Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 9 March 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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)

User:Lir

User:Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), having come off a 33-month block (originally 1 year, but reset frequently) in December, has decided that his -- and his IP's -- contributions to Misplaced Pages will solely be his user page complaining about the Evil That is Misplaced Pages and the Great Wrong That Was Done Him. I blanked it on grounds that it was pure soapboxing, especially for someone explicitly stating that he's not here to edit. He objects, calling it "vandalizing" and "censorship" . Any opinions? --Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Purging of user page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages does not allow criticism, then Misplaced Pages has serious problems. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir, thank you so much for your repetitive vandalisms of my user space in the last couple years. How good to see you back. I have a suggestion if you want to edit here: behave like an adult. Don't attack other users. Observe the civility and no-personal-attacks policies. I won't wikilink them because I think you know them without me having to point them out. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations; if you have evidence of me vandalizing your user page, then please wikilink them because I have no idea what you are talking about. It's amazing how many inflated, trumped-up, exaggerated, and obviously false accusations you people come up with. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at his previous page. Is it childish? Yep. Does it meet the criteria of WP:NPA. Nope. Meets none of the guidlines (homophobic, racial, ethnic....) I don't belive the

blanking was right. However I'll defer to group wisdom on this and leave it be. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Can we just reblock this user? They don't appear to be of any use to the project. In fact, they are wasting the time of useful editors thus detracting from the project. John Reaves 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that filing a MedComm request to change your userpage the first day back from a block probably won't endear one. But rules are rules so I'd say to give a couple more days, with the implicit understanding that so soon after a 33 month block, further nonsense will probably result in an indef community ban. MBisanz 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we're talking about someone who's come back from a ban set three years ago and done nothing but troll and complain over his userpage. We should not be wasting our time over this. I've reblocked him, please discuss it here. Grandmasterka 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I'm unsure to what extent my input is welcome on this page (I know regular users may bring complaints and notifications here, which I have in the past). I may be part of the cause we are all spending (some would say wasting, I wouldn't) all this time over this user and his grievances as well as the grievances of others about him. I reverted Calton's blanking of Lir's user page, which, sure enough, consisted of Lir's complaint about how he has been treated here in the past, and I notified Lir by email of this. Then Lir exploded onto en.Misplaced Pages.

I don't think Calton had any business deleting that page. Indeed, I question what motivates someone to go about searching for pages to get upset about. Calton has stated that he had no previous relations to Lir. Had he not done so, in time, Lir might have returned to the project and continued editing constructively, as he has obviously done in the past with about 10,000 edits to his user as well as several times that number from other accounts, according to himself. Some people need to blow a fuse or two before they calm down. The greater the contributions a user has made to the project, the greater should our tolerance and capacity for disregarding a momentary outburst be. Having his user page reflect his hurt over the way he felt he had been treated should have been left, or at most, the most incendiary portions thereof being moderated.

I question the wisdom of this block. But more than that, I question its mandate. I'm rarely in contact with blocking issues here, however, I would be surprised, and disappointed, if blocking a user can be done without clearly citing WP:BLOCK. __meco (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton's involvement in this was somewhat unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I agree with you on that. But Lir's actions prior to that, including his extensive block history, make it clear to me that he wasn't here to help. I even advocated his block be made indefinite a long time ago, I can find and link to that discussion if you want me to. Grandmasterka 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall be reading this section until it becomes archived. As for Lir's actions prior to Calton's involvement, are you referring to his pre-3 year-ban history? I don't think it is right to invoke that here since the only thing he had done after the ban was lifted was to edit his user page. For that same reason, very few people would have any reason to go to Lir's user page unless someone was actively scanning for areas to become upset about, Therefore, my argument is that, had Calton not intervened, this page would have made an eyesore for nobody, and in time, perhaps Lir would decide to make a fresh start as a main namespace contributor. After all, it's not been that long since he was unbanned, and it was a very long ban indeed. I have not acquainted myself with the old ban process, so I am not going to give an opinion on whether a permanent ban then would have been justified. That ban and the current ban have been set on different grounds, and a motion to ban permanently then, which was not acceded, ought not weigh in as to the length of a ban this time around, at least not without refreshing the matters from the previous round. __meco (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take one shred of misdirected blame for Lir's actions. Meco's tortuous logic notwithstanding, Lir's only "contributions" made since his one-year-extended-to-three ban -- and explicitly stated as would BE the only ones -- were using Misplaced Pages to maintain an explicit attack page. My crime was pointing out how wrong it was on multiple levels, and Lir, self-winding watch that he is, goes on a vindictive tear. His obsessions and lack of impulse control are NOT my problems, but his smear campaign against me is: funny, not a word about THAT from Meco. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so funny considering you are not being banned. Had he not been banned, I would have resigned his case after not gaining support here for my complaint against you for clearing his user page. I have no problem seeing as clearly as you that Lir has a big impulse control problem. However, I realize that such issues cannot be addressed, with the aim to improve on that lack of impulse control, by authoritarian disciplining. I scorn ill-motivated or thoughtless actions from indivduals that should know better, that are bound to vex and provoke an outburst. I'm inclined to believe that a person like Lir can be a highly valuable contributor if not needlessly provoked. In short, my prescription has been to give Lir some elbow room; leave him alone to consolidate his position and relationship to the project. Instead several people have "showed no mercy" or been at him with a vengeance. That, I believe, is the principal cause which has brought on the present sad situation. __meco (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Lir, it seems, added an unblock request to his user talk page, and this was summarily declined by User:Doc glasgow, the reason given: "We're here to write an encyclopedia. You're evidently not. Unless some admin thinks differently, consider this a community ban. Wikilawyering will not work". Now, I am distressed when users are warned not to attempt to pursue a matter, as is usually the case when the unfortunate term wikilawyering is applied. But I'm more concerned with the fact that the present open discussion wasn't involved in the request to have the ban repealed and its subsequent undebated refusal. I also make a note of the fact that Lir in his request explicitly stated that "All I want to do is edit the Misplaced Pages like any other user". __meco (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm more concerned with the fact that the present open discussion wasn't involved in the request to have the ban repealed and its subsequent undebated refusal"???? Well, I'm not omniscient. I reviewed the block as per normal with an unblock request, and found it to be good. The user's actions speak clearly of his intent. He knows better. This is a troll, and this debate is the trollfood.--Doc 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Lir is back and controversy follows. Why are we surprised? Corvus cornix_talk 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of fun

I've been looking over Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories for a bit of light relief - funny stuff. Apparently we should rename the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because the name implies that the theories might not be true. Oh dearie me, we wouldn't want that would we? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And shouldn't Evolution redirect to the theory of evolution? Discuss.--Doc 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the "formal warning" you got, Guy, for having the temerity to suggest that some conspiracy theorists may not always edit with a complete respect for NPOV. How dare you!? ;o) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lawl Jtrainor (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL Bearian (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to post here to poke fun at people? I actually agree that describing something as a conspiracy theory (a term with a great deal of stigma attached to it) implies it isn't true and therefore violates NPOV. Everyking (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a conspiracy of Misplaced Pages wanting to take over the world? Jimbo The World Leader..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic probation?

There's been some discussion here about putting Chiropractic-related articles on a probation similar to that for Homeopathy. (Well, to be fair, I'm the one recommending a new/expanded probation. Others just want to slap the Homeopathy probation onto these as well.) After a quick perusal of the behavior that goes on at these articles, I'd say it's warranted. I just don't think we should blindly apply the Homeopathy probation to these; it sets a bad precedent. --Infophile 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then propose a separate probation. Jehochman 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing... --Infophile 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. The chiropractic related articles aren't generally covered by the homeopathy probation, nor should they. They need a probation of their own. Barring that, a general probation for all alternative medicine/fringe ideas probation might be a possibility. -- Fyslee / talk 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree probation areas in their nature need to well separated for an honest "rule of law", I think genrally expanded probation is wrongheaded, too indefinite and subject to abuses, as this is showing us. Things in most alternative areas I see seem to be cooling down. Editing in areas I am familiar with seem to be 1-2 disruptive editors short of a decent collaboration. One of the problems I see repeatedly is bad science being used to deprecate commercial & philosophical competitors and to push POVs that are not scientifically founded despite popular & highly advertised unreliable claims of "mainstream" something (its not science whatever mainstream it is).--I'clast (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would rather limit it to the chiropractic related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that dealing with 1-2 blatant disruptives in WP's evolving policy enforcement atmosphere will solve the worst of this problem soon enough. Also I think temporarily protecting the articles to force discussion during problem periods, or other limited actions for limited times, is much preferable to indefinite "martial law".--I'clast (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea that could help calm down the problem areas while kicking the worst editors out of the boat, see below. east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

New proposal for discretionary sanctions

The article probation now in place is obviously not working, and I've identified a few reasons why. First is that it's obviously restricted to homeopathy, and with that area under tight scrutiny, the most problematic POV-pushers, incivil editors, and edit warriors have either just moved on to other articles or edit by proxy on the homeopathy ones. It's particularly frustrating for new editors because they get steamrolled by the disruption carried over by the regulars; it's frustrating for the pro-fringe editors because they have to put up with relentless incivility and taunting; and it's frustrating for the pro-science editors because they have to deal with constant pushing and rules-lawyering. Mediation has been largely unsuccessful, and we can't keep on locking down various corners of the encyclopedia forever - it hurts good-faith new editors (a dying breed, I know :-P) and results in a cat-and-mouse game with the problematic ones: put homeopathy onto probation, they move onto chiropractic; do the same to chiropractic, and what's next? Administrators need a way to easily sanction disruptive editors on both sides of the fence, and this may be a solution:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of pseudoscience or fringe science, to be broadly interpreted, if despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of any length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid hostility toward genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

And I even cooked up a fancy template!

This article and its editors are subject to general sanctions by decree of the Misplaced Pages Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The previous article probation imposed by the community would be superseded by this measure. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

Is that a BEAR TRAP? Because...daaaamn. If it's not, it looks like one...what is it? Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bear trap. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

Thanks for the effort, but I have to say it is too arbitrary in general nature and presumes that normal admins really can distinguish "good science" from popular myths & delusions misrepresented about science and its practice in the sometimes blurred areas of current or frequently misunderstood science (not even fringe or proto-). Sadly my experience here is a very mixed bag. I have pretty good editing experience with actually active science and medical researchers through WP:V, but a fair amount of misery from students, POV warriors, and less technically informed, experimentally trained or experienced editors, including *some* POVish admins.

Otherwise, I think that the admins do need to deal with serial harrassers. For instance, here's one now. I haven't ever edited "Homeopathy" and I am one of the *least* homeopathetic personalities - the average doctor looks two dilutions (XX) closer to Homeopathy than me and I am being warned (harrassed again by this editor) on Homeopathy?!? I properly objected to a POV/edit warring editor's clear misuse of a warning tag.--I'clast (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the nature of the sanctions proposed - this would not empower admins to enforce particular views on content (which is a Bad Thing and is never done), but rather to deal with disruptive editors easier. Involved admins are already excluded from enforcing sanctions under my proposal; we don't want another Matthew Hoffman on our hands. I think my proposal is more in line with what you want: shifting the focus from articles that are disrupted to the people disrupting it themselves. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

I think that it needs clear criteria and a more subtle power change where I think the powers are largely adequate but either unused, unsymmetrical in application or misdirected. I certainly support decisive action with clearly disruptive editors. But "ganging up & setting up" being the partisan sport that it is, my whole I'clast talk has ample such examples including involved admins, needing to have criteria. Many who think they have an idea of who is pro-science or what is science have been demonstrated not to have a very solid understanding.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But, lets be serious about this new proposal idea. We have seen, time and time again, that it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong on these calls, which basically amount to poor understanding of policy. What matters is who can create the biggest drama out of the tiniest bit of evidence. I think we have seen this over and over again on the Enforcement board (SA, ring a bell?) and on the probation/incidents board. The new proposal basically opens up even more leeway for more people to start screaming about how they were harmed by the tiniest of rebuffs in their editing. But this is a step in the right direction. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open, but structure and criteria are extremely important.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if someone would listen to what Filll and many others have been talking about for several months, we could move forward. The only surefire block that most admins will make is for a violation of CIVIL, because frankly, it's an easy call and appears to be reversed rarely. Civility is a problem, but not the only problem, in these articles. Blatant violations of the other policies are much more important to correct. After all, isn't the great goal of this whole collaboration to build an encyclopedia that encompasses the whole of human knowledge? I think I've read that somewhere, I don't know. The point is, if we are serious about building an encyclopedia, the content is what is most important. It appears that some people here are under the presumption that the world is all ice cream and puppy dogs. It's not. People will always argue over what they want to include; it's a fact that has been reinforced in every controversial article here. I have seen very few examples of civility based blocks on these articles that did not have another, much more important, policy violation at it's core. Until we address that and find admin's willing to put in the leg work to make the difficult calls, things will continue as they always have. However, the admin's most qualified to make these calls and who have already done the leg work are forbidden to take action, because they already edit these articles. Excluding your most qualified people from controversial areas is never going to result in a net positive result. The status quo will forever remain. Baegis (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps for part of structure, the involved admins would be responsible for generating the complaint, requesting informal input, summarizing the logic and evidence for several other generally knowledgeable & experienced but uninvolved admins to review, query and maybe sign off - a special, more admin controlled and centric RfC?--I'clast (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, although why admins need this to help them do what they are already empowered to do is beyond me, except to help them avoid those other admins who seem to enjoy taking down admins (Vanished User, et.al). --Shot info (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. -- Fyslee / talk 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support in principle, though it's probably unworkable in practice. Admins get worn out with this stuff. For example the Homeopathy probation remains in place but is no longer being enforced. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support -- broadening the coverage will help. I also think we need to be more vigilant to uncover the sock farms that are active here. If we can remove these highly disruptive editors, the situation may improve. Jehochman 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per Jehochman. Rudget (?) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support is this a small step in the right direction? *fingers crossed* Baegis (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Sure, but there need to be a larger number of uninvolved admins who are willing to police these areas, otherwise sanctions are useless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: Sanctions are useless without uninvolved administrators who are willing to essentially babysit the page and review every incoming edit. And as we have seen before, administrators grow tired quickly of having to do just that at Homeopathy. But it's a strong start. seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - Like said above we need admins to enforce it though, and uncover the sock farms that are active there. Tiptoety 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support This is a problem that has found a solution (hopefully). MBisanz 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No support Bad idea because it singles out alt med articles. . . this would be a sanction that is POV driven in nature.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Completely untrue, this would also cover non-altmed articles such as Time Cube and cold fusion. But then again, looking at your talk page makes me believe that you'd be one of the editors on the wrong end of any sanction, so I suppose your comment must be viewed in that context. east.718 at 03:48, March 7, 2008

   Rude. . . This reveals the poor motives behind east's proposal. . . obviously it is POV in nature. I want to see exacting guidlines of who can apply this tag and to which articles it can be applied. . . Is this only for pseudoscience articles? What is a pseudoscience article?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Typically, the ones where people fight over inclusion of material like "pseuodoscience" and over WEIGHT and UNDUE and FRINGE matters. Pseudoscience being "science" not accepted by the mainstream accepted scientific community. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Bad science, pseudoskepticism, personal & commercial COI, and fundamental WP:RS problems with supposedly reliable technical sources (e.g. "highly respected journals" with 98+% funds from advertising of narrow corporate interests, "technical" articles support certain products, disparage cheap competitors with longest scientific base) parading as mainstream Science are frequent problems in some areas of WP.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is the type of nonsense that makes me believe even more now that all of you involved in (insert long term conflict name) should have no say in whether we probation the lot. "Science"? Your bias fly is open. Lawrence § t/e 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Civility and AGF issues aside, since I have not seen you before this AN, you may be frustrated from working in other areas of WP. Let me assure you there are controversy areas where WP:V science conflicts severely with popularly held or cherished views of many less currently informed technicians and professionals, who *think* that "they are being scientific" by spouting a position, who often are (over)relying on unreliable sources (often inadvertently or indirectly from youth onwards). Nor are many "preferred" technical sources as pristine as many seem to zealously assert - reconciliation and fact-checking of these various sources is where WP:V and SPOV meet at WP. Science is how I refer to science practiced with integrity and respect to general principles rather just than dogma, formulaic positions of economic rent (and power) seekers of all stripes & guilds, and spurious officialdom that often are little more than empty suits for hire. I also suggest that you dispense with the "command & control or be extinguished (little bug)" format - it is getting tiresome and conflicts with a number of WP policy positions.--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Nonsupport The article probation structure does need an overhaul, it is ineffective & counterproductive as today's unreversed trolling shows my pgagainLCat East'sHP pg(e.g: 1. at my "notification" posting should have been *erased* since I have no involvement in Homeopathy, 2. the originator should have had that repeatedly abused privilege, removed, IMHO). I am very leery of more "superpowers", potentially to an inexperienced cocksure, hotshot admin that might blow someone's legs off before any real process occurred. I think that this is an element in the M Hoffman case and I have felt such danger potential myself because of the "gang up and set up" game on my Talk page and other contrived "offenses" for either partisan or uninformed admins (a big downside of an uninvolved admin is often an uninformed admin in complex or long running situations).--I'clast (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Could support if modified. The pseudoscience articles are a warzone (hell, a trivial article like What the Bleep Do We Know has been a minefield for nearly a year). Handing over this kind of power to single admins would be suicide for both sides of the disputes. Set up a shortcut process of some kind, but some kind of process ... some way that single admins can't hand out blocks arbitrarily or based on mistakes.Kww (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Admin actions can still be contested via the normal channels and are subject to the same norms applied to all other areas of the encyclopedia. The main aim of this proposal is to shift the focus from a moving target (whatever articles happen to be under attack today) to the editors that are responsible. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

4. Oppose Most Strongly Far too arbitrary, totally uncalled for and stultifying. If the article probation isn't working, why would anyone think that expanding the same type of probation would be effective? Nope: far too Draconian and ridiculous. •Jim62sch• 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Non-support. The article probation on homeopathy may need to be improved, but certainly should not be expanded to other areas of the Misplaced Pages unless and until it is established to be working well in the relatively small area where it is being tried. Starting a brand new and larger experiment would be a bad idea in my opinion at this time. —Whig (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now I need to be convinced that probation is working on homeopathy before I suggest it should be used in other areas. I think that just extending admin powers to apply WP:CIVIL more aggressively (which is what probation is, nothing more) does not correct our underlying problems, which I have detailed repeatedly. We do have other principles like WP:NPOV that should be applied here, and just frantically applying WP:CIVIL more and more often and for the smallest slights is not really helping; do you think it is? So why apply this failed strategy even more broadly?--Filll (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Enforcing civility isn't the goal here - it's to sanction activity that is against the purpose of Misplaced Pages, which is to create a neutral encyclopedia. Abusing Misplaced Pages for advocacy, propaganda, ideological struggle, furtherance of outside conflicts - and yes, even rules-lawyering CIVIL - will be dealt with much swifter if this were to pass. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

   I know that it is not the intention to just enforce WP:CIVIL, but that is the practical effect, because that is all that admins really can enforce easily and all they really want to enforce for a variety of reasons. I think we need to rethink this entire problem from a deeper more radical perspective. See the discussion here.--Filll (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I think we should treat all our articles equally. If anyone repeatedly violates behavior or content rules, they should be warned and eventually blocked. This seems to single out certain articles at the expense of others. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Admins with little or no knowledge of science (or in the case of one admin above, an anti-science POV) will stick their noses into this situation and cause these articles to become anti-science in nature. There really isn't a discussion when WP:VERIFY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are utilized. We don't need anti-science or non-science admins ruining these articles. OrangeMarlin —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I think this moves the infighting from many editors to administrators who can essentially impose their will on an article legally. I am not sure this is the kind of power that should be held by any one administrator, even one with the best of intentions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I've been editing Chiropractic on and off recently and found the interactions quite civilized. I see no reason why the usual remedies aren't sufficient even if there is disruption on some pages. Inevitably, whether an admin judges some behaviour to be "disruptive" will be coloured by the admin's perception of the value of the content being promoted by the user. Content should be determined by all editors, not primarily by admins; this shifts more power to the admins. The above proposal is not clearly worded at all: what is it? A proposal to apply probation to certain articles? A proposal to change the rules of the probation on homeopathy? A proposal to change the rules of all article probations? The rules in the template given above are very vague and simply allow administrators to arbitrarily define as disruptive whomever they wish to (e.g. people they disagree with). Let's stick with our more objective criteria such as 3RR (or 1RR if considered necessary on some articles) in order to have the best chance of getting a NPOV encyclopedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. It is way too broad as presented. Some checks and balances would be needed in the event of long term blocks and bans. A minimum of number of administrators to support a long term block or ban, for example, may be needed. I would support if such minimum consensus standards would be added to the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think anybody is suggesting that a single admin would be permitted to hold out against a consensus. :-) east.718 at 20:04, March 7, 2008

2. I don't see how this would change anything. Another template saying "follow the rules or else" is meaningless if there is no "or else" in practice. If anything this would seem to tend to make enforcement more arbitrary and capricious - which seems to be the essence of the problem now. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I still have never seen a reliable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved admin could refer to to decide what is or is not "pseudoscience". The existing use of the term here on wikipedia is exactly and perfectly equivalent to calling something heresy, and heresy is in the "religious eye of the beholder". Now, as "scientific materialism" is indeed a religion unto itself, we have = . Same thing for "fringe science". Who get's to "decide" what is or is not on the "fringes" of mainstream science? For every editor who throws the charge of "pseudoscience POV pusher", another editor can counter by citing Brian D. Josephson and claiming "Pathological disbelief". The nonsense going on over at "Cold Fusion" is a perfect case in point here, see Nobel laureat Josephson's presentation. Slide 21 is perfect. Furthermore, how is an uninvolved administrator supposed to decide if an editor "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages..." -- what the heck is THAT? Until there is an objective, reliable and usable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved and non-partisan admin can use to objectively assess claimants charges of "pseudoscience"...this is all nonsense. I have looked through RfCs, mediations, and just about every administrative case that has been brought...I've seen others ask and I've asked for an objective, usable and practical definition of "pseudoscience", I have never gotten one, and I conclude that there is no such thing. WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation of own sign

One of the problems is that admins don't enforce existing powers adequately. QuackGuru is running around abusing that warning tag, (and me too). Why not ban QuackGuru from the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation notifications page and placing the Warning tag? He certainly is not uninvolved. He can always ask other editors or use WP:AN for any as yet undetected homeopathy here. He's earned a vacation (for the rest of the editors) and now overdue in my view.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He's continually poking, and then has the temerity to cry about incivility. How much poking from him are other editors expected to take without any response? -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. . . this is a poor editor who is always looking for trouble. Send him packing.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note on !vote above

The community should place less weight on the opinions of any involved editors/warriors when sorting out whether a topic should be under probation. Probation is to protect the articles and the rest of us from the fighting--it's not for the benefit, or detriment, of any parties. Please keep this in mind when weighing consensus, to deprecate the views of those involved warriors. Lawrence § t/e 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We should focus on analysis, facts and workability.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But when push comes to shove in a problem area, the known editors and players in that problem area should have less (or no!) voice in whether externally mandated group sanctions come into effect. Period, full stop. Lawrence § t/e 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Looking at it, it seems that there's at least a split in whether they think this will be a good idea. To me, that's a sign that they're thinking for themselves on this. Beyond that, perhaps the generals should listen to a few voices from the battlefield to see how the battle's going and if their battleplan is working out. --Infophile 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep

This proposal seems to me to be ultimately futile. It, frankly, won't work because the people who are committed to their beliefs in (non)reality will simply bring their cabals to the (in)appropriate fora and find six to twelve sycophant administrators/arbitrators who will support their whining and chastise the administrator who is brave enough to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This will continue to be the case no matter what fancy boilerplate is placed on any article. The groups involved in these disputes are simply smarter at gaming Misplaced Pages than your average administrator is capable of handling.

What administrators really should do is get more courageous and start giving swift kicks in the rears to people that disrupt the encyclopedia regardless of whether they can live up to some arbitrary evidence standard. Such action is risky because admins doing this will end up removed from their coveted high-status administrative positions and chased off Misplaced Pages for making mistakes or, even worse, actually doing the right thing. That's the nature of the beast: people want to stay administrators because they like the title and the power and they won't risk their necks in actually using the mops and buckets to do any good because the only people who would be willing to act in such a way either never become administrators or are eventually desysopped. Making admins braver is the only way things will change. This proposal, on the other hand, is toothless as all but the most naive will simply not act with appropriate violence against the name-callers/abject lunatics.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ScienceApologist, there is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I think some form of proposal similar to this could work, but it needs a mechanism to remove long term disruptive editors, who, as you correctly note, are skilled in gaming Misplaced Pages. Perhaps something along the lines of any individual admin could ban a disruptive editor for up to a week, and 3 admins can jointly decide to ban an editor for up to a year. Addhoc (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about even 3 admins replacing the usual RFAR ban or block period of 1 yr, because that appears to be too long to me w/o more input & process. Also "sides" in a POV can be that big (3 admins). Again a hard criterion or two would be expected (need an essential defining feature or two). With good criteria and say appeal process that requires 2-3 admins' signatures for shortening/overturning, I could easily say 1, 2, maybe 3 months blocks, 3 - 6 month topic bans with subsequent blocks/bans presumably being easier if the system is working correctly and the recividist editor isn't.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed one structural element above. Building a brick at a time.--I'clast (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Decisions like that will and should be handled by uninvolved users, taking the feedback from known partisans into consideration. Ultimately, though, known players in problem warzones on Misplaced Pages should have no decision in whether external probations come into play. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone begins as an uninvolved editor. Antelan 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved, experienced *admins* with a track record for knowledge, policy, fair play, maturity (former User:Gleng, now at CZ, would be a great model).--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that some experimentation might be valuable. After all, we performed a miracle on the evolution, intelligent design and creationism articles, for the most part and quelled some tremendous fighting there by a sequence of measures, some of which I describe here, and we developed those techniques through experimentation.

Maybe some of these measures could help in the pseudoscience area, and maybe different measures would be needed. One thing that is different, at least in the alternative medicine arena, is that many alternative medicine practioners are here on Misplaced Pages, and they view presentation of critical mainstream material as financially and professionally detrimental. And we have a cadre of administrators who are unable or unwilling to sanction anyone who is lobbying to remove mainstream content from these articles.

Things have become much worse of course with the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing that is of any import on Misplaced Pages. And these sorts of signals are absorbed by the community. However, I think that this sort of attitude is detrimental to the actual production of an encyclopedia.

The most important thing is not civility per se, but productivity. And an overemphasis on civility at all costs can have terrible negative consequences for productivity. See this discussion for example. So let's try to develop new techniques that go to the root of the problem, rather than just attacking WP:CIVIL more vigorously.

For example, some of the most productive people on both the pro-science and the pro-pseudoscience sides are not so civil, necessarily. But they produce. And many of the more civil, and more expert at gaming the system, produce nothing. And so we push away the productive people, and keep the unproductive. And where does that get us?

You know, if all constructive edits completely ceased, and we just had pleasant conversations on the talk page, things would be perfectly WP:CIVIL. But we would not be writing an encyclopedia.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing ... could you provide diffs of these 'signals' so that we can know that they were really sent? After all, we wouldn't want to base our decisions on a rhetorical device that is basically a falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this might not have been the intention of Arbcomm (although information I have through unofficial channels is that this was their intention). However, clearly from the associated talk pages I am not the only one who has taken away that impression, intended or not. You are free to disagree that they gave this impression or intended to give this impression, but it is a little hard to argue that many people have been given this impression. --Filll (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the premise of your argument has no basis in reality that you are able to cite. Dlabtot (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to try to convince you that this perception is correct. Others have it, and I am one of them. If you do not perceive things this way, well good for you. Others might not agree with you. So what? That is what makes the world go around. Of course, as I stated, there is no explicit pronouncement of this; it is just an inference that some have drawn from their observations. --Filll (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of convincing me that you are correct as it is of making some small effort to connect what you describe as your 'impressions' with some sort of objective reality. You claim you are basing your impressions on observations: what observations? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty sure you are not going to answer the simple question I've posed to you above, let me try another tack: the Arbitration Committee does explicitly say that it does not rule on content issues - is that what your are complaining about? Are you advocating for ArbCom to rule on content? If not, what exactly are you advocating for? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Filll is referring to cases such as the recent MH case where certina ArbCom members and the Committee's collective action makes their views on civility being more important than anything else abundantly clear. To be fair, it is not all committee members who hold such views, but Filll's perception is well grounded in reality. I can't speak for Filll, but I would say that ArbCom ruling on content would be a disaster - content rulings need to involve people who understand that content, making a single body for all of WP problematic because of the amount of technical / specialised content. Further, there is also a perception at present that ArbCom's understanding of science issues is, to be charitable, less than stellar. For ArbCom, what I would advocate is a focus on actions that improving the content, making it easier to deal with tendentious but civil editors. The present situation, where admins will jump in, guns blazing, to enforce WP:CIVIL, but take no action about the underlying violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:DE, and WP:TE that led to the incivil outburst, is unhelpful - and ArbCom is contributing to the problem at the moment, rather than to its solution. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not true that ArbCom has ever said, or implied, that civility being more important than anything else. Which is why it is impossible to quote any ArbCom decision that says or implies that. Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just keep flogging that dead horse Dlabtot. You want a medal for doing it?--Filll (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, you have every right to maintain your incorrect opinion, and even to attempt to persuade others to your view. You asked for some indication of the observations upon which such views are founded, and I provided an example. The MH case is a lot more than just the final decision - look at the evidence, the associated RfC, and the talk page pleadings for the proposed decision to be modified, and then try to declare (with a straight face) that ArbCom's actions didn't send signals loudly and clearly. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay is completely correct. One need only look at the talk pages associated with the MH case and the associated 3 RfCs to observe many others who have reached the same impression I have. And as for what I suggest we do about it, I would humbly suggest you read my posts above where I repeatedly made suggestions and included links to pages with much more extensive discussions of what I suggest we do about the situation. Actually reading people's posts can help you absorb information about their positions and suggestions, in certain instances, don't you agree?--Filll (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we are looking to even slightly expand criteria beyond the uncivil outburst & meltdown stage at length in a way that is fair to editors from several sides (proto-, fringe-, pseudo- science, science area1, science area2, "skeptic") based on other behavior or concrete actions or content improvement, to restore Good Faith and NPOV editing.--I'clast (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be heretical and point out that the real problem is the very concept that being "fair" to fringe science and pseudoscience proponents includes allowing them to edit Misplaced Pages. If they were simply blocked from editing, the battle level would be reduced significantly. I know there's an argument that people that believe that their television is controlled by spirits or that they can cure cancer by wishing it would go away can still write a good article on Hannah Montana. That's probably true, but is self-sorting. As long as they limit themselves to pop culture articles, no one would have a clue that there was a problem. Once they venture into the science articles, ban them after the first couple of problematic edits.Kww (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that the current approach of WP:CIVIL enforcement only is not helpful, and might even be detrimental to productivity. Other approaches should be considered and tried. And one of those could include broader enforcement as you suggest, although to implement broader enforcement by just making some declaration, or fatwah is probably not realistic or practical.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Filll (and others) on what the import of the MH arbitration case is, but I agree with his point that people should read his essay and the discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. There are real issues here, ones that are difficult to solve, and complex, nuanced solutions are needed. Such solutions still need to be relatively easy to implement, but not too simplified. That is not instruction creep, but rather it is improving the current situation through discussion and guidance. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody please go and re-semi-protect WP:AN?

Anon vandal striking again from multiple IP addresses. The page was just unprotected a while ago. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I meant to put this on ANI.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page

User:Jehochman is repeating unproven sock puppet accusations and anon users have been seeking to out a real name on the same page . Oversight may be needed. —Whig (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on H/AP/I and RfCU. —Whig (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't see the problem here. User:Jehochman appears to be faithfully reporting the checkuser results, while the attempted "outing" of User:The Tutor appears to be an (unnecessary) attempt to connect two accounts in the notification section, not an attempt to out anybody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but the checkuser was brought for the purpose of outing someone, and attempted to tie a new user to a known sockpuppeteer of opposing POV along with the real named user that the accuser was trying to verify as the same as the new user. The real named user is attempting to exercise his right to vanish, the new user denies being the same person, and no evidence has proven this connection. Hence the tying of these accounts defeats the real named user's desire to vanish, and tarnishes the new user as an alleged sock puppet. Please note that neither the named user nor the new user have ever been accused of misconduct, so this whole exercise is really nothing but a disruption and likely to chase away a valuable new contributor if not addressed promptly. —Whig (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are really only two possibilities here:

1. The named user and the new user are different people. In this case, the sock puppet accusation should be removed.
2. The named user and the new user are the same person. In this case, the named user wants to vanish and edit pseudonymously. As an editor in good standing without any accusations of misconduct, the sock puppet accusation should be removed. —Whig (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He has apparently exercised his rtv. That means no further editing in any form. Continuing under another user name is acceptable, but that means his previous user talk page should be preserved, or at least move the contents to The Tutor's talk page and clean up all uses of his real name. -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I must keep reminding you, there is no proof that these are the same person. —Whig (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be naive. The Tutor can provide evidence that he is not MC, if he wishes to defend himself. You're just muddying the waters and if he is tempted to adopt your defense, you may end up an accessory and get him in more trouble. Better to stay out of it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Even if they are the same, there is no prohibition on users abandoning one account and using another one. MC was not under any kind of restriction, he was an editor in good standing. Why should you disrespect someone's desire to have pseudonymity if that is what happened? And why should The Tutor have to respond to these accusations when there was no abuse of sock puppets alleged. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop the sock puppet thing. That's not an issue here. It's the avoidance of scrutiny (nothing to do with real name or ID) that's the main problem:

"Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" "Avoiding scrutiny" "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

It's the deception and deletion of MC's user talk page (a talk page is not owned by the user) with the reasoning that he would vanish, but then reappeared as The Tutor, that's the problem. This has been explained numerous times now, so I give up. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making an unwarranted assumption of bad faith that there was some intention to "confuse or deceive editors". And what is your "legitimate interest" in reviewing these contributions? There was no allegation of bad behavior by either user that would require your review. —Whig (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best template to use since its rather general, but it contains the essentials. As to deception, regardless of intent confusion is the result, and TT's denial is the first deception, minor as it may be. He apparently didn't realize that a later check user would place MC and TT pretty close. (He's not that experienced yet.) BTW, checkuser isn't absolute, but when added to other evidence it makes a much stronger case. You can believe him if you wish, but The Tutor is obviously not a new user and he shares the rather unique interests, knowledge, and mindset of MC closer than a mother is related to their own child. Please don't be naive here. Fighting for a principle is one thing, but ignoring the obvious isn't smart. You and TT need to read these pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish
• Misplaced Pages:Changing username

Keep in mind that I'll support his choice to continue as TT, provided he admits that MC's RTV wasn't used to vanish, and that his change of username is done properly. MC's edit history needs to follow him, and the contents of MC's user talk page needs to as well. That talk page (which is not owned by MC) was deleted under apparently false pretenses. If he wishes anonymity (I don't recall him asking for it), then I'll certainly do all I can to help him in that regard. Please do not respond before you have thoroughly digested those two pages. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is absurd. I think you should not be allowed to Wikilawyer people like this. —Whig (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should be sanctioned for harassment, in fact. You are asserting that a new user lied, without proof, and demanding that he admit he lied in order for you to graciously allow him to abandon the identity which you assert is his. —Whig (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read those pages. Bad boy. My objections are based on wikipolicies and there's no wikilawyering going on here, only an insistance that an obviously-NOT-new user (only new username) follow policies. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. (Did that sink in?) Read TT's edit history. Drop this. Your insistance on pressing this issue is beginning to feel like I caught dysentery and the diarrhea is trailing behind me. I can't get rid of you, and your pressing the issue is feeling like harassment. Keep in mind, this doesn't involve you. You aren't TT's mom. Let TT speak for himself. I see from his immediate edit history that he hasn't vanished yet, but is even resuming MC's battles where MC left off, and is keeping you informed. That's not vanishing. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo all of your assertions, he has done nothing wrong and your rigid insistence on procedure would still be harassment and wikilawyering. You are failing to assume good faith. You have not been honest in your own statements, but have refactored yourself, I will not say more about it here, please stop treating a new user (even MC was a new user, remember) with such hostility and accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself. All of you who are hounding this person should be ashamed. Given the worst implications of everything, he'd just be a person who wanted to protect his private identity. Leave him alone or this should escalate to ArbCom ASAP. —Whig (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even were all accusations correct the basis of the checkuser was defective, and no information should have been given in this case or would have been most likely if the named user and new user had not been identified as possible sock puppets of Unprovoked, a totally unbelievable claim for anyone to have made who paid even the slightest attention to the respective POVs of participants. Accusations of sock puppetry are accusations of bad faith, and unfounded accusations of bad faith against new users are a bad thing. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd for Whig to start this thread by talking about me, and not provide any notice to me whatsoever. (The notice got lost in the shuffle. Jehochman 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)) I just stumbled upon this. Whig has been running around acting as an advocate for User:The Tutor. This is not helpful, and hopefully will stop soon. Jehochman 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking part of this, but I would appreciate if you would also withdraw your attempt to ban me and your claim of bad faith. —Whig (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Pay better attention, please. You are really causing problems by failing to pay attention, in my opinion, which was the original reason that I brought this matter here in the first place as dispute resolution with you. I insist that you strike or remove your personal attack or we may continue to have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Real named users if they break our policies will be hung out by their underwear the same as any other user, full stop. They are entitled to no special protections that any other user does not enjoy. I see no violation there. If you have a "beef" you will bring it up on that page or via an RFAR request. Stop pestering Jehochman with unfounded accusations. He's reporting checkuser evidence is what I see. If a troll, or the Tutor, or whomever that is wanted to leave Misplaced Pages, he should have left. Picking up the same destructive behaviors under a new name to avoid scrutity is his own failure, not Jehochman's for reporting him. Please go to the proper channels on this. If you do, and lack support, perhaps that would illuminate you as to the value of your stance. Lawrence § t/e 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this friendly. Whig, go ask Thatcher what needs to be done here. He's the checkuser who redacted some content from that RFCU. I removed content in parallel with what he did. Okay, thanks, bye. Jehochman 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, please point directly to the personal attack you mentioned. I've looked and looked and can't see one. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for evidence via diffs on my talk page and still also have yet to see this alleged evidence. It seems without that like an unfortunate effort to harm Jehochman's good name. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right here. On this very thread. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely not any sort of violation as you have described it. It is a factually correct observation of your behavior, and a statement of Jehochman's personal wishes for the future of your behavior. Your behavior here is growing disruptive. Do you have any other evidence to warrant your unsourced attacks on another editor? Provide them now while you have time. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a factually correct observation of my behavior. It is factually false as a matter of fact in that I did notice him and provided the link in the immediately following comment. Please stop repeating falsehoods about me. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<--The checkuser case asked to check between a number of editors including and The Tutor. Since they were unrelated, no specific allegations of wrongdoing were alleged against them (other than that they were socks, which they aren't) and since this seems to be a case of an editor discontinuing one account and opening another, I see no reason to press forward with the matter. If an editor realizes that he would rather not use his real name, dropping one account and assuming another is just as valid a way of protecting his identity (perhaps even more so) than doing a name change. The history of the original account (active for 3 weeks, 157 edits, no blocks) is not significant enough that we need to force The Tutor to maintain links to the account. RTV is about being kind and humane, and as long as The Tutor is not evading a long block log or something, I see no reason to force him to maintain the linkage. Thatcher 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed short topic ban for Whig

<RI> (Crossposted from Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents) Whig has an extensive history of disruption on homeopathy-related talk pages. This incident is but one of many that editors of these pages have had to endure. I will restrict the following collection of diffs to those posted in the last four days, in the interest of freshness, but please realize that this behavior has gone on for months.

• Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return:
• Meatpuppetry:
• Wikilawyering:
• Personal attacks:
• Canvassing:
• Arbcom threats:
• Other disciplinary threats:
• Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation:
• Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom:

This needs to stop. This behavior is poisoning good faith attempts by both pro- and anti-factions to improve coverage of homeopathic topics on Misplaced Pages. Whig has been the subject of two recent user conduct RFCs (here and here), which have had no effect in changing his tendentious and needlessly argumentative approach. I recommend a broadly defined topic ban (if not a full siteban) that covers all articles and talk pages related to homeopathy, as well as any user page/AN/ANI discussions related to homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A 31 day 6 month (see below section) topic ban, broad defined, as suggested. If Whig is here for the encyclopedia, and not POV ends, this shouldn't be a problem for him. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances. As User: Bishonen stated, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. This RFC already has enough proof in it that Whig is a disruptive editor who adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and who wastes the time and energy of productive editors. The most important function of the arbitration committee is to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. Take Whig to arbitration." Before we do that, I would move for a 30 day community ban. A topic ban will not work because the disruption will simply migrate to other places. If we are unanimous, we can end this disruption here and now. Otherwise, an arbitration case may be necessary. Jehochman 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have found little sign of AGF from many of the editors involved who do not seem to be trying to get a NPOV for the articles , just pressing their own POV hard. The Tutor (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as initiator. I would prefer a community ban - limited topic bans have been placed on Whig in the past, which has led him to increase disruption elsewhere. The main purpose of my proposal is to stop him from further inflaming the situation at Homeopathy, which a broad topic ban would accomplish, but I don't think he's really here to write an encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the incredibly thin ice he's already on, if he causes trouble elsewhere while on this (or the next after) topic ban, he won't be long for the site anyway. Lawrence § t/e 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've been here a whole lot longer than you, it seems. Skinwalker brought these false charges which I have refuted below. No response is needed to the regular crowd of people who have been trying to ban me for five months. —Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — I trust the judgments here and the diffs provided. --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, regarding the diffs provided. —Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect The terms of the ban were:
  • A 1RR restriction
  • A broadly defined civility and profanity parole
  • No editing homeopathy except for reverting simple vandalism
  • All of the above is enforceable by blocks.
• The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat. east.718 at 23:31, March 8, 2008

  I would encourage you to please read my response below, and I have not violated any of those terms. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support / Moral support I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then why not just ban him from discussing, participating in, or working on anything homeopathy/science related, at all? That would include editing the articles, discussing issues surrounding them here on Project space, user space, etc.--it's a big encyclopedia. Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, if sufficiently airtight to avoid the possibility of circumvention that might be a workable alternative to an indefinite ban. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure it is broad enough to cover movies that pretend to be about science as well. I would hate to see him get bored and join that battle over at What the Bleep Do We Know.Kww (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Whig is one of several who hang around homeopathy and similar topics, agitating and not contributing much except irritation. His very presence impedes progress and contributes to a foul atmosphere. I have had private communications from people on both sides of the homeopathy debate who have become discouraged with the ugly attitudes on the homeopathy pages and related pages, and Whig is a major contributor to these unpleasant behaviors, I am sorry to say. Restricting Whig's actions on the mainspace pages is a pointless exercise because Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues, in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  One of the charges against me involves the fact that I have informed this editor that WP:AGF does not apply in his case when he makes statements without providing sources. I can provide the reason if that is requested. —Whig (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• support/endorse mainly Jehochman's remarks. The Tutor is correct that there have been serious AGF and other problems with some related articles on all sides; however, this is in no way mitigates the incredible disruptiveness that Whig has demonstrated. Indeed, I'd be inclined to guess that much of the failure to assume AGF comes from people exhausted with having to deal with Whig. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or greater. Whig is a consistently obstructive presence whose modest useful inputs have been consistently overshadowed by tendentious traits, obfuscation, baiting, rules-lawyering, and a general unwillingness to compromise. — Scientizzle 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 mo. ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, and explain your reasoning. —Whig (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The vast majority of the above editors are the usual suspects who have content issues with Whig and with homeopathy. Whig has shown great civility. Because he is knowledgeable about wiki-rules, he is more of a threat to the above editors who have frequently sought to silence him and who make up or exaggerate problems. Let's AGF even when we disagree with editors. DanaUllman 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Comments from Lawrence suggest that Whig's edits outside the broadly-defined areas of science, alternative medicine, and pseudoscience is unproblematic - and as such, the community ban which Whig would otherwise richly deserve may not yet be totally justified. I have read Whig's response below, and do not believe it even begins to address his disruptive behaviour. His constant refusals to listen - amply demonstrated in his declarations in previous AN/I discussions and at the RfC that he would continue to act as he has previously - his continuing wikilawyering, and the obnoxious schadenfreude make these further sanctions over and above the now-failed editing restrictions (which, I might add, he has wikilawyered about being described as a probation) long overdue. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've watched Whig for several months. He attacks other editors without remorse, and has not been a useful member of this community. OrangeMarlin 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a long vacation. I have posted further diff's for this case on the Incidents page. I did not want to clutter everything up here. I would also like to note that the two opposes greatly reinforce some of the comments I made in my evidence. In short, Whig willingly broke the terms of his editing restrictions (and even claimed he was never under any restrictions) and should be held accountable. Baegis (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban. Why indefinite? Because he has consistently revealed a pattern that shows he can't understand basic science, and even if he does, refuses to learn from it. This leads to an attitude problem where his energy seems to be focused on what he sees as "The Truth", and then, as Fill so aptly puts it: "Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues." I share his opinion. Many things have been tried, but nothing has worked, and a short ban has no hope of working. Nothing useful has come from Whig's presence here. Few users here are so successful at wasting vast amounts of our time. It's time to get rid of one of the major thorns under our saddles. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month community ban, for continuing tendentious editing. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Above probation, what it would entail

Rather than lose Whig indefinitely, the probation will be a 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Misplaced Pages and discussion of it is off-limits to Whig, so that we don't lose him completely. He seems to be fine except with these articles. Lawrence § t/e 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above comport a false record of my activity and reflect a one sided presentation. As such, I protest any such ban or restriction. —Whig (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your history here is well known, per above supports. Lawrence § t/e 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any point in my providing diffs in opposition? —Whig (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs completely refuting your disruptive nature on science and homeopathy articles, and refuting point by point all the Supports, it would be in your best interests. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will I be given sufficient time and opportunity to do so? —Whig (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an important decision and your perspective is essential. I've added a topic heading below -- please respond at whatever length and in whatever manner you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.. If the community decides to place the sanction on you, it can always be removed later if you convince the community to do so with evidence. The participation of any one editor "now" on any one topic area is never so crucial that Misplaced Pages will suffer for their absence for a short while. You should completely not touch these articles in any capacity except for this thread for now, probably. Lawrence § t/e 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence against me (refuted utterly below), what more would you like? —Whig (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to try harder. Did you read the support comments? You are being put forward for probation for a long history of these issues. You still have yet to provide a satisfactory diff even once of these so-called attacks others have made on you today in violation of WP:NPA. Lawrence § t/e 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will obviously receive no fair hearing here. I have made my response. Should I wait to request arbitration? —Whig (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this should be case closed. —Whig (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Whig

Charge 1: "Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return". To respond to this I must demonstrate bad faith by other editors. Is it appropriate for me to do so here? —Whig (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 2: "Meatpuppetry". This is why we're here, I did not do anything that can be characterized as meat puppetry. I saw a new user who may or may not be a named person trying to protect his private identity, and sought to help. This is not meat puppetry. This is being a good Wikipedian. —Whig (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 3: "Wikilawyering". More of the same. I am not "wikilawyering" by trying to be helpful to a new user. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 4: "Personal attacks". I was responding to personal attacks by Jehochman in one. The others aren't personal attacks either. —Whig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 5: "Canvassing". I went to User:Dreadstar's talk page to discuss the attempted outing of the real named user. This is not canvassing. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 6: "Arbcom threats". I have made no secret that I think the arbitration committee should probably be involved in this dispute. So what? —Whig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 7: "Other disciplinary threats". I threatened nothing at all. —Whig (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 8: "Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation". This refers to me having a dispute with Jehochman. This dispute. —Whig (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 9: "Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom". This one is just bizarre. I think the Matthew Hoffman arbcom case was handled as well as it could be under the circumstances. That isn't Schadenfreude. —Whig (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Observation from a non-involved nonadministrator: If you look at all the diffs involved above, it really doesn't seem like Whig is being uncivil. Most of them are almost silly - "personal attacks" in particular. It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Misplaced Pages policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about Whig are probably well-documented enough; I'm surprised he wasn't topic-banned following his RfC. He seems to have taken the message that he needs to be civil, and his civility has improved substantially; however, there has not been a corresponding improvement in the more fundamental problem of tendentiousness. It's just become civil tendentiousness, which I would submit is not a satisfactory solution. But community-based sanctions will probably not be effective here - no matter how many previously uninvolved admins get to know Whig and find him tendentious and topic-ban-worthy (I count Haemo, Jehochman, and East718 among them based on their comments above), he and his defenders will always paint this as a lynch mob or suppression of minority views - and that sort of tactic tends to be successful on Misplaced Pages. In that light, I would certainly support the proposed community-based sanction, but realistically it may be a better use of time to simply start preparing evidence for ArbCom. MastCell  05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without responding to the other points you make and which I disagree with, I do agree that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to resolve the differences here. It would be nice if we could find common consent to ask them to take up the matter. I would in any event appeal any block or ban resulting from this proceeding based upon the refuted evidence submitted. —Whig (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is dispute resolution, not dispute escalation and increased disruption. In this circumstance, an Arbcom would be extremely disruptive and in the face of community support for a ban such a move is unnecessary. We need to cut down on the disruption, not wallow in it and expand it. That's what an Arbcom would do. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am neither a defender or prosecuter of Whig. I merely saw a lot of fishy, frivilous evidence submitted, and wanted to post a general note that people should be wary of making this a personal matter instead of a policy matter. That's all. I heartily agree with Fyslee and the wallow/expand comment, and that's obliquely the point I was driving at. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Tanthalas39, let's think about this a bit. Why is Whig still on a form of probation or editing restriction following a previous Arbcomm case? Why were 3 RfCs against Whig filed in the last few months? Why did Whig's RfC where he tried to get sanctions levied against an admin for violating WP:CIVIL by calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" get soundly rejected by the community and result in a call for a community ban? Is this evidence of someone productive and working well with others? How many others do you know that in 6 months have been involved in so much drama (3 RfCs and an Arbcomm case and several calls for a community ban, all from different editors)? I have had private emails, not just from pro-science editors but from pro-homeopathy editors, who state in graphic terms that Whig has contributed to such a poisonous atmosphere in the homeopathy articles that they no longer choose to participate. And for all this disruption, what has Whig produced? He has a handful of edits a year or two back on an article or two about marijuana and an article about Pope Benedict XVI. That is it. In the last few months, Whig has devoted his time and energy to fighting, not productive activities. When invited repeatedly to produce something, he always demurs. He would rather fight instead. When can the community just state that it has had enough?--Filll (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What previous Arbcomm case do you propose that I am on probation or editing restriction as a consequence of? —Whig (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Whig ALWAYS claims he is under no editing restriction. But he is, and this is just another of his tactics for muddying the waters and trying to avoid accountability. For example, see here and here and here. --Filll (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For more information, please see RFC#3, RFC#2 and RFC#1 and previous administrative noticeboard threads about Whig:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig--Filll (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Result

The above discussion seems to result in a consensus for a 6 month community ban. Various options were discussed, and the 6 month ban seems to be the one that would have the widest acceptance. Is there any administrator who would oppose this? If so, speak now. Jehochman 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence against me. So go ahead and ban me and we'll see what happens. —Whig (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the threat above. OrangeMarlin 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more explicit because I do not intend to be vague. I will appeal any such ban. —Whig (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. This has been open for barely 18 hours and Jehochman seems very involved. The Tutor (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is involved because he is one of the admins enforcing probation on these topics, which is what Whig seems to be repeatedly violating. How is that undue or inappropriate involvement?--Filll (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been in a contentious dispute with Whig over the past few days. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea for an editor to pick a fight with an admin who is administering probation on articles on which this same editor is disruptive.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no editorial disputes with Whig. Troublemakers do not get to veto the administrators that respond to their disruptions by attacking those administrators. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. Jehochman 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute began as a behavioral dispute with you in regards to your carelessness in repeating a false accusation about a real named person and has escalated to this point. —Whig (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also will note that the 18 hours is a bit of a red herring, since there have been repeated administrative actions involving Whig going back for months and months. It is not like this is something new that just popped up.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but an actual community ban discussion should start with a clean state and last for at least a full day (maybe longer) or as long as needed, not as long as needed to get the "correct" result. Arbitrarily ending something like this gives the impression that the system can be gamed (ie. picking the right moment to end the discussion). I think all discussions like this should have an end point decided at the start, to avoid precisely this sort of dispute over when to end the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I can believe that this is how WP functions. I'm sorry but it seems like a lynch mob. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. This seems like a mob rule. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, lynching is an example of a hate crime. Speaking as an editor who is subjected to hate speech here on WP, and to a group that is regularly targetted for hate crimes, I find your description of the people contributing to this discussion as a "lynch mob" to be personally offensive, and I ask that you refactor your comment immediately. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I am at no risk of bodily harm whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, the victim personality that you are using is offensive and degrading to someone who's people have been subjected to "lynch mobs" that ended in 6 million deaths. Odd language choice..OrangeMarlin 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I see people talking about lynch mobs, I immediately think about the US Deep South, rather than the Holocaust. But not everyone reacts in the same way to the use of such language. The use of "lynch mob" as a rhetorical device is fairly common in day-to-day conversation for some people, and it is often used without any intended offence. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't cause offence, but that is on the part of the person being offended, not the person using the phrase. When I'm offended by something, I do try and step back and think "Did they mean it that way? Will me registering my offence actually help here or not?". Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to point out when a word gives offense if it is likely to offend others as well, or even if you are not personally offended certain words are best avoided unless you really mean them. This is not a lynching. —Whig (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This is pointless nitpicking. An admin raised the question if another admin objected to closing at that point. One admin did object at closing before 24 hours is up, and so it probably will not close before 24 hours is up. So what? Let's not get all worked up over nothing. The bottom line is we have several editors on alternative medicine articles, and Whig is one of them, who do not appear to be here to write an encyclopedia, but to impede others who are trying to do so. That is the main issue. And so we will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lynching is the wrong term. I didn't mean it literally. My apologies to you all. This just doesn't seem right. I'm not sure how to best characterize it, but something doesn't seem right here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is disruptive and unfair, personally. The "evidence" has all been refuted away and Jehochman still wants to ban me. So be it. —Whig (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the proposal and the discussion seemed to have been winding down. Everything that could be said has been said, especially since there have been multiple RFCs and noticeboard threads on Whig's conduct. Carcharoth suggested that 18 hours was not enough time. Very well, let's wait a full 48 hours before imposing the remedy, if no administrator objects by then. Jehochman 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Anthon01 for striking that word "lynching." Although this wasn't the right word, what is true is that the vast majority of the editors above who are supporting the muting of Whig have content disputes with him. We should look at those observations from uninvolved editors, such as , who saw no significant problems with Whig. Also, it is important to note that no one has responded to Whig's response, where he effectively responds to each point and even shows that the allegations are inaccurate (anyone who reviews these allegations can confirm this). The bottomline is that Whig has shown impressive civility despite editing in a "war zone." Clearly, his work is so effective that many people who have content disputes with him are now seeking to stop him through other means. To me, this effort to mute him for 6 months or indefinitely is a tad ironic, when several of the above editors who seek serious penalties against him are not supporting serious penalties for who has shown continual uncivility, hatred, and wishing death (!) of some pro-homeopathy editors (me). The anti-homeopathy forces show a patable bias on who they wish to punish for minor and for major crimes against wikipedia policies. DanaUllman 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Username

A user has taken the username Jimbo1966 (talk · contribs).Jimbo Wales was born in 1966. Jimmy Wales was born in 1966.This would create a wrong impression to new users or outsiders that it was one of the accounts of Jimbo Wales.How long do I need to wait till I get a response from the user to take it to WP:RFCN.My report was declined in WP:UAA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the standard is "a reasonable amount of time". I know that's unclear, but... for instance, if the user ignores you and makes other edits, a motion to RFCN is probably appropriate within an hour. If they take no other editing actions, I'd give them 24 hours. - Philippe | Talk 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone needs to keep an eye on their contributions just in case. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look. Frankly, I'm inclined to say this one's okay. - Philippe | Talk 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many accounts with the name Jimbo in them, one bad apple impersonater doesn't mean they all all. — Κaiba 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that this username is fine. It may be coincidence, and, even if it's not, I doubt whether anyone would be fooled by this; anyone who known Wales well enough to know his birthyear wouldn't make that kind of error. -- Anonymous Dissident 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put up in the WP:RFCN.Please feel free to put your comments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Account that only inserts external links

User:Shiftedreality seems to be exclusively inserting external links to jaman.com. Is that OK? To me it's blatant spam, and on the Danish Misplaced Pages where I am sysop I would have reverted him, but I don't know what the policy is here. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam apparently. Checked one, and their information is not that expansive to justify inclusion. Try informing that at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam, they may have already noticed that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely spam, and it's been going on for a long time. Special:Linksearch/*.jaman.com returned about 150 links and some on other projects. Blocked, unlinked. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hah! And up on my watchlist pops an article edited by Nadavs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - if only all spammers were this inept! Guy (Help!) 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User posting non-english new pages

I have a concern over this user. He or she has been posting new articles in Dutch, of which I have listed all for speedy deletion. I did put a template on his or her talk page about communicating in English, but I was curious if there are any administrators who speak Dutch and might be willing to put something on this user's talk page saying that we're assuming good faith but English Misplaced Pages contributions must be in English. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a simple translation with Google, and it turns out all of these user's contributions are nonsense pages or vandalism, just translated into Dutch. I put a test4 template on his talk page and will report him to AIV if he posts another page like it. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Beatlesnicole userpage

This was previously the subject of a discussion, per here. The copyvio question was resolved but I still went ahead and deleted (not just blanked) the userpage as it gave - in my view - enough detail to possibly identify the editor, who is a minor. I commented on the editors talkpage for my reasons. I have found that the editor has recreated the userpage (with the same self identifying details) and deleted my comments. I should be grateful if a fresh pair of eyes would have a look and see if I am needlessly censoring self expression, or if the info would best be removed. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone, and left her a note. east.718 at 20:51, March 7, 2008

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR and role account

I was bold and created a "role" account, User:Cambridge CERT which is indef blocked and has both talk and user pages protected. Why would I do such a thing? The Cambridge network response team has been in communication with me for a few days and we set up a mechanism whereby their users who abuse their proxy will be larted locally by their own team; in return, they request that we admins try to keep our blocks of the proxy IPS (131.111.8.96 - 131.111.8.111) short, and soft so as to reduce the number of innocent bystanders (basically, the almost totality of the faculty and student body goes through this proxy farm).

I've set up the role account so that we can use the Special:Emailuser function to communicate with the response team without exposing their email address to harvesters. Since the account has no real editor behind it, there was no reason to not simply indef block and protect.

I think this is a great step of collaboration between educational institutions and Misplaced Pages, and they should be hailed as exemplar! — Coren  21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... I'm not clear on what you've done. I am reminded of the AlisonW section above. Since there is only one authorised "role" account - if what you have created is the same thing - it might be wise to let OFFICE or Foundation know and give approval. Otherwise it might be wise to re-assign the designation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the block should stay in place until they've been approved. This seems like an unwise claim of IAR, as this is kind of a serious matter, and should not have been undertaken without community approval. Justin_(u) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, the block is meant to always remain in place— there will never be an editor behind this account, only an email address. — Coren  22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's never going to be an editor behind it, what harm will the block do? So long as the email function is unblocked, there's no harm done. It's actually safer this way, and approval won't even be needed. Justin_(u) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think there are any plans to unblock the account in the first place, since it's not supposed to edit anything, as far as I can see. It's just there so we can email it. I think this is a good idea, but someone might want to poke Bastique about this (or whoever else is in charge about these kind of things) anyhow, just to be sure. --Conti|✉ 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what Coren's saying. He put the block in place, he seems to know what he's doing. I thought he was against the block, wanted it unblocked, even though it wouldn't edit. I'm not against the plan, I just misunderstood. Justin_(u) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case the role seems to be just as an email contact point. I think the problem with role editors is that copyright for edits is held by individuals and not by a role (unless an interesting pile of legal paperwork were prepared). This is not an editor. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no problem since it's a non-editor. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a role account because nobody is editing. It's a hack to create a secure, public mailing list. Coren, can you consider what form this object would take in the perfect world and see if there is a developer who would code it? Jehochman 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? It's not a perfect world. Do you not think this isn't a good idea? Justin_(u) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest something along the lines of Special:Contact/Name_of_contact, but given that there's a simple account-based way of achieving the objective I doubt it's worth the trouble of working up an interface and infrastructure for that— the reason I brought it up here is that I felt this skirted enough to WP:ROLE to be worth a second look, and perhaps a clear policy on whether that's a workable solution or not. — Coren  23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full marks for creative thinking. Maybe there are other ways of achieving the same end, but this works and uses only existing functionality. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neat idea. So is a note/template for all their IPs going to link back to that user page? Lawrence § t/e 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is: {{SharedIPCERT}}. It's a slightly modified version of {{SharedIPEdu}}; in fact it might be too slighly modified... I worry that passing administrators might not notice it's not the typical school template. Suggestion/improvements welcome. — Coren  03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a play around with the template to try and make it more noticeably different, but also make it such that it can be merged back into {{SharedIPEDU}}. I don't think it is a good idea to have these permanently separate. If anyone can suggest a better colour for the version with the contact details specified, or a better image to replace the clock, do change it. Some of the wording is still a bit awkward as well. In general though, a very good idea, which I am sure can and will be extended. With the account indef blocked I don't think any of the normal concerns over role accounts apply (although the blessing of a foundation member would be nice). I've boldly created Template:ContactRoleAccount and Category:Contact role accounts to administer what I hope will be a burgeoning class of accounts. Happy‑melon 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already poked Cary on the matter, and I'm not overly attached to the separate template— but I hope the difference will be visible enough so that passing admins will notice. — Coren  15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir - final chance

In the spirit of AGF, I offered this user a final final chance. I offered to unblock if Lir was serious about giving us constructive content contributions, to be proved (or otherwise) over the next 50 edits. Lir has accepted my conditions, and I have unblocked.

I view this as a final chance, and if obvious disruption continues he can be community banned. But I hope that is not necessary. Lir is concerned by people with vendettas provoking him, so I invite neutral admins to watch Lir (talk · contribs) and ensure Lir is given every fair opportunity to prove him/herself a worthwile editor. I'm being bold here, but I hope I can be supported in doing this.--Doc 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A controverisal move, Doc, but nonetheless, its done, and for the right reasons. Not sure how this will play out, but seeing how I'm completely uninvolved, I've watchlisted Lir. Any history I should be aware of whilst I'm watching the contribs? Also, I'll be offline for the majority of the 2 days, back on 3/10 in earnest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a positive step. Everyking (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you all the best with this. Lir has been a prolific editor in the past, and when he isn't trolling, he can be a good contributor, it's just that there is so much trolling in his past, with so many different accounts. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir's previous ban was before my time, so I'm also keeping an eye on the situation. Props to Doc glasgow for assuming good faith here, while everyone else was ready to just kick Lir back off of the project. Sean William @ 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't have much faith in him though. His ban was well before my time too. Grandmasterka 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Go Doc. Indefinite <> infinite, as we all know, and the risk is low: either he behaves or he gets booted pronto. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this was good idea. --Haemo (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Doc. He couldn't hold it in even that long. It's really sad that he burned the opportunity you have so graciously given him. — Coren  04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (In case it wasn't clear in context, I have reblocked him indefinitely— I expect that even Doc won't oppose after his trust was thus betrayed). — Coren  04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely dismal that Lir could not restrain himself from being provocative for even a minimal amount of time, and I agree that based on this experiment it appears it may not be possible to allow him to contribute. However, we should look carefully at his contributions before making a final decision here. He made lots and lots of edits to Battle of Stalingrad, apparently surpassing Doc's requirement that his first 50 edits be constructive content contributions (perhaps deliberately stretching them out to meet the quota?)—superficially at least, his edits seem to have improved the article somewhat, and nobody has reverted any of it. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Battle of Stalingrad, but it looks to me that about a third to a half of the edits he made there were substantive, the rest were tweaking: adding missing words, fixing spelling, adding phrases which could be considered padding, but are arguably justifiable. I understand this style of editing - I'm guilty of using it myself, but it does drive up the edit count quite fast. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given comments like this and this, he seems to still have ownership issues. And his attempts to continue a vendetta against me , even after being blocked, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. --Calton | Talk 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him, i find it very unlikely that he will be unblocked in the state he is. Viridae 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could, I hoped for the best. It didn't last very long at all. It for others to decide what to do now. I've moved on.--Doc 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand thats me gone too. How to win friends and influence people I don't think. He wikilwayered away all thoughts of potential reform. Viridae 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was skeptical of letting him back in after looking at his Arbcom case and past history, and complaining about my removal of a spam link sealed it. I figured it was a matter of time before he ran out of chances. We just banned Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) along the same lines--a user who made many good contributions, but had a history of borderline stalking with other editors. We don't need him. Blueboy96 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB passing % discussion

If you haven't, please consider participating here and adding your view on whether the passing percentage for RfBs should be changed. I'll post this at WP:AN/I, as well, and it has been raised at WP:VP and is posted on TEMP:CENT. Avruch 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:224jeff6

I came across this user a few days ago regarding several photos he had uploaded to Misplaced Pages, claiming that he owned these cars and was taking pictures of them. They were, however, clear copyright violations, and all were speedy deleted. However, while browsing this user's contributions and user page, I cannot help but feel that this user seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a social networking tool, and does not actually contribute to the encyclopedic nature of Misplaced Pages. His 500 most recent edits consist almost entirely of edits to his user page, discussions with other users, finding user "secret pages", and creating user boxes (most of which contain the copyrighted images he had previously uploaded).

Since mid-February, his 500 most recent contributions consist of only a page move, a redirect, a template edit, correcting an image link (incorrectly), correcting a typo, and an apparent translation of a deleted Spanish Misplaced Pages article. There are several good edits when the editor first registered at Misplaced Pages, but it appears his edits to improve Misplaced Pages have simply made way for chatting with friends since that time.

Another user, claiming to be his brother, also left a message on my talk page regarding my nomination of deletion of his pictures. However, this account seems to have only made two contributions regarding adding an award to User:224jeff6's page, which could imply a sockpuppet. The359 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nmate

Hi there. I don't know where to report this, but I'm convinced that something isn't right with User:Nmate's editing patterns. Please see his/her recent contributions. MarkBA 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking at WP:FPC

All socks blocked via WP:AIV Malinaccier (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In which the photographer/sockpuppeteer, Mario1987, created several sockpuppets in order to get his pictures featured. It should be noted that his upload log has a large amount of red links due to copyvios - can we have a few admins to have a look at the images please? The following accounts need to be blocked, as per the checkuser request:

• Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mariosamoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angelono2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sathmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Medrano man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cameldog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Loganbailly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Negresti-oas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the above abuse, I propose that Mario1987 at least be banned from FPC. For an editor of his experience, he really should have known better. MER-C 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All accounts are already blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's a related problem with the legitimacy of some of this editor's uploads. Claims to be from Romania, and the only photo uploads he's done that have metadata tags are of Romanian locations. Has also uploaded dubious images of New World species and of Senegal. I've checked the most recent uploads; details below. Durova 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Short summary: all of the images listed below have dubious legitimacy. Items 6-10 from the first group might be worth checking out in more depth. The rest can all go. Durova 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:Mule Deer.jpg: Western North American species; editor claims to be from Romania. No visible metadata.
2. Image:Pugmug.jpg: Looks like a studio shot. No metadata.
3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata.
4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata.
5. Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Claims to own rights to the photo, but image is sourced to a Swedish photographer's website that claims full copyright. Image was shot in Senegal in 2005.
6. Image:Faidherbestamp.jpg: Posibly okay: postage stamp with source link provided (returns 404 error).
7. Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: Possibly legitimate fair use, but wrong fair use rationale. Claims to be a newspaper scan. Actually comes from a website. Posts what purports to be reprint permission in French, but no OTRS submission.
8. Image:Podul Faidherbe2.jpg: Unclear license. Source links returns a 404 error. Editor claims this is public domain as 100+ years old. The Commons license info page doesn't list a separate entry for Senegal. Most former colonial countries have similar copyright laws to the former colonial power, which for France would be the artist's lifespan plus 70 years. We have no way of knowing how old this postcard really is, much less whether the photographer died before or after 1938. With this much murkiness I'm not going to dig further (to find out whether this specifically holds true for Senegal or not, etc.)
9. Image:PodulFaidherbe.jpg:Possibly legitimate. Valid source link to the Senegal national archives. Spent a minute surfing the site (which was in French) looking for a licensing statement. Didn't find it right away; could be worth investigating in more detail.
10. Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg:Probably legitimate. Google Earth with fair use rationale.
11. Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG:Legitimate. A location in Romania, metadata displays. Probably a representative example of the editor's actual photographic skill. Not used in any article.
12. Image:Sapanta 091.jpg:Legitimate. A location in Romania, same metadata. Not used in any article.

Previous uploads (dubious examples only; more to come): Durova 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:24nr4.jpg: Metadata only displays the imaging software, not the camera.
2. Image:Iffg 2159.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
3. Image:Iyyu 2162.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
4. Image:Oasc 4728.JPG: No metadata, no description.
5. Image:Labd 5626.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
6. Image:Fsd 5671.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
7. Image:IerG 5674.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
8. Image:Imsunset 5793.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
9. Image:Smwaterfall 5867.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
10. Image:City 5911.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
11. Image:Landscape cal.jpg: No metadata, no description.
12. Image:Playground223.JPG: No description, not used in any article. Metadata is for a Canon PowerShot A620, taken 19 December 2005. From August 2003 through July 2007 the editor's regular camera was an hp photosmart 735.
13. Image:Playground223.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera (a Canon PowerShot A620 19 December 2005). No description, not used in any article.
14. Image:Playground32.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. hp photosmart 735 22 August 2003. Not used in any article.
15. Image:Tuia'.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 17 November 2007. No description, not used in any article.
16. Image:Woodsroad.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 3 November 2007
17. Image:Europe FDI.png: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
18. Image:EU nat gas production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
19. Image:Sunseta.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
20. Image:Dscspyder.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
21. Image:Iron production by country.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
22. Image:Coal production by country.png: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
23. Image:Firework8.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
24. Image:Firework7.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
25. Image:Palatuladministrativ2.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
26. Image:Coal production world.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
27. Image:Al production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
28. Image:My nephew.JPG: Not used in any article; outside project scope.
29. Image:The bug on the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
30. Image:Bee in the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
31. Image:Jungle lake.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
32. Image:Haunted house.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
33. Image:Sunsetover.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
34. Image:Sunset12.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
35. Image:Autoproduction.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
36. Image:Fixtelephony.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
37. Image:Oilprovenreserves.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
38. Image:Gasprovenreserves-World-v5.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
39. Image:Nicolita.jpg: No metadata, not used in any article. Indoor photo of a recognizable person that lacks model permission.
40. Image:Sapanta 067.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
41. Image:Sapanta 068.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
42. Image:Sapanta069.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
43. Image:Sapanta 070.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
44. Image:Sapanta 075.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
45. Image:Sapanta 077.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
46. Image:Sapanta 078.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
47. Image:Sapanta 079.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
48. Image:Sapanta 080.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
49. Image:Sapanta 082.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
50. Image:Sapanta 084.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
51. Image:Sapanta 085.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
52. Image:Sapanta 089.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
53. Image:Sapanta 090.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
54. Image:Sapanta 113.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
55. Image:Sapanta 109.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
56. Image:Sapanta 108.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
57. Image:Ad020v3.jpg: Not the editor's usual camera (Canon PowerShot A310 2 December 2004), not used in any article.
58. Image:Computerparts.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
59. Image:Fallerleafs.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
60. Image:Hboxe0746.JPG:No description, not used at any article.
61. Image:Floer11.JPG:No description, not used at any article.

A portion of these could be justifiable as transwikies to Commons, if anyone knows the Romanian countryside and feels motivated to add descriptions to the images that have Hewlett Packard metadata. Durova 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at this case yesterday and also noticed the inconsistencies regarding the images. I'd be inclined to just speedy everything that doesn't have the HP data. I take it this fellow has a past history with posting copyvio images and I strongly feel most of the images listed here are copyvios. Sarah 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The SapantaXXX pictures are of the Merry Cemetery in Săpânţa, Romania, not far from where our sockpuppeteer apparently lives. The pics aren't bad, actually. Of course, there's unfortunately no way of knowing that they're definitely his... -- ChrisO (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The metadata for most of the images that have camera data is for the same make and model camera over a four year period. So it's safe to say that anything with hp photosmart 735 actually is this editor's work. A problem there is that he's been using Misplaced Pages as a personal photo album and putting them into user space only. That violates en:Wiki hosting standards, but those examples would be all right for transwiki to Commons if someone who knows the area wants to add a description. I've written the report with enough information to tell the difference. Durova 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Senegal images might be legal for us to use,check this French page out. User:Zscout370 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a few for HP Photosmart M537. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts)Thanks Chris. Those ones all have metadata for HP Photosmart which I take it is what Durova referred to as his usual camera, but I'm not sure. The images I'm particularly concerned with are the ones with no metadata or different cameras with vastly different photographic skill. There seems to be a very wide range in skill, compare for example Image:Blue-fronted_Amazon.JPG (hp photosmart 735 metadata), Image:HPIM0058.JPG (HP M537) and Image:HPIM0224.JPG(HP M537) with Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg and Image:Pugmug.jpg, both of which have no metadata. I'm just finding it very hard to believe these were all taken by the same person, as is claimed. See also User:Mario1987/Pictures_added. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Sarah. I'm assuming all the ones that lack metadata or show some other camera are copyvios. So I noted the missing metadata/unusual camera status on every image that had those problems. The entries that don't list any metadata problem appear to be his own actual photographs (those ones are also about the same level of quality and look like they were all taken in Romania). The situation is a little confusing, so I hope the notations are clear enough. Feel free to ask questions if something looks vague. Durova 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dang, looks like a portion of these have been transwikied to Commons. I'll head over there to follow up on that end. Durova 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, can you indicate which ones you feel should be deleted? I've deleted some, mostly animals, that I feel are pretty obviously copyvios. Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, reply to Sarah) I'll bullet point this:

• Items 6-10 from the first set might be okay. Worth checking out.
• Everything else on both lists is either a probable copyvio or outside en:Misplaced Pages hosting parameters. All the lines that mention no metadata or not the editor's usual camera really ought to be deleted. All the maps need to go.
• Some material would be viable for transwiki to Commons, if descriptions were added. In cases where I don't complain about the metadata or the camera model, then decide whether it's worth the time to add information about what the photo depicts. Commons does need to have some information about the subject (and I know very little about Romania).
• For the record, this editor also had some legitimate uploads and I haven't listed the stuff that was clearly legitimate. (Those are the instances where he was using his own camera and the image actually is being used in at least one article).

Durova 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted everything except 6-10 on the first list. Anything else that is still blue has been deleted locally but still exists by the same name on Commons. Sarah 06:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's a huge help. Now I'll have the joyous task of translating Senegalese copyright law... Durova 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm adding a notation on this guy at WP:LOBU. Given these massive copyright violations (shades of Verdict?), it's obvious he'll never be allowed back. Blueboy96 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He also had a "trophy case" of sorts at User:Mario1987/Pictures added. Nearly all of the pictures there have been determined to be copyvios, so I deleted the lot. Blueboy96 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image found notes

3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata. / copy found at , linked from which claims at bottom the images are from PD sources. Original source not found. Google Image led to two other images but server not serving so can't get details nor context: -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata. / At in lower resolution with a claimed author. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, SEW. :) Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, excellent find. For the first few of these I checked the first hundred or two Google Image returns, then worked from species origin and metadata. Durova 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

More notes

• Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: I translated the French notice on the page to mean that it was only allowed on Misplaced Pages "with permission," so I ixnayed it per {{db-permission}}. Surprised you didn't catch that as well, Durova ... you speak French too, right?
• Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Spiked as a fairly obvious copyvio. Blueboy96 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I skimmed the French sources and it's possible I could have skipped over an image or two as I went down the list. Durova 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh wait a sec. Yes that was on the first list. I had doubts about that one. Durova 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg replaceable fair use, can use something from NASA World Wind instead. MER-C 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These are items 6-10 stuff; I listed them as questionable and plowed down the list rather than slow down and check fair use parameters each time. Durova 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Poofed. Man this guy was a timewaster. :( Sarah 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Europe FDI.PNG - copy of Image:Europe FDI.png deleted above.
• Image:Uvvg.jpg - OK fair use.
• Image:Camus.jpg - deleted, reuploaded by someone else as a (likely) different image. OK.
• Image:Sinagoguesm.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles. MER-C 07:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons uploaded images

Suspected copyvios

Need someone to file a deletion request or a Commons admin to delete the following:

• Image:Ardei.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fallenleefs.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Winterlandscape.JPG - same as above.
• Image:Zinc production by country.PNG - map.
• Image:Icoanepestanca.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Possible derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fireork14.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Supercar.JPG - derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051v2.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.

Other commons images

• Image:Bee there.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Dragonfly23.JPG - no description.
• Image:Pisauramirabilis.JPG - no original description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Frogy - close look.JPG - no description.
• Image:Spikey.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The something.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Wonderfull look.JPG - no description, not used in any articles. Unencyclopedic composition.
• Image:HPIM0436.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Blue-fronted Amazon.JPG - no original description
• Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The island - it`s fake.JPG - ditto.
• Image:Sunsetandthelake.JPG - ditto
• Image:HPIM0223.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0224.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0217.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0085.JPG - no description.
• Image:Cathedral325.JPG - no description.
• Image:Lakepowerplant.JPG - no description.
• Image:HaloweenPumpkin.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Marinaa.JPG - ditto
• Image:Canoes.JPG - ditto. I thought this guy lives in Romania... MER-C 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Mario1987 - thanks Durova. MER-C 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the Commons files that came from the editor's camera. If you think anything else needs to be there, feel free to expand the nomination. I'm calling it a night (Senegalese copyright law can wait 'til tomorrow...and I thought I'd be editing biographies tonight!) Thanks to all who helped fix this problem. Durova 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The images listed at the Commons case (at least, the obvious ones) have all been deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam needs warning and reverting

Special:Contributions/71.190.153.162 - he added links to a site with ads when there are already links to the official site that provide the same information. --NE2 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.stationstops.com

• stationstops.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Also 71.190.154.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). MER-C 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments requested: RFCU for IPs

There is a question on WT:SSP regarding RFCU for IPs. Please contribute your thoughts. - Neparis (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:68.236.154.131

I'm not sure if something needs to be done about 68.236.154.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A large number of their edits (excluding the ones in article space) could be perceived as disruptive, including this possible legal threat, and followup that talks about Citizendium and constitutions. It also appears this IP address may be linked with User:64.128.172.131, as 68's latest edits have mostly been to 64's talk page, they carried out similar edits to Misplaced Pages-space, and both seem to take a dislike to templates in general. As stated before, most of 68's latest edits have been to 64's talk page. I seek guidance here, as there has been a little dispute regarding {{sharedipedu}}.

The first time a reason was given for its removal (rather than just undoing another user, or removing it without reason) was here, with 68 saying "I hold the threat against Adirondack Community College is unwarranted, and borderline harassment". User:Scientizzle readded it, explaining that it isn't a threat, just a warning about the consequences of vandalism. 68's next edit was the legal threat posted above. 68 then removed the final warning from Scientizzle, and posted the followup linked above. The user's next four edits were removing the sharedipedu template, and modifying a block template posted by User:Acroterion. I then reverted. I understand that policy permits removing comments and warnings, but that editing comments is generally not encouraged. I also felt that there was no reason not to have the sharedipedu template (it is helpful to editors, admins, and any unfortunate soul who edits from that IP and finds warnings not intended for them). It was removed again, and I reverted again. Since then, I have reverted twice more (as well as giving explanations), bringing me up to three reverts in the last 24 hours (hence why I bring this here for discussion, as I do not plan on picking up my first block over something as silly as this). The discussion since then kind of speaks for itself. The latest message in particular, which was added during the course of me typing out this post, is pertinent. I'm going to sleep now, but I would greatly appreciate guidance and extra input on this, particularly with the mentions of judicial systems and Student Senates. Dreaded Walrus 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I had posted this to WP:ANI. Guess that's my tiredness seeping in. Feel free to move it there if that's the more appropriate location (I'm not sure). Dreaded Walrus 05:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that we continue to apply WP policy to the ip page, reverting and blocking as required. I don't think the individual understands the limitations applicable to a private site. As for the legal threat... well, we can't indef block ip addresses so I think we should just let this fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main worry (as far as I am concerned) is whether or not {{sharedipedu}} would fall under WP:BLANKING, or whether I was protected when reverting him. Also, it appears that there was prior discussion on this that I missed originally. We'll see what happens from here, but thanks for the guidance. Dreaded Walrus 15:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A threat to report someone to a student senate has to qualify as the ultimate in toothless threats. The state court threat is indeed a threat, albeit not something to take very seriously, as the user clearly doesn't understand that he's using a private website under its terms and conditions. Shared IP header templates, in my opinion, should be reverted if blanked, as they're extremely useful in judging appropriate blocking measures and in dealing with long-term abuse: they serve a different purpose from blankable user warnings. I'll keep an eye out. Acroterion _(talk) 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at WP:BLANKING; it refers specifically to "warnings and comments" - which the template isn't - and verses itself as pertaining to the user (singular) which would appear to mean an account. Since an ip addy may represent many individual editors then no one individual should be able to determine what other editors can see on the shared talkpage. Just my opinion, and not endorsed by any student senate or anything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they're upset about, exactly, so I went ahead and asked them. Also removed/archived last year's warnings from the IP talk page. Agree that shared IP notices should generally be kept (assuming they're valid, of course). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread...here is the ANI thread I started 7 March 2008 regarding the legal threat on my talk page. I also contacted the editor, though not as pleasantly as Luna. Bluntly, IP 68... hasn't demonstrated anything that would merit the constant editing of the usertalk for a separate IP address. — Scientizzle 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiMedia Foundation activities in February 2008

WikiMedia Foundation activities in February 2008 WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club

At Fight Club (film), an anonymous IP, User talk:68.38.100.86, keeps adding wiki-links to common words in the lead section, as seen here. The IP has not provided any kind of edit summary and has not responded to my message on the talk page regarding WP:OVERLINK. A 3RR report doesn't seem possible with the IP only making the change once a day without any form of communication. Not sure how this can be handled. Any suggestions on how to address the manner? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest semi-protect for several days due to low speed edit war until he/she goes away. Wikidemo (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned him instead. MaxSem 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Desperately Seeking Administrator

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question but I've gotten hopelessly lost in the talk pages, which is funnily enough, why I'm here. I came across a discussion between admins some weeks ago, about wether or not to ban a specific user named "truth" or something like that. One of the Admins posted a hilarious infobox with a graphic of Winguts in it, and suggested that it be posted at the head of some articles with the warning, "this article may contain wingnut ramblings." If you are the user/administrator who made this infobox, please contact me on my talk page if you have time. I would like to use the template on my userpage. --AaronCarson (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the thread title: are you seeking an administrator, or is this a classified ad ? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel. Leithp 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Not three seconds after I read this, I stumble across this. Cool template, actually. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Leithp, sorry for the inanity. --AaronCarson (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check requests of possible "permission-only" image

On the talk page for Image:MARILYN MONROE.jpg, the uploader, Gouryella Tenchi (talk · contribs), posted this message on the talk page:

"To publish this painting, you must mention this name: Kay Johnson. It's not a photo."

I don't know about you guys, but to me, this makes this image speediable per {{db-permission}}. I was about to pull the trigger myself, but figured I ought to have a sanity look at this before I delete it. Blueboy96 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better to ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Bovlb (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense - you can't release something under CC-SA, and then put a restriction like that on it. I'd be inclined to say that the message has no legal force, and the license stands. Whether or not the license is appropriate is another matter, possibly for WP:MCQ. Happy‑melon 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can require attribution on the wikimedia projects (almost all users do), the creative commons licenses and the GFDL require attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", so I don't think db-permission would be the reason for deletion. Technically the licensing is correct. However it should be deleted anyway because there is no source given to verify the license, and an OTRS ticket would be needed if the source didn't not have a license with it already. Jackaranga (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But Happy-melon you seem to be confused: the creative commons licenses, require you to attribute the author in a way he chooses, you have no other choice, also you must reuse the same license they used if you redistribute the work. Jackaranga (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the image in question, but db-permission applies when the copyright holder gives permission "only to wikipedia" or "only for non-commercial uses" for use of the image. For attribution restrictions, we have a Category:Conditional use images, which includes Category:Images requiring attribution. If the image is licensed for anyone to use and just requires some specific form of attribution needing attention by downstream reusers, it belongs there. Gimmetrow 23:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Sword

A persistent user (User:Firstwind) continues to add fora links to Broken Sword in clear violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT etc. I have explained why these links are not appropriate, but the user continues to ask for "proof" of this, then claiming I have assumed ownership of the page (for the record, I have no interest in the topic). I have provided ample reasoning on the article's talk page, but the user's edit summaries to the article indicate the assumption that there is consensus to keep the links. There is no such consensus.

Warning on the user's page are blanked, with helpful edit summaries such as "Removing garbage from my talk page". This user has also referred to another user as "little rats", which s/he considers a "good designation for such users". (see Talk:Broken Sword#External links). There is also a brief note on my talk page too.

I'm recusing myself from further action with this individual, since s/he considers me biased. Can someone please inspect the article, my actions, and those of Firstwind, and take whatever action you deem necessary. Thanks you. Mindmatrix 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think a WP:3RR block was appropriate in this case, given his past history. Nousernamesleft 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start by protecting the page for 5 days. On the Wrong Version (sorry, didn't look to see which one it was). Anyone with more, er, diplomatic skills than me now care to bash heads/head? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has left a mediating message on the talk page. We should see how Firstwind responds to that. Nousernamesleft 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The message is from over 3 months ago, so any reply is now overdue. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reply of sorts has been made as Firstwind has blanked their talk page twice today and has left a rant on the Broken Sword talk page wanting the links put back in. In other words nothing has changedMarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the "little rat" :) For the record Firstwind behavior always going unpunished was one of the reasons I stopped contributing to WP (not being a native english speaker I could only do some RCP so it's not a big deal). However, since he's back I would suggest someone neutral takes a look at what he is doing at Tramway de Nantes before it degenrates any further. Mthibault (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also request someone to have a look at Tramway de Nantes - I've had one more attempt at negotiation with him on the talk page, but if that doesn't work, and he reverts to his garbled English (while calling my own English "uncorrect (sic)") then I'd request a straight block on him. Also for anyone who is interested, a checkuser case proved that Firstwind was using up to 5 IP addresses which, including his own account, had received 15 vandalism warnings in total without any block being placed on any account. Two of those IPs are now active again (194.51.96.182 and 195.101.63.39), so you may wish to block them before this situation escalates once more. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he ain't playing ball - note his reply, once more accusing me of not being a native speaker of English, and once more restoring his garbled English to both Tramway de Nantes and Semitan. Requesting admin intervention please? Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Need Ukrainian reading admin to check for Holocaust denial sources

I just removed a Holocaust denial reference from Ivan Rohach . I am reviewing the other links, but some are in Ukrainian, which I do not read. Is this the place to look for help? Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 3 inline citations. First is 404, second is a book, third references exactly what it says. Two simple numbered links are memories that mention Rohach and should go to external links, kmv.gov.ua is in Russian and tells about executions in 1941-43, Rohach is briefly mentioned. MaxSem 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first reference. However, I have no idea what it says. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Move requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the place for these requests.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Ryan move in favor of dab page

Now that we have the proper article traffic tool, I would like to request that Pat Ryan be moved to Pat Ryan (curler) and that Pat Ryan (disambiguation) be moved to Pat Ryan. Can an admin please perform the proper moves to preserve page histories and talk page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Bell

Based on the article traffic tool probably half the people arriving at Gordon Bell are arriving at the wrong page. Please move it to C. Gordon Bell and move the dab page to Gordon Bell. Please preserve the page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Williams

Clarence Williams III appears to be the primary Clarence Williams by far. Please move him to Clarence Williams (or redirect Clarence Williams to him) and move dab to Clarence Williams (disambiguation). See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801 --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Willie Johnson

Blind Willie Johnson is by far the primary Willie Johnson. Please move the dab page to Willie Johnson (disambiguation) and move pages to preserve page histories. Either redirect Willie Johnson to Blind Willie Johnson or move Blind Willie Johnson to Willie Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumbo Elliott

Please move Jumbo Elliott (American football) to Jumbo Elliott and move the dab to Jumbo Elliott (disambiguation). Please preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Probably needs to be nominated at requested moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See http://stats.grok.se/en/200802

    Jumbo Elliott (American football) viewed 1528 times in 200802

    Jumbo Elliott (athletics) viewed 207 times in 200802

    Jumbo_Elliott_(baseball) viewed 134 times in 200802

This should be uncontroversial.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Please note that the dab was moved on Jan 29 so prior to this, the pages were not on a level playing field.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking

According to the article traffic tool, Breaking (martial arts) should be at Breaking. Please move dab to Breaking (disambiguation) and preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Car wash

Bassed on the article traffic tool, Car wash (disambiguation) and Car wash should be swapped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop swamping AN with move requests. There is a designated place for those. The article traffic tool isn't everything, you know. —Kurykh 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington Park (disambiguation)

Based on the article traffic tool, Washington Park (disambiguation) and Washington Park should be swapped. Please preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly what you mean, is it? Don't you mean that the current Washington Park should be moved to something like Washington Park (baseball), and then the disambiguation page should be moved to Washington Park, right? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got a bit lazy. I have made about 50 dab pages and now that there is this new tool, I am going through them all at once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In this case I created Washington Park, Chicago and it is on a malplaced dab page. I did not create Washington Park (disambiguation).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution

#REDIRECT WP:RM. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Burnham Park

Based on the article traffic tool, Burnham Park (Chicago) should be at Burnham Park and the dab should be moved to Burnham Park (disambiguation).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding these here ! They don't belong on the Administrators' Noticeboard, as mentioned above now several times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aids POV

In Aids:Stigma the final two lines convey that conservatives are less likely to be informed about HIV transmission information. Citations cited are citations 132, 134, and 135. 132 only gives one isolated example of a conservative and one other of an antigay activist being biased against, not misinformed, about the relations between homosexuals and HIV. 134 does not say anything about conservatives. 135, however, initially states that they expect misconceptions to be held by conservatives. However, later in the document, specifically in the final paragraph of page 16, the study notes: "The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs." This means that not only does the citation actually contradict the phrase in the stigma section, but rather, in response to an argument made noting that the phrase said "significant predictor", could even be interpreted as meaning that liberalism is also conducive of being misinformed about Aids. Either way, to say that a political party, whichever it may be, is more likely to be misinformed about Aids is in conflict with the citations. The final four words of the section in question are "or conservative political ideology". This phrase is, as I have presented above, clearly POV. When I tried to remove the phrase, the revert was undone by an editor. When I later presented this rationale, he refused to hear it, and he and another editor (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) reverted all my attempts to remove the blatant POV without providing correct rationale for their reversions. Several times my edits were reverted with them not even making a single comment on the talk page, when the phrase was clearly under discussion and they knew it. Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." No evidence has been provided, yet these users (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) continue to stop me from removing the POV. Please help, perhaps by weighing in on the discussion (the new discussion, as the old one degenerated into name-calling) at . I'm not defending conservatism, I'm defending NPOV.Merechriolus (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for dispute resolution. AIDS is one of our most heavily-watched articles, so one option is to let things sit for a day or so and you'll likely get input from some of the regulars, many of whom are solid and experienced Misplaced Pages editors and may be able to help resolve this. Another option is to request outside comment via a formal request for comment on the matter at hand. MastCell  04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for use of a "bad image"

I would like to ask if the bad image Image:UC-smile.jpg could be allowed for use in the article unassisted childbirth. Rob T Firefly (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done —αlεx•mullεr 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WoW is back

Be on the look out! Rudget. 10:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it's the same guy - why did he redirect the pages rather than moving them? Hut 8.5 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the account was only created today, so it wasn't able to move anything. I highly doubt this was the original; just a somewhat boring copycat. Sam Korn 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're right. Rudget. 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Willy on Wheels was actually unbanned via the community sanction noticeboard back in the summer months of last year. He was permitted to create a new account (although the ban template was never removed from his userpage) and was allowed to contribute quietly. I still highly doubt this will be him, though. Qst (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? A vandal-only account is a vandal-only account. Though I think the 'original' person has long, long since moved on, perhaps even joined us as a productive editor. Grandmasterka 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm, maybe that's who (or inspired to do so) move-vandalised Virginia Tech Massacre? Well, we have seen our fair share of move-vandals in recent times, especially that ultra-annoying Grawp which kept causing Hagger and Grawp pages appear on my watchlist. PS. I'm not an admin. Thanks. ~AH1 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind heads up, Ive got a real time monitor that watches page moves and notifies admins instantly when a page move vandal such as wow is active. its what helped lead to a swift end of gwap. if there is another move vandal that pops up leave me a note and Ill get the monitor back up. β 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a cabal of a obstructive editors

I've been dealing with what one could call the "haunted houses" of Misplaced Pages: the Killian documents-related articles. They are seemingly abandoned and derelict, with unref'd assertions and lonely "Citation Missing" tags left unattended for ages. But if someone decides to pop in to try to fix things up, then all of a sudden all sorts of ephemeral characters come out of the woodwork and things get very, VERY busy and strange. But not exactly in a good way given that the poor encyclopedic state of the Killian articles never changes. The central problem appears to be that the article is protected/owned by a group of editors who not only have little or no interest in fixing/improving anything, but who actually actively oppose anybody who tries. Past issues and clues indicate that most if not all of these obstructive editors are affiliated with the conservative/right wing blog site, Little Green Footballs, which also has a bit of a vested interest in the Killian business -- it's their main claim to fame.

I had thought to try out the dispute mediation process by following up with a suggestion to start at the bottom with WP:3O. Since I know this is a messy, complex situation, I thought to start a new discussion section on the Killian documents Talk page concurrent with a WP:3O request, and made a section note the WP:3O Talk page for interested parties to watch what happens. And sure enough, this is what ended up happening as is typical -- tortuously drawn out "discussions" consisting primarily of ad infinitum instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and chronic violations of the part of WP:CIVIL that goes, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I may be mistaken here, but this seems to make things now more of a concern to WP:AN since this type of purely disruptive behavior is a separate matter from content disputes. (PS: the WP:3O request was eventually declined because of there being more than two editors involved.)

Even when I have all primary and secondary sources on my side, never mind elementary logic, and the obstructing editors literally have nothing to refute with, they still won't give in only anything significant, with this last sectional sequence being a good example. The issue here is whether these possibly (and possibly not) forged military memos should be referred to as, well, memos. This sounds stupid and minor, but it's actually quite significant: military memos ("Memorandum for Record," "Memo for file" and such) have certain recommended and accepted formatting characteristics, like for instance how the signature block is on the right side, as opposed to it generally being the left side for more official documents. Every single available ref indicates that these are memos: descriptions and examples in both the the official USAF writing guide, The Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176), this ROTC powerpoint presentation, as well as any available samples, like this for instance. Even further, both CBS and USA Today, who had originally and independently obtained the memos, also clearly refer to the documents as memos.

For any other Misplaced Pages article, all these unimpeachable ref's would have been much. much more than enough to resolve the issue, but not with the Killian articles -- not only do all these ref's get chronically ignored no matter how many times I try to draw attention to them, some editors have gone so far to try to even self-reference the article itself as a ref: , . To me this seems overall to be a textbook case of chronic gaming to block changes, regardless of how much they would improve the article, and to discourage anyone from even trying.

Some of you might wonder why this "memos" bit would be so significant and why would anyone bother to go to such extreme lengths to keep this rather innocent sounding term from being used, especially if it's inarguably an accurate description. Well, for one thing, memos are not archived like other military documents. For instance, this DoD repository of George Bush's military records doesn't contain a single memo. Only when they are classified are they archived, like this other declassified memo. What happened is that a lot of would-be Sherlocks in both the blogosphere and even the mainstream media kept comparing the format of the Killian memos to that of Bush's DoD records, and they misread the format differences as being an additional sign of forgery, especially the position of the writing block being on the right (where it's suppose to be for a memo).

So basically having a Misplaced Pages article simply accurately describing the memos as being, well, memos actually undercuts a large chunk of the forgery claims. It even throws suspicion on the credibility of the supposedly independent panel review that CBS had commissioned to investigate the matter: in the panel's final report on page 156 (by PDF count), the evidently less than investigative investigators also thought the signature block was suppose to be on the left side, and used that as another reason to come down hard on the CBS personnel who had dealt with the Killian memos.

Such a little word, such big consequences....

But more to the point here, what should be done, or what should I do further, to deal with obstructive editors apparently chronically and willfully ignoring standard Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, nevermind WP:HONEST and basic manners? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note that I'm not an admin, just watching this page.) I've looked through the issues there, and it seems obvious that there is indeed a problem. I think the next step you should be taking is an article RFC. That should get some outside opinions on this issue from people who are more qualified than me to judge the issues. (Politics would probably be the best category there.) --Infophile 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I second this motion. These editing patterns as bound to occur on such controversial articles, so filing an article RfC is definitely the best option. нмŵוτнτ 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards