Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:11, 27 August 2009 editGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP← Previous edit Revision as of 18:17, 27 August 2009 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →GoRight (again): +Goright community banNext edit →
Line 477: Line 477:
: GoRight's sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Misplaced Pages instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --] 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) : GoRight's sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Misplaced Pages instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --] 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
::I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ::I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

===GoRight community ban===
Proposal: ''GoRight is banned global warming-related articles and talk pages. In addition, GoRight is strictly prohibited from proxy editing on behalf of banned users.''

;'''Support'''
:Long overdue. ] (]) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

;'''Oppose'''


==]== ==]==

Revision as of 18:17, 27 August 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice


    Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries

    If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

    What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Misplaced Pages should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

    London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

    Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of one vandal who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

    Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which are still blocked. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. John Reaves 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. Thatcher 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and KnightLago had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    let them expire now. this is the sort of very extensive school block that should be a last resort, and be used for very limited periods. With the abuse filter, we now have a very wide range of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with DGG here, in that the blocks should be lifted. It Is Me Here 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I recall a number of occasions when the AV person has said he'll give up, and didn't. However, I trust that this time either he'll keep his word, or we can swiftly block him again. It's probably worth a try - either unblock them or let the blocks expire. But I would recommend no one unprotects the RefDesk :) -- zzuuzz 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    Well there wasn't much swift blocking last time lol, but I will keep my word. As for the reference desk, I've been trying to help out there since last spetember, answering questions and stuff, to make up for my past :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe there are also rangeblocks outstanding on other Synetrix clients - I know sub-ranges of the EMBC range (92.43.64.0/21) which serves all educational establishments in seven counties, certainly were hardblocked at some point. Black Kite 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Having one admin unblock them all at once will also provide us a useful series of log entries that we can use for future reference. –xeno 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    Some are already expired. Here's the main ones with their block expiry dates:

    -- zzuuzz 08:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you aggregated the data to simply 82.198.250.0/7, you might be able to make a more executive-level decision, but you would have to live with the ambiguity of collateral blockage because you would then be addressing the issue via the reality of a shared IP pool.--75.36.189.192 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    We can't block ranges larger than /16. -Jeremy 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Explanation about abuse filters please

    I was doing my blocking vandal routine, when this report popped up. Apparently it had triggered an abuse filter. I had a look at the contributions, but there was nothing there (not even deleted). The report mentioned something about a banned user; the IP address was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

    I'm not questioning the actions taken against the IP address; clearly an indefinite block was expected (going by the comment left to my query). However, as I have never come across this sort of case before, I thought it best to ask here if someone could explain to me what was going on? Please use words of less than one syllable though... it is late and I am tired! (grin) Stephen! 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

    Abuse filter 166 is apparently set to disallow, meaning it stopped the ip from making the edit, repeatedly--Jac16888 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I think I'm gonna have to sleep on this, and hope my brain recharges overnight, and can make sense of any explanations! Shame abuse filters were never covered in my admin coaching... LOL! Stephen! 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Basically, The IP tried to make an edit, and the filter wouldn't let them. But the filter keeps a record of the attempts so people can see whos trying to make edits they shouldn't--Jac16888 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    So where does the banned user come in to it, and how come the IP address gets blocked indefinitely? Stephen! 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Don't know anything about this filter in particular, but it seems its set entirely to stop a banned sockpuppeteer, who probably makes distinctive edits. As for the indef block, didn't actually notice that, no idea why that is, could be a mistake--Jac16888 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    My apologies. I started checking diffs and contribs to see if the suggestion (given by the bot) of the IP being a banned user was correct (after the fact), and I couldn't see the similarities. I reduced the block to 48 hrs, for repeatedly setting off the abuse filter. Again, my apologies. And yes, this filter was set to "disallow" those edits, so none of them would show up in contribs or deleted contribs. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

    When processing these sorts of AIV block requests, you can see the attempted edits that triggered the filter by looking at the edit filter log. Here is the one for the IP in question. I do not know of an 'easy' way to see the EFlog, so I just click the "contribs" link and then the "filter log" link at the top. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    Still more questions, I'm afraid! Cluebot automatically reverts suspect edits, and these are still visible on the history. What is it about the edits that trigger the filter abuse that means they are removed from the page history? Also, how can these abuse filter triggering addresses be blocked without apparent warning, whereas all other users (anon and registered) need to go through due process? Stephen! 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Cannot answer the second question, but the first is simple: the edits are pre-emptied before they can be saved, which is why they never show up in the edit history. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    As for the second question, some of the filters are only triggered by sockpuppets or vandal memes, so we know they've seen all the warnings. The list of filters which are reported immediately by bot to AIV is at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. When we see one of these accurately reported, then we generally block the sockpuppets without any further warning. -- zzuuzz 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    On exception is 58 where the filter only triggers on the most egregious childish vandalism - being ridiculously vulgar in giant capital letters with exclamation points, etc. Those don't require a lot of due process either IMHO. If someone needs to be told that such edits are vandalism, then they shouldn't be editing here anyway. Wknight94 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    As a bit of explanation, this particular filter is designed to stop an uncommonly stubborn harassment vandal, whose easily recognised signature is his IP range(s) and the fact that every edit he makes is a random revert of his victim (me). He's been doing this for over half a year, almost every day, and he's quite easy to spot if you know the pattern. Before getting the abuse filter tuned as it is now, the only means of stopping him was to keep large IP ranges permanently soft-blocked, or to semiprotect every page I touched. But of course, the resulting blocks shouldn't be long or even indef; he hops across a large dynamic IP range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    Cheers for everyone's explanations; it is starting to make more sense. Is there anywhere where these explanations are written up, and how administrators should deal with it? I've had a look around, and nothing really leaps out. Stephen! 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know so much about explanations, but you can get a general description of the filter at , that might give you a bit of an idea what they're trying to do. In this case, it would have at least let you know who the banned user was. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Cheers for that! It would be handy to have some form of explanation in the blocking section of Admin Coaching; I think I'll raise the question there. Stephen! 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    (outdent) Request for comment I've popped a comment in the admin school for blocking about abuse filters. However, as there is not much traffic there, I thought I would ask here for anyone to come and contribute. Thanks! Stephen! 09:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    User:By78

    Like this?

    The user is indulging in disruptive editing with including | INS Arihant page. In the Arihant class submarine page, launch is replaced with | Float-out. Bcs09 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    • This is a content dispute, and doesn't require the intervention of administrators. For my money, float out works just as well as launch, though I can see the argument that launching is the figurative activity and floating out is the literal practice which replaced launching. May want to ask the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships which term is more common in ship articles. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    The process was a launch. Then why is getting edited the other way? I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    Literally launched like the picture on the right (or sliding backwards)? Protonk (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    this source describes a float out. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    The sideway launch is done mostly for lighter ships of the U.S Navy and coastguard. The heavier ones are launched backwards. The articles explains about the testing for the launch and about the next event of momentous launch. There is no official ceremony in float out of a ship or sub anywhere in the world. In this case the sub was launched by Smt.Gursharan Kaur, wife of PM Manmohan Singh. The Indian sub launch ceremony is somewhat different. Remember the coconut.Bcs09 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Also note about the explanation of the reactor on the sub and how the reactor criticality is achieved.
    Over the next few months, it will commence a series of full system harbour trials. The primary system, a nuclear reactor, generates the heat which drives the secondary system, a steam turbine which spins the submarine"s propeller, are to be tested separately.
    First, the steam turbine is to be jump-started with shore-based supply. The next significant step will be starting up the submarine"s nuclear reactor where the zirconium rods in the core of the submarine"s 80 MW pressurised water reactor will be slowly raised, allowing the reactor to become critical in slow degrees. It will take around three weeks to go fully critical.
    Only after all systems are tested, will the primary and secondary systems be mated. If all goes well, the submarine will be allowed to sail out to begin sea trials next year. Weapon trials, including the firing of its arsenal of 12 K-15 short range ballistic missiles, are the last stage of the trials before the submarine is finally commissioned to the navy by 2011.Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    I should tell you that you don't need to explain to me the details of starting up a submarine nuclear reactor. But there is no way you could have known that. :) I'm only going to say two things. the first is that the details of the launch are a content dispute and should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process. The second is that what india today seems to be describing is a boat in drydock and the drydock being flooded for the launch, rather than being slid backwards. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    The explanation is from the link you posted. There are a lot of videos on youtube that explains in detail about nuclear reactor refuelling. You can check it out. The launch can be done in any manner. Before the reporters were allowed in the sub has been already launched. So what they saw was the sub in water. This was later towed away to a facility about 1km from the shipbuilding center. Regarding the reactors you must read that says After the first trial of the steam cycle and turbines, the Arihant will be hooked up to the nuclear reactor. The reactor"s fuel rods are currently locked and sealed. They will be unlocked and neutrons will be introduced to start up the 85 MW pressurised water reactor. The reactor will work continuously for anything up to 10 years till the fuel runs out. So I just want to point out that the reactor is sealed inside the sub and the ceremony was a launching ceremony which has been altered into something else.Bcs09 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please, check it now. It has been rewritten with new inputs and links. Bcs09 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    The user has again engaged in disruptive editing of the INS Arihant page. The users all edits are disruptive in nature removing contents from them, using harsh words against other editors and shows scant regard for others good editors.Bcs09 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Proposed Community Ban for User:Drew R. Smith

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Drew has been a constructive editor to the project in the past who has run into some problems recently, specifically allegations of operating socks used for vandalism, a dubious "hack" into his account which resulted in some deeply troubling behavior regarding Jimbo's user pages and, most recently, a pretty serious accusation that he forged an image he uploaded as a source, which took hard work by several image experts to finally discover. Please see his talk page for discussion/details about all of these issues. Through all of this, Drew maintains his innocence until cornered with undeniable truth, then conveniently admits wrongdoing and asks that we ignore his bad behavior and allow him to continue... only to have another problem inevitably pop up a few weeks later. Drew has been mostly stoic through all of this, and while admitting his mistakes when he has no other choice, the admissions and requests for forgiveness ring hollow. We have tried to reach out to him, tried to find ways to bring him back into the fold while also assuaging our reasonable concerns about his trustworthiness. So far, I'm not sure these efforts will be successful. At this point, I find that my patience, and perhaps that of the community, has become exhausted. So I bring forth a proposal to implement a community ban against Drew R. Smith, in the interest of preventing further disruption to the project. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. (I would ask that others who have been involved in this to provide additional diffs, comments and opinions. I would also ask that Drew's currently imposed block be temporarily lifted with the caveat that he only be allowed to comment here in his own defense.)

    Respectfully submitted, with a heavy heart, to the community at large, Vicenarian 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Bare faced liar, cannot be trusted. Support the ban. (but note that the faked image used as a source was done so to win an argument in the ref desk, not in the mainspace, but that doesn't excuse the conduct) Viridae 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    This really shouldn't be necessary. I have blocked for a month, and any further violations after that can result in a unilateral indefinite block by whatever admin happens along. The "ban" will happen when no one cares to unblock him. Tan | 39 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    At this point, really, I'm not sure I am satisfied with a month-long block. Judging from the way Drew is responding to us at his talk page, I'm not sure a month is really going to do anything. I think a more permanent action is necessary, IMO. Vicenarian 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Probably. But starting a thread for a community ban is declaring war when the local police could have mopped up the problem. Tan | 39 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Tan is right here. Let's not jump the gun on this one. He's under a 1 month block, let him serve it out. If he botches up again, it'll be indefinate, and if no one unblocks him (unlikely that anyone would) we can consider it a fait accompli. No need to drag this out in this forum. --Jayron32 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Hi, could someone install a transclusion template for Drew to comment here? FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads. Durova 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    I will, of course, accept the consensus of the community. No intention to declare war. However, having seen the drama this user has caused recently, and (if you will excuse me) the coddling and additional chances he has gotten from well-intentioned editors in the past, it's gotten to a point where I think the community-at-large needs to be aware and have a say. I warned him after his last block that any further misbehavior would likely drive me here. Vicenarian 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    I support a ban of Drew. This is unbelievable behavior. Let's just recap:
    • user asks a question at the Reference Desk
    • Drew replies, but makes a mistake
    • Other editors question his reply
    • Drew (perhaps honestly believe this to be the the case) cites a book as a source
    • Other editors question that source, noting their copies disagree
    At this point, the obvious option is to check your book, if you haven't already. It appears Drew did this. But, instead of saying "Oops, you are right, I must have misremembered", Drew claims his book is different, and then forges an image to 'prove' it. The thought of someone going to such lengths to prevent admitting a simple mistake where there will be no consequences for being wrong is stunning. This is not something that someone who can collaborate with other editors would ever even think about doing. Working together sometimes means being wrong. Prodego 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose community ban. For now, at least. Drew has made some unwise decisions - but I feel that this may have been more a case of him failing to understand the old 'when you're in a hole, stop digging' adage than a deliberate and malicious attempt to introduce misinformation to the 'pedia. He states as much himself. He faked an image to back up RefDesk claims that he didn't think that anyone would bother investigating - then instead of coming clean when editors took an interest, he attempted to talk his way out of it so as not to get into trouble (small lies spiralling out of control and all that). In my book, that makes him someone who screwed up and ended up looking silly in front of his peers - but I don't think that he's beyond redemption. When his month-long block expires, there will be no shortage of admins and experienced users keeping an eye on his every move. The slightest infraction or whiff of wrong-doing and I can't really see him being given another chance here. Let Tan's block run its course, then give Drew the chance to prove himself as a productive editor - or give him just enough rope to hang himself, depending on the breaks. I will unblock Drew temporarily to allow him to contribute to this thread, unless anyone objects to my doing so... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In my Defence - This is, as kurt says, lies spiralling out of control. I got blocked for the disruptions awhile back, promised not to screw up again, and went on my way. Since then, I have done nothing but help, mostly doing antivandalism stuff. I was in the process of getting a fresh start namechange. Out of the blue, stevebaker APL finds a skeleton in the closet and questions me about it. I made the knee-jerk response of defending myself and the image. Later on, I realised I had screwed up again and come clean. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It was one month ago (to the day + 2 hours). It took a long time to discover it was fake, and you were defending the image's validity as recently as 2 days ago. Hardly a skeleton. Prodego 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • And the sockpuppetry, the IP vandalism/sockpuppetry and the disruption from you accoutn which you claim is a mysterious hacker? Viridae 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I've admitted to everything I have done. Jehochman AGF'd on the main account disruption when he unblocked me, and since then I have only been constructive. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The "knee jerk" defense of your forged image is most troubling, and occurred AFTER your most recent block/warning. A simple "okay, I screwed up" would've been fine, but you dragged it out until several people had spent a LOT of time digging up proof that you had forged the image. You "came clean" only when forced to do so. This really does NOT give me great confidence in your trustworthiness or willingness to participate in this community in an honest manner. Vicenarian 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This, on top of the "hacked account" and the sockpuppet used for vandalism... there comes a point where I can no longer assume good faith, and can no longer assume you are here to be a productive member of the community. Vicenarian 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support community ban. Looking at the whole length of Drew Smith's talk page produces one major disappointment after another. It is hard to accept any assurances now about future behavior. Deception is hard to forgive, and it should be hard. I have no objection to Drew working with Durova offline on images intended for use in Misplaced Pages, so long as he remains banned from Misplaced Pages himself. I note that Drew has a Commons account which he might be able to use for image work even while excluded from Misplaced Pages proper. If he did some work at Commons, his ban might be reviewed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I'm the one who "Dug up" the Darwin image issue. I didn't go back to it intending to prosecute anyone, I just approached it as an outstanding mystery. The Mystery of Drew's misprinted book had bugged me, and when something reminded me of it, I decided to go back and try again to solve the mystery, primarily for my own curiosity. When I'd figured it out to my satisfaction I mentioned it to Steve and Kurt because I knew they had also put a good amount of effort into it and I thought it might be bugging them as well. I didn't mean to start an inquisition. APL (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support ban. Before initiating this discussion, Vicenarian posted a very generous rehabilitation proposal (an opportunity that few editors engaging in such misconduct would receive) on Drew's talk page, and Drew promptly and nonchalantly rejected the offer that he should have been grateful to accept. And just for good measure, he reiterated his insulting, overwhelmingly debunked claim that his account was compromised (yet another instance in which he wasted numerous users' time with a hoax intended to save face).
      Drew has made it abundantly clear that he thinks nothing of the continual disruption that he causes and isn't willing to change. Even now, he's arguing that his blatant lies from the past few days—which led to still more wasted time and effort—don't count because they served to reinforce an "old" deception from less than two months earlier (which he apparently believes to be grandfathered because it preceded his "final" warning).
      Enough is enough. —David Levy 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I wasn't being intentionally ungrateful, I just didn't agree with both the block and the mentoring. Having both seemed like overkill. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Support community ban per Vicenarian and Prodego. While Drew may have been constructive in the past, his current behaviour does nothing but bring the project into disrepute. IP vandalism, sockpuppetry, and faking references to make himself look right; this behaviour is totally unacceptable. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and Drew has given us many reasons to distrust him. Not the least of these is the "hacking" of his account. →javért 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • My current behaviour? Since my block expired I have been nothing but constructive! I have tried to prove that I am trying to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. While the forgery itself was unexcusable, defending myself really isn't much of a shocker. When confronted with damning evidence, any sane persons reaction is going to be to dispute it. I'm sorry I faked the photo, wasted peoples time and energy, and I regret my choice to continue the lie. If vicenarian is still willing, I won't oppose his/her first proposal to let the block run and then impose mentoring. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Actually, the mature person would react by saying, "You're right, I made a mistake, I am sorry," instead of going on and on defending himself with lies until he was backed into a corner. Honesty and "mea culpa" go a long way, friend, especially if you actually MEAN it. And no, I held out my hand with a carrot and you bit it off, so I'm sorry if my assumption of good faith is out the window. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do here. I wash my hands of this entirely. Vicenarian 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support The checkuser evidence put forth by Lar on his page is damning, and the fact that he still hasn't completely owned up to what he's done is disappointing. The totality of his actions make me believe that this user is going to be causing more trouble in the future. AniMate 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Vicenarian, I'm sorry if you saw my response to your "carrot" as "biting the hand that feeds", but I didn't mean it that way. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose community ban As Tan has stepped up here and blocked for one month (unblock for this thread is noted), I am content to trust the judgment of said admin. While the actions of Drew are certainly sanction worthy, a 30 day block does indeed have the effect of a 30 day ban from editing. Another long-standing editor (Durova) has offered to assist in educating Drew, and has a long history of bringing less than exemplary editors into conformity here. We claim to be a project that is open to anyone, and we need to be open to the fact that people make mistakes (a big one in this case). It's quite obvious that Drew would be on a very short leash upon his return, and I would hope that he will learn from this experience. I agree that it would be in Drew's best interests to drop ALL defensive mechanisms, with the understanding that many of us would try to explain themselves when faced with such deplorable actions. I think it behooves the project to stand behind the good faith efforts of our administrative corps, and not start dickering over points that can be addressed in the future. I support Tan's actions, and am comfortable with the sanctions currently in place, with the understanding that further action can be taken at a future date. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • For the record, I never disagreed with Tan's block, which was perfectly appropriate given the circumstances. I have brought the discussion here for the entire community to decide if Tan's block is enough or if further sanction is warranted. Vicenarian 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support — Enough is enough. Drew is only vaguely penitent, has not acknowledged everything, and will be further trouble down the road if allowed. The failure to fess to the "my hacked account filed the AC case" and the other July-bullshit is of serious concern. Two CUs debunked that. Just last week he was using a spurious "Vandalism reversion dance" defense of his reverting non-vandalism. He's not here for much more than game playing. And Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs); hmmm? Just post-block on his talk page he has spurned offers of mentorship with "ain't going to happen". He claims to already know "pretty much everything ... that a mentor would be able to teach." Right. Mentorship is a gift that an experienced person offers and a foolish one snubs. Drew has pending requests to change his user name in order to 'start fresh'. Not-how-it-works. And the forgery? Appalling. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Support - Have checked Drew's talk page. It seems he's long expended the community's good faith in him and his posts- including those in this thread - are not helping his cause. Can't be trusted to permanently reform when he's fouled up every opportunity to do so. If you've been constructive in the past, what made you go off the beaten track all of a sudden? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - Only if it will help end all this drama-queen banter and get everybody back to doing something more productive instead of wasting time and resources dealing with an attention-seeking editor. -- œ 05:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - unless user agrees to mentorship, gets a serious, good mentor, and is straightened around, user doesn't belong here any more. But user doesn't want that, and good faith exhausted, so cut losses, move on. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Jack Merridew is wrong about the "vandalism reversion dance", as can be seen both from reading the whole of the user talk page discussion at User talk:Drew R. Smith#August 2009 and reading the edit history of Damien Duff, the page that was being edited at the time. Unless one is going to suggest that Bubba hotep (diff diff), Dancarney (diff), Spiderone (diff diff diff), 213.86.244.72 (diff), Morry32 (diff), and Fernandosmission (diff) are all also sockpuppets of Drew R. Smith, since they were all making the same reversions, both before and after Drew R. Smith was making them, the more obvious and straightforward explanation is that this was one editor, 90.192.190.110/90.193.153.214, being reverted by multiple other editors for adding subtle POV-pushing and sports-team-boosterism to an article.

      As third opinions, we should be careful about the accusations made by some long-time involved editors here, and independently check them ourselves rather than rushing to judgement taking the accusations on their faces. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

      Well this isn't a vandalism revert (end the others are about the same). Looks to me like a whole lot of poor editing and edit warring over it. He was cautioned about the editwarring and made his "VRD" comment. I called it out because it gets to Drew's view of dealing with vandalism as a game (or dance;). Anyway, that incident is small beer ;) There's lots more here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Neutral about an immediate medium-term block, Strong Support for mentoring and a clear statement any further disruption of any kind will result in an unconditional, immediate and permanent block. I'm somewhat convinced that he genuinely wants to reform - and I think we can agree that he's done enough useful work around here to be of some value to the community. We simply have to make it crystal clear that this is quite utterly his last chance EVER. For those who don't believe that he genuinely wants to reform, well, don't sweat it - he's outta here if he makes even one more mistake. For those who believe he can do better - a crystal clear statement that his next mistake will (without debate or doubt) be the last time he ever edits Misplaced Pages in his entire life - should help to keep Drew thinking of the consequences each and every time he edits. As for a shorter term block/enforced Wikibreak...Meh...he either means it or he doesn't...I don't think a month off will make a difference either way...but on the other hand, there have been serious infractions, and perhaps it sends the wrong message to leave that unpunished. I don't really care either way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose ban - Per Ched. Per Durova. He's willing to admit his mistakes. He came clean (even though it did take him forever). He is willing to make reparations. That is the sort of behavior we should encourage on the part of the people who screw up like this. One mistake should not lead to an indefinite ban, especially when the user is willing to make amends. NW (Talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    One mistake? Lol. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's multiple events, but all that stem from the original mistake and the lying to cover that up. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think you really researched this issue, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Tan | 39 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)-
    (edit conflict) Well, what did I miss? This is my understanding of events: He misremembered something when answering a ref desk question. When people questioned him about it, he photoshopped a fake quote. When others questioned him about it, he lied and said his edition must be different and dug himself into a deeper hole, because he wanted to save face. He claimed his account had been hacked, similarly, to save face. Tons of people wasted time trying to track down the book. Checkusers wasted time verifying his story. Did I miss anything else major (besides the sockpuppetry, which seems to be unrelated to this case?) NW (Talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Since this is a ban discussion, I don't think we should focus on one incident, but rather should assess the editor as a whole. So, the sockpuppetry is, in fact, relevant. Vicenarian 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)With all due respect, NW, don't forget the CheckUser-verified sockpuppetry, the vandalism under his IP, the filing of a bogus ArbCom case while his account was "compromised"... this constitutes more than one mistake. Vicenarian 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Don't forget the pointy MFD nom of WP:SERVICE and (arguably) DRV after the demise of the the Vandalism Patrol... But at this point that's just icing on the cake. –xeno 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - falsifying data on Misplaced Pages is kind of like cheating on your spouse. It may not be a dealbreaker for everyone, but it destroys any trust you had earned. Given that our readers must be able to trust information on Misplaced Pages (for variable values of 'trust'), we cannot tolerate at any time anyone who demonstrably falsifies data to, and this is the sad part, win an argument that isn't even in articlespace. If he is willing to do that, whether or not he has done so in articlespace is immaterial; we cannot trust that he hasn't. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose ban, support block. Tan had this just about right from the beginning, IMHO. In the absence of any indication that Drew actually thinks this recent refusal to admit a mistake was wrong, and in light of previous history, I think the 1 month block is a good idea, for Drew as well as Misplaced Pages. It gives everyone, from Drew to Durova to the rest of us, time to think calmly about what we want to happen in 1 month plus 1 day, instead of making hasty decisions. If he wants to work with Durova, it can be done on Commons, but he needs to get away from this place for a while. If anything untoward happens after the block expires, he's going to get indef blocked anyway, and no one will be lobbying for an unblock, so we'd have a de facto ban. Why go thru the trouble of this discussion, and trying to tease a consensus out of it, when it will be solved with minimal effort on its own? Except for my support of continuing the 1 month block, I agree with almost everything else SteveBaker says at User talk:Drew R. Smith#Modest Proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support ban. Falsification of data is bad enough to warrant some sanction, persisting in it when caught is worse, persisting in it when the horse is already glue to the point of disrupting other matters and continuing a campaign of denial at that level can only result in a loss of a sense of AGF for anyone who deals with him, leading to disruption and double-checking of anything he does. It does not benefit anyone to have the community shoulder that burden longer. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support It has long been my sense that the net effect on the project of Drew's presence is negative; he seems a nice guy, one whose deep knowledge of, for one, fish is surely a benefit, but his poor judgment prevents him from contributing constructively, a problem that is not readily overcome. Although I am not, contra Tan infra, convinced that this discussion will not produce a consensus for a ban, I endorse LHvU's proposal as a reasonable alternative should the firmer result not command the support of the community. Joe (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose ban if and only if Drew fess up and be held fully accountabilty for his mistakes. I would support this ban if it is discovered that Drew didn't admit everything, or he continued the disruptive behaviour. Although Misplaced Pages is not therapy, I don't think banning members who go through hard times is the way to show an open editing environment. The original thread that started this was very personal and I believe him when he says things just spiraled out of control. A Wikibreak is the appropriate course of action if one is unable to edit due to personal matters, and weighing Drew's positive contributions against this mess and he's a net asset to the project. I also support the compromise listed below as it seems well thought out. striking, as I didn't see Durova's objection. If one volunteers it is one thing, but editors shouldn't be forced into caring for others. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support, until he takes responsibility for his actions, and seeks out the guidance of a mentor. I would have supported LessHeard vanU's compromise, but Durova has made it clear that they will not be monitoring Drew Smith. –blurpeace  21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Compromise sub-proposal

    Compromise I propose the community ban takes effect upon the next sanction, after this one expires, should there be one. Durova is willing to keep an eye on the individual, and there are those who oppose the community ban for other reasons, so there is unlikely to be the absolute consensus for the ban now, but there is recognition that the next block will be indefinite with little chance of it being lifted. I suggest we formally declare that the next sanction constitutes a ban, therefore requiring consensus to have it removed rather than the de facto indef block/ban, and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I support this, assuming the one month block is reinstated when this discussion is closed. Vicenarian 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As do I, same provision. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I support this also, per Lar and Vicenarian. →javért 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support LHvU's compromise with Vicenarian's addendum. I think that Drew has really abused the community's trust, and am leaning more towards an outright ban, but I'm willing to give him one more chance. If someone finds another skeleton in the closet from before the recent kerfuffle, that should also be considered grounds for imposing the ban, unless Drew admits to it before he's caught.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose - it took an expert quite some time to find the deception here, and Drew only came clean about all the misbehaviour when forced to by overwhelming evidence. We have absolutely no good reason (and don't bleat AGF at me; we are past that point) to believe there has been no other falsification. → ROUX ₪ 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Um, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be indicating that the editor may have engaged in other falsifications, and saying he shouldn't be banned because of that? Maybe you could clarify a little, please? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Undeclared falsification? If Drew R. Smith admits to same during the current block then we go forward as I propose. If they do not admit to such matters by the time the block ends and is later found out, then they are blocked and community banned per my proposal. This provides both the necessary incentive in coming clean now, and the consequences of hiding it should they not. As I don't know the editor I can still AGF that they intend to be a positive contributor from now on, and this is the manner in which to ensure it. Of course, they may indeed be no further reason for concerns.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • (three ECs later) Roux: That's a good point. (I'm not opposed to an outright ban. I just support this as well as a way to not founder on lack of consensus, mind you) If I may suggest, perhaps require Drew to come clean now, during the time period of the 1 month block, and anything found afterwards, whether done before or after the block, would be one of the things triggering expiration of Drew's final chance? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • My issue is the falsification. He didn't actually come clean; he was proven to have done it and then admitted to it after overwhelming evidence was presented. Without going through every single contrib one by one and checking them, there is zero chance he will come clean on anything else (if there is anything else), and there is no reason to believe that it won't happen again in the future unless there is someone checking each and every contribution. Neither of those things is practical, so as a very simple matter of expediency he must be permanently disallowed from editing because none of his contributions can be trusted in any way. → ROUX ₪ 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • When you said "FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads", above, I suspect some read that as possibly an offer to work with the editor and maybe even "keep an eye" on them but given a reread I can see how that's not what it says. Please forgive LHvU for having misconstrued you. I'm sure it was an honest mistake without intent to offend. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I, too, was under the apparently mistaken impression that Durova was amenable to something like that, given the repeated offers to help and the lemonade analogy. Like Lar said, "oops..." Tan | 39 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An offer to coach technical aspects image restoration is nothing like an offer of general mentorship. LessHeard vanU might at least have left a notice at my user talk, to mention what he was proposing. Let's hope the confusion LessHeard caused doesn't further harm Drew's chances of retaining editing rights. Once this restoration is finished we might have a tricky time nominating it for featured picture. In future, please consult in advance before putting an offer on the table. Durova 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Durova. It looks like this won't work unless another editor decides to keep an eye on the editor. hmwitht 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • @ Durova (after several edit conflicts) Perhaps I took liberties with your comment here as well - if so, I apologize. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Would it be a fair evaluation to say that you are willing to work with Drew in the future, and perhaps teach him some of the proper methods he should be adhering to here? Hopefully that wouldn't leave you feeling "responsible" or burdened with the task of overseeing his edits in the future. — Ched :  ?  21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - clarified who the comment was in response to after several edit conflicts. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Due to existing commitments such as leading the technical and creative team for the media portion of the upcoming Tropenmuseum exhibit, the commitment you request would be impossible. I would certainly be willing to correspond with a mentor if one steps forward. What Drew has is trainable talent. If he focuses on developing that and putting it to good use, wonderful. Durova 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thread closure proposal

    I don't mean to step on toes here, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, I am certainly an involved admin here. But I think it's clear that we aren't going to have a solid ban endorsement, and any "compromise" won't have much official binding authority. What's going to happen is that Drew is going to serve his month, as there certainly isn't consensus to unblock him. After that, I'm pretty sure that there is enough spotlight that people will be checking contributions, references, etc - and if there's another violation of any kind, he'll get unilaterally indeffed, which will be a de facto ban endorsed by the community as no one will unblock him. None of this needs to be official, and I think the business-as-usual approach to this is the best. Technically, he'll be getting another chance, which should mollify the lenient editors here. There's no need to waste time on him any longer; let's revisit when/if we need to. Who knows if he'll even return. while I don't want to be the one to do it, someone should resolve/archive this. Tan | 39 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    I really don't see a lack of consensus regarding a ban. Sure, take with a grain of salt given that I support the ban, but I only see four people opposing it. → ROUX ₪ 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Well, plus Durova, and probably some others found at Drew's talk page who haven't chimed in here yet. Plus, endorsement of The Compromise makes everything even more fuzzy. I mostly support a ban, too, Roux... I'm just trying to take the route that wastes the least editor time and ends up with pretty much the same outcome, whatever happens. Tan | 39 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Problem is, I think a lot more editor time will be wasted if he is allowed back in a month--people will have to be checking all his contribs. If he's not here, no contribs to check. Frankly I am astonished that a discussion even occurred. Falsifying data, abusive sockpuppetry.. what exactly does it take to get banned anymore? → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    If I didn't have to go through an "admin abuse" merry-go-terror every time I boldly indeffed a net-negative user, I'd do it a lot more often. Tan | 39 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    There is that. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) It seems many of those opposing the ban were in support of you, Tan, and your original sanction. However, it sounds like you're leaning towards a ban yourself. If I may be so bold, I think there's consensus for a ban, and I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to close this thread and enact the sanction. Enough is enough Vicenarian 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Do you know, this has been bugging me since this whole sorry thing started the morning after (depending on time zone differences) the "false" Drew filed an RFArb against several editors (including Jimbo) – a "new" Drew turned up and said the account was compromised before, but "it's OK now, I've regained control". Don't we block indefinitely for that fact alone, pending cast-iron proof to the contrary and if there's any doubt remaining, the account stays blocked and they start a new one to be on the safe side? Why didn't that happen in the first place? How do we know the person who has defended this massive photo fraud is the "real" Drew. How do we know another Drew won't turn up saying "You won't believe this... I've just logged in for the first time in 6 months and..." Isn't it time to say, "Will the real Drew Smith, please stand up"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ouch. You have a point. If, well, lying kept him from getting banned once, ... . Or, alternately, if he is in such weak control of his account that it could happen once, there's no really good reason to believe that whoever hacked his account once might not be able to hack it again and create similar havoc. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Excellent point. The account(s) should be indeffed on that basis alone. However, he should not be allowed to create a new account, due to the other issues.
    It is also worth noting that those supporting LHVU's compromise were (apparently) doing so on the basis of Durova's involvement. Since she is not involved, there seems to be little/no support for that. → ROUX ₪ 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, I don't think a single administrator on his talk page believed his "account hacked" or "my brother/housemate/dog did it" excuses, so that certainly isn't what kept him being indef'd at the time. –xeno 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Then why wasn't he indeffed for the abusive sockpuppetry? Seriously, what does it actually take these days? Death threats against Jimbo? → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    If I recall correctly, he was extended a "last chance". –xeno 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Which based on my reading, was approximately the eleventy-billionth 'last' chance extended. At what point will we learn? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. → ROUX ₪ 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Endorse ban-can't be trusted to be a good editor, even with a mentor. I don't think time alone with a mentor is going to give hime an ethical compass to follow, and this seems to be what he's lacking.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


    Full Disclosure I created an account at commons the other day. Today I went to en.wp and found myself logged on as the name I used at commons. I have accidentaly created a sock, User:Ender The Xenocide. Any sanctions that happen to me need to happen to that account as well. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    How does one accidentally create a secondary account? (I note this was today, 8/25). Tan | 39 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think my creation of an account at commons automatically created one here. After creating the account at commons and uploading some pics I went to sleep. This morning the account was logged in here at WP. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    This thread is going on and on and off into tangents. Any possible way we can resolve it to everyone's satisfaction? Vicenarian 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    You might consider posting a new thread at the bottom of the noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin (who has not participated here) to close the discussion and state the result. I think the opinions are in general not satisfied with only a one-month block but there are several votes against a complete ban. I do not see any consensus for an immediate unblock. If the closer were to read all the votes and average all the desired block lengths, it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Post closure

    Well, this has been closed... but what's the resolution? Vicenarian 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    It appears that Tony Sidaway closed the thread, and asserted that consensus exists for the ban. Per EdJ's comment, I think he's previously uninvolved, although he's not an admin. I guess if no one reverts that close, it was a good call, and some admin needs to go reblock. If someone does revert it, then off we go again? That's my guess. Me, I think it's as good a call as any. After factoring out the mentorship proposal I think we're left with many more folk feeling a ban was justified than those feeling that one last last last chance needed to be given. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    So... since you are an admin... volunteering? Vicenarian 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    If no one else wants to do it, I suppose. I'm pretty involved though. Might make sense to wait a few minutes/hours to see if the close sticks. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't I guess. If I continued lying, I would've been blocked. I tell the truth, I'm blocked. And there was one final warning, one. I don't know why people keep saying things like "last last last warning". - Drew Smith What I've done 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Or you could jus not lie and sock in the first place... Viridae 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    What a shocking concept. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I see consensus for the ban, though I do support it. I've blocked the admitted sock, but certainly don't feel comfortable enacting the ban. AniMate 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    I reblocked for thirty days; if someone feels like being bold and indeffing, have at it. I've kinda had enough of this for now. Tan | 39 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    This really shouldn't have been archived. Strong support for a ban, maybe, but what ban? Prodego 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    I see strong support, but I also see reasonable objections. We're in no hurry here, as Drew wasn't editing outside of this thread. I agree with Tan's move, for the record. It seems the least controversial, though I'd like to see Drew under the watchful eye of a mentor if the block length isn't changed. AniMate 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Here's where we are, and here's where I'd like to close this out. We can't come to an agreement on a ban/indef block, but we are in agreement a substantial block is in order. Consequently, Drew has been reblocked for 30 days. I'd like to again point to my proposal. Drew is encouraged to admit any past transgressions that have not come to light on his talk page, if there are any. Upon the expiration of his block, I (and I'm sure a number of others) will be watching Drew very closely. He is strongly encouraged to seek mentorship, but that is up to him. I think we have consensus that ANY further misbehavior will result in an indef block/de facto community ban, and any past misbehavior we find that has not been admitted to will have a similar result. However, until the expiration of the 30 day block, if there are no objections, I consider this matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism of a page that is likely to continue by many IPs

    Main page: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard § Will Buckley

    The Will Buckley page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop. I've been monitoring it but am about to go to work!

    almost-instinct 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    I semiprotected for a few days, hopefully the folks who are vandalizing will have seen a shiny object and been distracted by then. In the meantime, maybe you can turn up some sources and expand the article? =) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. Actually I'm of the opinion that the subject is pretty non-notable, just a hack. Why I cared about the vandalism, Lord only knows ;-) almost-instinct 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Wikimedia UK announces flagged revisions

    <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Wikimedia Error</title> <style>

    • { margin: 0; padding: 0; }

    body { background: #fff; font: 15px/1.6 sans-serif; color: #333; } .content { margin: 7% auto 0; padding: 2em 1em 1em; max-width: 640px; } .footer { clear: both; margin-top: 14%; border-top: 1px solid #e5e5e5; background: #f9f9f9; padding: 2em 0; font-size: 0.8em; text-align: center; } img { float: left; margin: 0 2em 2em 0; } a img { border: 0; } h1 { margin-top: 1em; font-size: 1.2em; } .content-text { overflow: hidden; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-hyphens: auto; -moz-hyphens: auto; -ms-hyphens: auto; hyphens: auto; } p { margin: 0.7em 0 1em 0; } a { color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none; } a:hover { text-decoration: underline; } code { font-family: sans-serif; } .text-muted { color: #777; } </style>

    <a href="https://www.wikimedia.org"><img src="https://www.wikimedia.org/static/images/wmf-logo.png" srcset="https://www.wikimedia.org/static/images/wmf-logo-2x.png 2x" alt="Wikimedia" width="135" height="101"> </a>

    Error

    Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please <a href="" title="Reload this page" onclick="window.location.reload(false); return false">try again</a> in a few minutes.

    See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.

    If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

    Request from 2605:59c8:307f:410::b2b via cp4043 cp4043, Varnish XID 1038102818
    Upstream caches: cp4043 int
    Error: 404, Not Found at Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:50:20 GMT

    </html> As reported by the BBC . Now call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't that be announced prominently on-wiki? Or has it been announced prominently in a place that no-one will notice? DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think the bbc is exaggerating slightly, all that's happened is they've added flagged revs to a test wiki, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-08-24/Technology report--Jac16888 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, Mike Peel (who he? - ed.) told the BBC it would start in the next couple of weeks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Missed that, User:Mike Peel apparently. Seems unlikely they would start the trial when they haven't even run it on the test-wiki yet. It probably is just the bbc misinterpreting, I'll ask Mike--Jac16888 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    This was in NY Times as well, and reported by many other news outlets. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    And the NYT is attributing it to Foundation officials - do the Foundation not realise that they can talk to us here, instead of having to rely on the press to let us know what they are doing? DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Wikimedia techblog notice, which I suspect would be considered more or less official. This might be a good chance to see how they work and provide constructive critique. Risker (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ahh, they did announce it prominently where no-one would notice it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    It's an old story that's cropped up again due to the NYT article (which was unprovoked by the WMF, as far as I can tell). Wikimedia UK have certainly not been pushing it, or announcing it - the press have been coming to us. As I've been saying, the trial 'will start in the next "couple of weeks"' (based on information from Brion on wikien-l). Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Could I ask that next time you give a quote like that to the BBC you could mention it on-wiki as well? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Could I please second this? It is not particularly helpful to get these announcements in the press, filtered through so many levels of abstraction that one is left guessing what the original announcement was, when the press statement (or some equivalent announcement) could have been made available here. I'm not singling you out specifically, Mike - but too often I read in the press that "Misplaced Pages WILL be doing X, according to Misplaced Pages", when I've never seen X discussed onwiki in the slightest. Far too often, in fact, it is specifically on the subject of flagged revisions. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sure. Where? Mike Peel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I suspect that might not be practical -- how often would such a notice have to be given, and where? Sounds to me like the media took a quiet "we're sorta testing this" and turned it into "WIKIPEDIA ROLLING OUT FLAGGED REVISIONS TOMORROW"... admittedly, the latter is a more eye-catching story, even if it doesn't seem to be the case. Testing of technical features is not a policy announcement; even if we don't want flagged revisions, there are doubtless other MediaWiki wikis that do. Granted, of coruse, that I could be missing something and haven't been interviewing any "officials" lately. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Have you thoroughly read the thread and links above? The Wikimedia techblog notice (something of which I was previously unaware) says "...before we prepare to deploy these extensions on English Misplaced Pages in the coming weeks". DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    ...good point. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    I should explain that nothing I've said today is new - it's all been based on what information I've gathered from on-wiki, and also from the mailing lists. There was no announcement of any sort. I've also basically been fire-fighting - the press have been phoning the UK press phone, and I've been answering their questions to the best of my ability (and coping with their various misunderstandings as to what role I have/WMUK has with Misplaced Pages). I'd also add that the decision to trial flagged revisions is an en.wp decision by the community. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    So the techblog announcement isn't an announcement? Could it be that careless wording there triggered these stories and enquiries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sort of. Brion has been periodically updating for a while now, saying that things would be rolling toward implementation around this time (it actually fell a bit behind schedule). So in that context, the meaning was clear; the community made the decision a while ago to do a trial, so it's just an announcement that it's actually going to be implemented soon. But much of the press seems to have the idea that this was a top-down decision.--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    The community has approved Misplaced Pages:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions (almost) as written, that is: globally passive and 'active' (i.e., with precedence of the latest flagged version) only when admins specifically 'turn it on' (flagged 'protection'), which is subject to the protection policy, and nothing more: no flagged revs for all blps as much of the press says. Maybe a communication glitch ? Cenarium (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Mike, sorry about not answering your question ("Where"?) earlier. Needless to say, there are about a dozen random "announcements" pages scattered around, almost all of them are totally obscure, and most are unmaintained and unwatched - which makes your question tough to answer at present. Probably we need someone to start a new page for such announcements, and since I am someone, I'm going to see about mocking up a suggestion for an appropriate noticeboard. I'll make a prominent announcement when I've got something worked up. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Where will you make this announcement? --John (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Might I suggest the Signpost suggestions page a good place to announce breaking news?--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    If it's breaking news, it should go on a wiki-wide Watchlist notification or top-banner. Not that many people read the Signpost compared to the number of editors or even active editors. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Don't know if we something like this or not, but it might be nice to have a page (similar to the ArbCom announcements page) for announcements from Wikimedia Foundation folks. These could include formal announcements like "We are now doing X...", but also responses to press reports that might confuse editors here. Obviously press stories about Misplaced Pages (and a lot of other things) can sometimes be a bit "off" (for a variety of reasons), and it might be good to offer a space on en.wikipedia where Wikimedia spokespeople can weigh in and/or clarify certain press reports. Lots of people would watchlist such a page, but we could also obviously cross-post important announcements to this noticeboard, the village pump, etc. Just a thought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. I think that it's a fine use of a site notice. Although I never miss an issue, The Signpost isn't read by most. hmwitht 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    For community announcements that aren't important for readers, I think a talknotice would be optimal. Cenarium (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


    Flagged revisions was approved by "80% of 259 users" according to the BBC piece. That's 207 users, out of thousands, who are responsible for mucking up Misplaced Pages. Just saying... -     allstar▼echo     01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thousands of users are responsible for mucking up Misplaced Pages? More like hundreds of thousands, or millions, actually. Yes, we have that many vandals. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    At the very least someone official could have put it up on {{cent}}. And when exactly did the community agree to this? I thought we only agreed to a trial run. Maybe there was something in the mailing lists. I don't watch those :( . Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    What is being discussed in the press is in fact a trial run, as J. Wales remarked here, "It is a test." There is a lot of support for flagged revs being implemented in at least some form, so presumably if the test is at least somewhat successful we will continuing using them in some fashion. If, for whatever reason, it proves a major or medium-sized disaster, I don't believe there is anything which precludes the en.wikipedia community from saying "this is absolutely terrible, shut it down now." I'd say the most likely outcome is that flagged revs won't end up in the trashcan, completely unused (as some editors want), but nor will they be turned on for the entire project (as some other editors want). We'll end up somewhere in between those two extremes, but there will be a lot of debating, anger, and doomsday predictions before we get there. I'm sure it will all be perfectly goddamn delightful! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if it's a test. FlaggedRevs is still an affront to IP users and new users alike and isn't going to do anything but provoke more "vandals", who were formerly good-faith users whose sourced information is now being obligated to run thru Azorius-style crap before it gets made live, thus acting as an effective discouragement for new editors. Flatly, there isn't gonna be enough editors to make FlaggedRevs viable on large projects (such as en.wp). -Jeremy 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    How is allowing IP and new editors to edit pages that they can't current edit (semi-protected/full-protected pages) an affront to them? Have you read the proposed configuration, which is simply to replace or augment current protection with a flagged protection system? This is why it's been so long coming, as I understand it, because the extension has had to be rewritten to work in the way we've asked for it to work. It's just a trial, it isn't (zOMG) FlaggedRevs in its conventional sense - don't really see the issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oh cool thanks for clearing that up. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've added the Signpost series template to the right for those editors fuzzy on what happened when.
    Note that the proposal presented to the community states "there is no consensus to use an active implementation (in which new edits are not shown to readers unless made by or flagged by trusted users) for all biographies of living people or an arbitrary subset of them, preemptively." It certainly sounds to me from the media coverage that someone in the Foundation is intending to 'use an active implementation for all biographies of living people, preemptively.' If that is the case, then the community has been deceived and the Foundation is simply hiding behind the poll to do whatever it wants. But let's see what the actual implementation is before we break out the pitchforks. - BanyanTree 09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Banyan, I got the same impression... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    New Wikimedia blog post on flagged revisions. Relating to my above stated concern about a disconnect between what the community approved and what the media says will be implemented, Erik Moeller states:

    This post originally said that all biographies of living people would be “flagged protected”. This is not correct. The current proposal is for for articles that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (where new and unregistered users cannot edit) to be eligible for the new protection model, which allows for more open editing. I apologize for the confusion; thanks to Sage Ross for the quick correction.

    I am satisfied. - BanyanTree 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Way too much of a burden!

    User:God — "Misplaced Pages does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:God. If in doubt, please verify that "God" exists." @harej 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    But well...God has been blocked indef:
    20:10, 27 January 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs | block) blocked God (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) (unblock | change block)
    So we won't see Him (or Her) edit Misplaced Pages under their name I guess SoWhy 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Is blocking God a form of sacrilege? @harej 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, because She can still edit anonymously. Rd232 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    You can't block someone that doesn't exist. ➲ REDVERS 09:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    This block appears appropriate under both Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Real names and the Third Commandment (second for those of the Catholic or Lutheran faiths). --Allen3  09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    And also the 2nd Commandment (Catholic 1st) if you consider a User:God to be idolatrous. @harej 09:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    MediaWiki is too wishywashy on the topic. Cygwin is much more authoritative: 

    $ su god
su: user god does not exist

    ++Lar: t/c 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    But my compiler tells me that GOD is real... at least unless I use IMPLICIT NONE. Titoxd 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Well, the older generation tends to be more religious than their younger counterparts. @harej 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Speedy deletions requested

    Resolved

    Today, I marked four images for speedy deletion under G8. All the images in question were used on articles that relate to a non-notable band made up of teenagers at a school. The band and related articles have been repeatedly deleted, and the creator was even blocked once for re-creation. See editor's block log. Examples of repeated deletion of articles: example 1 and example 2. You can see a slew of deletions and other warnigns at User talk:Bsbfan.

    After tagging these images for G8, administrator Xeno declined the speedies (example) saying the images were not entirely dependent on the deleted articles. I fail to see how these images could be used on any other articles, and any non-article use would be self promotion. So, I queried Xeno on this, and he suggested I take it to IfD. The action of taking it to IfD seems silly, overly bureaucratic and pointless. It's a foregone conclusion these images should be deleted.

    Would another administrator please step in and delete these please?

    Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    WP:DRV is thataway. "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." → ROUX ₪ 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think DRV is not for declined speedies, that's what xFD is for. –xeno 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why didn't you simply go to IFD as I suggested? That's the correct venue for having an image deleted outside speedy criteria (G8 doesn't apply as far as I can tell) and would've taken less time than making this thread. Note also File:BLADES 2009.jpg has been declined twice before (once by me, once by User:Woody). –xeno 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Seriously, this is probably more "bureaucratic" than taking to IfD. Here, we'll have some six-hour drag-out discussion about what rationale to use for deleting some pictures of kids trying to act cool. Look at that first one, by the way - the kid on the left. Awesome. Tan | 39 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't have any need of answering your question Xeno. I'm not looking for your input. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    An admin's declining a speedy suggests that there is some dispute over whether a page meets with the CSD; because our presumption is against speedy deletion, which the community requires be construed strictly, the proper venue when established editors disagree about whether a page is speediable is XfD. (In any case DRV is probably inappropriate; it has long been our practice that declined speedies go to XfD, not DRV .) 99.154.83.106 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the photos could probably be deleted per WP:CHILD, given that we only have explicit permission from one of the minors (the uploader).
    • For the record: I have no issue with an admin deleting these per this, or another reason, without further comment from myself. –xeno 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Done, you policy stickler. I was kinda sad to delete that first one. Tan | 39 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    WEST SIIIIIIDE !! –xeno 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Template:Northwest Airlink Carriers

    this template has been on speedy for a couple of days and no one has assisted it. HereFord 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    I redirected it, to preserve the history as best as possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Template:In the news

    Keep discussions together. Moved to ANI. ÷seresin 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    AbuseFilter

    We really need to set up a system for monitoring the people creating these. Dragons flight and I have been doing it, but with DF away I am becoming overwhelmed. There needs to be a process to review the filters. For example, there was a filter blocking from linking to uncyclopedia, a task which a) has no consensus and b) is a job for the spam blacklist. There absolutely must be a process created to review filters, perhaps similar to the bot approvals group, except the filters would be reviewed post fact, not pre-approved. Does anyone have any ideas? Trying to keep edits from hitting the condition limit (the point where the filters give up because there are too many checks being applied) requires removing checks, but removing filters is like trying to stem a massive flood single handedly, and every time you remove on, it's sponsor is going to want it back. I need there to be a process. Prodego 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Clear case of the general idea of abuse filters being applied before any real though was put into the overall impact of their being implemented. Some front-loading of this application would have been far, far preferable. Now we're left with a serious mess of a situation. Good luck fixing it. It's not going to be easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, the blacklist disallows all insertions of uncyclopedia. The filter (103) however, was designed to only block the insertion of uncyclopedia links by not-autoconfirmed editors. XLinkBot would not see these links (when in templates), or ignore these (when used as 'references', e.g.), so the editfilter could certainly help there. It is unfortunate that the system is so sensitive that its use is seriously diminished. --Dirk Beetstra 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • IMO, totally inappropriate to disallow adding a link by non-autoconfirmed editors, while admitting that there are legitimate uses and allowing autoconfirmed editors to add them. Prodego 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I do agree that new filters should be discussed first if possible (which leads of course to a problem on how to discuss non-public filters effectively). A group of pros like DF or Prodego that work similar to BAG and review new filters first is quite a good idea to avoid bad filters screwing up the 'pedia. Maybe Werdna (talk · contribs) can code some sort of more sophisticated comment system to the whole thing which can then be used to discuss those filters with other AF editors; the current way to communicate in filters using the "notes" field is not really a good way to do it. Regards SoWhy 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    3D-holoshow

    Hi there. This article appears to have been created solely for promotion of a product by Ryrocks, which looks like a spam-only account.

    I guess I should have filed an AfD, but the process looked a bit too intimidating. :)

    —Nailbiter (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Deleted per G11. Tan | 39 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP

    Raul654 has just full protected Lawrence Solomon ostensibly because of the edit warring that was occurring there over whether to include a properly sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Raul has previously edit warred himself over this very same topic (see , ) in WP:TAGTEAM fashion in support of User:William M. Connolley. The current dispute involves a number of members from "team" User:William M. Connolley notably including User:KimDabelsteinPetersen along with their other usual supporters who shall not be enumerated here. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen are strongly resisting the inclusion of a properly and adequately sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Given that Solomon had published public accounts of his interactions with both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen which were of a seriously critical nature, I believe it is fair to say that these two editor's have a conflict of interest on this BLP and should not be obstructing the inclusion of properly sourced material.

    UPDATE: The publications related to WMC and KDP include but may not be limited to the following:

    1. Misplaced Pages's Zealots: Solomon
    2. Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon
    3. Wikipropaganda

    I seek a discussion and a decision on the following matters:

    1. Regardless of whether this particular page protection is appropriate, or not, it is clear that Raul654 was involved in this specific content dispute and he should NOT be using his administrative tools to lock the content of this page AT ALL. I seek appropriate sanctions against Raul654 for his use of administrative tools while involved in the dispute.
    2. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt the on-going development of this BLP to the detriment of the subject and their actions there are demonstrating that they intend to do so. They both have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this particular article and their objectivity there cannot be assumed. As such I seek a page and talk page ban against each of them for the Lawrence Solomon BLP so that we can avoid future disruptive actions on their parts.

    --GoRight (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    I have placed notices on the talk pages of Lawrence Solomon, User:Raul654, User:William M. Connolley, and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why didn't you include me? I feel unloved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    You don't have a conflict of interest on that page. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Cos no-one loves yah, bebe :-). In the unlikely event of anyone thinking that GR is an uninterested party in all this, be aware of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and the tedious cabal nonsense; GR's request here is yet more water-muddying. The current dispute is over the inclusion of the word "environmentalist" or not; it is not at all clear how inclusion, or exclusion, of this word can be to the detriment of the subject. Since in 2008-09-26 I have precisely one edit to this page; GR's allegations of intent to disrupt are absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Your edits to the page are readily available in the article history. They speak for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    So are Raul's. Why don't they speak for themselves. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, why don't GoRight's own edits speak for themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Both Raul's and my own edits also speak for themselves on our respective levels of involvement and whether our edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, or not. I'll trust the uninvolved here to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    GoRight trusts the "community" when that community it involves a whole lot of Scibaby sockpuppets which he can use to falsely claim consensus. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    ← I guess I see a few issues here:

    • Was protection appropriate? There was a full-blown edit war going on. If I saw a request at WP:RFPP with that sort of page history, I'd almost certainly protect the page. One could argue that un-aged sockpuppets were contributing a huge amount of the edit-warring, and that semi-protection would be more appropriate upfront - I suppose that would be reasonable as well.
    • Should Raul654 have taken action here? Don't know. The definition of "involvement" keeps changing - between written policy and ArbCom findings, we have at least 3 or 4 mutually contradictory definitions, some of which Raul654 violated and some which he clearly did not. His last edit to the page was nearly 1 year ago, but it did involve the same issue of the "environmentalist" descriptor.
    • Conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly reject that. Someone is unhappy with an editor's work on Misplaced Pages, and publishes their unhappiness in a sympathetic venue - OK, it's happened before. But that doesn't disqualify said editor, unless their edits are objectionable in and of themselves on grounds of our policies. Let's say that a vitamin salesman encourages people with a deadly disease to abandon effective treatment in favor of his products. I edit an article on the subject on Misplaced Pages, with reference to appropriate sources. He doesn't like it and attacks me on his website in moderately threatening terms. Hypothetically, of course. Have I just acquired a "conflict of interest"?

    I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on these points. MastCell  17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Call it a conflict of interest or whatever else you wish, but given these accounts which were published in national media, not someone's WP:SPS website with no readership, their objectivity and judgment with respect to Solomon can reasonably be considered clouded and thus their objectivity can be reasonably called into question. Based on that alone a page and talk page ban would be appropriate for this single article. As for whether their edits are objectionable under out policies, or not, there are a number of editors who believe that they are. The discussion on the talk page makes that clear enough. --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    GoRight (again)

    Previously discussed:

    In addition to the above issues mentioned by WMC and Boris, there are several thing that bear mentioning.

    First, GoRight's diffs to claim my "involvement" are ancient. I have not edited this article in almost a year. His claims of involvement are completely without merit. Using his ridiculous interpretation of "involvement", admins would be prohibited from taking administrative actions on any article they have ever edited. This is not an accident - GoRight frequently claims involvement by the admins most familiar with his misbehavior in order to avoid being sanctioned for that misbehavior. (Abd proposed something along these lines in the on-going arbitration case, and it was rejected almost unanimously by the community as a transparent attempt to disqualify those most suited to deal with his disruption)
    Second, as the one adding the material, the onus is on GoRight to provide sources to back up his claim. The sources he cites have repeatedly been debunked on the talk page as op-eds or self-published sources. Thus, he is in violation of WP:BLP.
    Third, the current edit war is yet another instance of GoRight proxy editing for banned user Scibaby. GoRight's edits: ; Scibaby's edits: . This is the 6th or 7th incident of GoRight acting as a proxy for banned users in as many months, and the 3rd or 4th in the last few weeks. (He does it for Scibaby quite a lot, and recently has taken to doing it for Abd)
    Fourth, related to the above, when I protected the page, I gave two reasons -- edit warring and sockpuppetry. GoRight conviently omitted the latter from his description.

    I think a substantial block for GoRight, for repeatedly and willfully violating the 'no proxying' policy (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. --Misplaced Pages:Banning policy) is in order.

    When a previous community ban discussion was mentioned here, GoRight outright lied -- he claimed he would adhere to a self-imposed 1rr, a promise which he promptly ignored as soon as the discussion was over. I think a topic ban from global warming articles is also in order, as he contributes little or nothing of value while causing much disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Raul leaves out, of course, that I have been working in good faith on the talk page to resolve this issue and that I am NOT the only editor asserting this material so any claims of my meat puppeting are absurd, unless he wants to level the charge against ALL of those asserting this material as well which, as you will note, he has not. He is being selective for an obvious purpose given his history of seeking sanctions against me and being rebuffed each time. His previous attempt at this meat puppet accusation was investigated and rejected, .
    My previous pledge of adopting WP:1RR served its purpose between when it was made and now. I hereby rescind that pledge moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Just curious, when did you make the 1RR pledge? Was it recent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    See this. He made the promise on August 7 of last year. As soon as the discussion was over, he promptly ignored the promise, and participated in the many of his revert wars 12 days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Would it not be more appropriate to rescind the pledge *before* breaking it rather than *after*? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    GoRight's sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Misplaced Pages instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --TS 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    GoRight community ban

    Proposal: GoRight is banned global warming-related articles and talk pages. In addition, GoRight is strictly prohibited from proxy editing on behalf of banned users.

    Support
    Long overdue. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose

    Physics

    Resolved – Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell  17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    It has been vandalized by ip address users for the past few days and I have no clue why, but I think it's enough to protect the page. --Fire 55 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    School's back in. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. If you'd like, you can take requests for protection here in future - sometimes it's quicker, sometimes not. MastCell  17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Category: