacts. Essjay's interview with New Yorker and the problems with it are mostly between Essjay and New Yorker. But still, some press stories treat this as something Misplaced Pages has done. Are we failing to communicate that individual users don't represent the project?
Checkusers, oversights and ArbCom members have access to privileged information. Both the fact that this information is sensitive, and the fact that access to it is limited, so it can't be checked by a regular user, requires trust in these people. Should we require these candidates for these functions to reveal their real-life identity? Does being elected/appointed to these sensitive positions make them de facto representatives of the project in the eyes of the world?

I believe Checkusers need to give their real names to the Foundation - trying to find where I read it. Daniel Bryant 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: User:Essjay/Checkuser/Thoughts is where I read it - see the email correspondance. Daniel Bryant 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't require editors to identify themselves, and the idea that we should is not going to be seriously considered. But obscuring one's real-life identity is not the same thing as inventing an alternative real-life identity. Should lying as opposed to not telling about your real life be frowned upon? Zocky | picture popups 05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Sort of - Essjay's positions of trust make him an unusual case.

2. (a.)No, no editor should be required to reveal real world identity to the community at large. (b.)Sort-of-yes, regardless of what the world at large expects, I expect that arbitrators, bureaucrats, and checkusers act in ways that reflect positively on the project.

3. Yes, absolutely, and frowned upon is much too mild a wording. Durova 05:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? A person's identity doesn't matter here I thought, only what they do. So why should it matter if it is true or false? This isn't Citizendium. Milto LOL pia 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rcade's place in all of this

For the past 48 hours, Rcade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made absolutely no contributions to the project except to this discussion. Here are some tasty diffs.

And then there are his edits here that are easily visible (1 2). There are limits to discussing this subject, and Rcade needs to be introduced to these limits and now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If he's just here to antagonize Essjay and hype this situation, I would support a block until he can agree to be more productive. But he should be given a proper warning first (from an admin willing to follow up). --W.marsh 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very current debate, and there's no requirement for editors to edit articles daily. Trying to shut people up by draggin in a bunch of diffs always backfires, especially when those people are established editors. Just leave it be. Zocky | picture popups 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and would not support a block yet at this time. – Chacor 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, his contribution history is longer than I'd thought. I'd scanned it and just seen earlier edits to Foundation people-related articles, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. --W.marsh 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Come now, this isn't all that different from webcomics people showing up to vehemently criticize our deletion policies. Given Misplaced Pages's footprint on the internet, it should be expected that internet personalities are going to want input on our governance, even if they don't edit. Feel free to encourage him to work on adapting his activism to the culture, but on no account should he be blocked. --Michael Snow 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)