Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 8 February 2008

MilesAgain blocked?

Hello, I saw that you blocked MilesAgain for being a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026. Given that MilesAgain has generally seemed to be a good editor who generally acted well, I am curious as to the details of this. Given the time frame between the two accounts' first and last edits, I cannot really form an accurate opinion based upon content edited alone, and the talk style seems pretty generic from both. As such, I am curious as to the details of this block and the prompting and subsequent investigation that led up to it. I have already done a cursory search of the current AN/I, AN, and RFCU and couldn't find anything. Thank you. LinaMishima (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the other checkusers picked it up and asked me to double-check. The technical evidence is clear that this person has been using multiple accounts and that the accounts are connected with Nrcprm2026. MilesAgain can email the arbitration committee if he wants in independent recheck, but to me the evidence is clear. Thatcher 16:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had suspected it, but never filed a checkuser request. MilesAgain had acknowledged being a sock. It was obvious from contributions, a newly registered user dives right into fairly complex Misplaced Pages process, not long after a set of Nrcprm2026 socks have been cleared out, and with some similar interests, such as Instant-runoff voting and Approval voting. With the latter article, he was actually fairly helpful, and with the former, just below the edge of being irritating enough for me to ask for checkuser or other process. He caused quite a bit of disruption and wasted time, stirring up old issues where diverse editors had found a working consensus. I had somewhat concluded, though, that he wasn't Nrcprm2026, because his behavior was more sophisticated. He began participating positively in many forums. So ... Nrcprm2026 is learning new tricks. Next time ... he may be even more difficult to root out. I could suggest ways ... but he will read this. One Nrcprm2026 trick he repeated: reverting the checkuser notice on his user page as vandalism. I was about to ask the same question as LinaMishima, but she beat me to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I placed the notice I forgot to actually block the account. Oh well. It's done now. Thatcher 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood restriction

I see you reinstated the probation at Pallywood, and the edit summary from your change at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles states "may not be lifted except by another uninvolved admin or the admin who placed it". I don't see the issue, so would you care to elaborate as to why the removal of the restriction was invalid? -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration case uses a rather broad definition of "uninvolved." I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles. I also thought you might have lifted the protection due to the argument over how it was sought and applied, since you cited the ANI thread, and the thread says nothing about the revert limit being inappropriate (indeed, it is endorsed), only that ChrisO acted improperly in seeking it. If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation. Thatcher 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, like any other admin action, it is poor form to reverse another admin's action without at least discussing it. Did you discuss lifting the limitation with Kylu? Thatcher 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also thought you might have lifted the protection due to the argument over how it was sought and applied, since you cited the ANI thread, and the thread says nothing about the revert limit being inappropriate (indeed, it is endorsed)

I don't see where you read that. FeloniousMonk said "It's obvious the 1RR restriction should be removed" and Jpgordon said "for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward", albeit both after rather scathing comments about ChrisO's course of action.

As for involvement in the dispute... I don't know how to best address this without revealing how livid I am about it (oh wait, I just did). I would understand you calling me involved if I had been actively editing the Pallywood article or recently been editing the Pallywood article, but that's not the case. I might have understood if I was applying (or un-applying) a sanction against an editor with whom I had a dispute. But that's not the case either. Instead, I am being considered "involved" because I worked on the Israel article (months ago, back to October) and the Jerusalem article (even longer ago, back to May). And that's, of course, ignoring the fact that I was not there to participate in endless, pointless edit wars about politics (and those did not happen), but instead to bring them up to featured status (which did happen). That distinction is what makes me furious about being considered "involved"; my constructive involvement in two other articles on the subject months ago is somehow giving me a conflict of interest on dozens -- and perhaps hundreds -- of articles and topics I couldn't care less about. Indeed, I don't see the problem here; in fact, some see my knowledge of the Israel-Palestine area a strength rather than a weakness when approaching these disputes (via mediation and otherwise). That's why there was a lengthy discussion about the concept of "Uninvolved administers" during the RfArb -- because the definition of "uninvolved" as laid out in the RfArb is problematic.

Your issue with me not talking to Kylu about the block is the only point with which I can agree, although I get the impression that that was an afterthought rather than the reason for reinstating the probation. Since my removal (when I also notified Kylu about the ANI thread), Kylu has commented and has expressed no clear objection (or support) to the removal of the probation. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I think tariqabjotu has a point here. I don't see him as involved at all, and if you spend a little time reading the relevant archives of Talk:Israel, I think you'd agree. I am frankly a little disturbed by your assumption that he's involved. Relata refero (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Replying from ANI) This is still an issue because I can't tell whether you're convinced that I can remove the restriction. I don't want to end up warring back and forth over the sanction, but if you're satisfied and saying If you think it should be removed, remove it, I'll go ahead and remove it. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said above and I meant it. I'm not generally passive-aggressive; "well, remove it if you think so" means remove it if you think so, not "I'm baiting you to see what you will do" or some such nonsense. And I meant my apology about assuming you were involved. I see that you added evidence to the case, and that you have occasionally edited related articles, but if you say you are not involved then I believe you. Thatcher 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Orangepith

Hi, I just wanted to say that I concur with your block there, and with the condition you set for unblock. I would be happy to supervise this, should the condition be satisfied. Anyway, good work, --John (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments#User:BQZip01.2FComments

If you remember, you weighed in on the use of user pages to draft a future RFC, and whether such use might count as an attack page if not promptly converted from a personal on-wiki collection of evidence about a person into an actual RFC or ArbCom case. The above is an ongoing discussion of one such user page; part of the question is what counts as a "reasonable" period of time to bring the RFC or delete the draft. (Opinions differ from "a few days" to "several months.") The discussion seems to be floundering a bit on what this policy means, so, if you're interested, I thought you might have input to add. (If not, sorry to bug you.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

84.45.219.185

Thanks for blocking the IP as a proxy. As it is, I've already pointed it out to the organization and am resolving it with them without having to go via abuse reporting on Misplaced Pages. Ta, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC case

This section of the discussion on the IRC arbitration appears to me to have got out of hand, particularly the sniping between ChrisO and Jayjg. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding proposed decision talk

Fozzie and I replied here. Just an FYI, if I'm right, this will probably involve following lots and lots of IPs since he seems to hop IPs so easily... sorry for a rough one. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied. You should probably ask Alison or FT2 for any followup. The problem of course is that when a user uses a lot of IPs, unless you find an overlap, the best you can often say is inconclusive. Thatcher 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol case

See . — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block them if they're evading socks

• Although KoreanShoriSenyou, Azukimonaka, Orchis29 have been infinitely banned by admin Rleves, still too many ODN and OCN anonymous users are emerging from ground. If this anons are either of the aformentioned users, please block them.

• Special:Contributions/219.66.44.247
• Special:Contributions/61.209.163.247 - The anon who requested to Amazonfire to include several editor who objected to anon's reviosion as my "SOCK" used several ninja-like tactics (writing in Japanese, after my warning, he disguised the message with the strike.

Translation of the Japanese comment: Amazon, you can speak Japanese per your understanding of Japanese. When I edited the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article, User:Sceener reverted it. One minute after that, I got a warning from the editor(Appletrees), Maybe the former is Appletrees' sock. Ecthelion83 has been silent, but other accounts are active and carefully doing here. This would be my last message because of the unsuccessful gaming. I'm ending this game. --61.209.163.247 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

--Appletrees (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those were both Azukimonaka. Unfortunately, OCN and ODN users seem to change IPs very rapidly, so even after just a few hours they will have a new IP and blocking the old one will not stop them. Thatcher 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to choose their IP address and I don't know how they manage that. But on many cases, abusive ip addresses are blocked. Isn't this case fitting for blocking the ip range?

As for Cellea, are you confirming that the blocked user is not related to Watermint after seeing these new user creation and block log and the others? Are these matched pages and personal info and interest and the log dates really coincidence? The contents and images are all the same. I honestly say you seem to avoid mentioning their possible sockpuppetry.

• Celldea's block log
• Watermint's new account creation log
• Watermint's user page
• Celldea's user page
• Redpepper's user page

I'm really sorry to make you feel annoyed by my RFCU files on the Japanese users. I understand that you have to be objective and not to side any party in any dispute. But my file is the result of my observation for several months from the mentioned articles. I had not figured out how to report RFCU or SSP until about one month ago. With all due respect, I don't think your latest comment on this file as the files becoming an abuse is really not appropriate. I haven't narrowed down and made very lengthy files because I think some of them are long time editors with several accounts. I don't understand why I deserve to be blamed for the opinion because I filed a series of the files in just one month? If you think my reasoning, and evidences look absurd and abusive, you could've rejected them, but you didn't.

I'm a poor English writer, so that's why I've been mainly uploading images or inserting captions to them on articles. I have edited the highly disputed articles, like Liancourt Rocks less than 5 times and that is also related to images. Unless real puppet master is discovered and caught up, I might report another file again.

As long as verifiable sources and plausible rationales are presented on articles, I don't object to include any unpleasant contents against Korea. I usually just put {{fact}} tag to contents added by editors with whom I don't share same point of view. However, all I've faced are just blanking or adding inflammatory contents without any proof by the mentioned editors. Do you think that they have strategy that I don't have? I'm little hurt by your comment, but the listed editors might think so because of my RFCU files if they're really innocent. As for your suggestion on Request for arbitration, I might not choose it because I don't know how to process it and doubt arbitration committee would make another case on the rock. And I have so many frustrating experiences from ANI, my poor English and lengthy writing style, none cared about my plead at all. But checkusers heard my voice. --Appletrees (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strengthening editing expectations for Isr-Pal articles

Thatcher, greetings. Writing to ask you whether the ArbCom ruling (or another route) might allow us to set a higher hurdle for the conduct of experiences editors at high tension Israeli-Palestinian articles. For example, might there be a way to put folks on notice that (sample idea:) Bold-Revert-Discuss doesn't apply to a selected article or section -- instead, editors are expected to raise concerns or propose changes first in Talk? Or sample idea: if a new edit has been reverted, nobody should knowingly restore it without adequate Talk discussion?

From what I can tell, the ArbCom ruling seems geared more to sanctions on users. Still, I think it would be helpful if we could somehow focus on key articles, maybe by giving a warning that is tailored to that article. Maybe this could be tried on an experimental basis? I look forward to your counsel and any other suggestions you might have. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Thatcher, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Misplaced Pages email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat please re-open

Why the closure? Can you please re-open? I think that Jossi's has actively discouraged and sabotaged dispute reolution by failure to assume my good faith quite recently. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2

It is very easy to give diffs of disrputive edits by Jossi. Check the early history of Criticism of Prem Rawat.

I will admit that the article in the register is exaggerated. Andries (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• By early history do you mean 2004-2005? No action is going to be taken on the basis of contributions that old. I made a quite thorough statement when I closed the complaint. The COI noticeboard doesn't override or replace the normal dispute resolution mechanism anyway; it is useful for blocking obvious sockpuppets or deciding to warn people, but the response to disruptive COI editing is the same as for any other disruptive editing; mediation, or article RFC, then user-conduct RFC and finally, arbitration. Thatcher 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • True, I also think that it would be unfair to criticize Jossi (and me) for edits made years ago, but Jossi has quite recently and repeatedly failed to assume my good faith and was successfull in stopping my good faith mediation attempt with user:Momento. Andries (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If true, that was 5 months ago. Did you file an RFC at that time? Please read my additional closing message. The COI noticeboard does not have the power to issue blocks or bans, regardless of the findings. It exists to bring conflicts out in the open, to issue warnings, and to recruit admins to fix problems. You need to purse the normal DR channels. Thatcher 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • At a certain time, I stopped filing RFCs, because I did not receive replies. Then I resorted to mediation which Jossi stopped by highlighting statements by me that can be interpreted as a bad faith attempt at dispute resolution. Andries (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So do you suggest me to pursue to abritration? This article has has dozens of RFCs and three aborted attempts at mediation. I think Jossi partially guilty of the failed mediation attempts. Andries (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is one possible next step. I would probably move to a user conduct RFC, though. You need evidence of recent disruptive editing, and that at least one other person besides you has tried to intervene with jossi on this matter. Thatcher 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi Conflict of Interest. Evidence

Hm, and www.prem-rawat-critique.org is obviously a neutral, non-biased site that meets reliable source guidelines? All I see here is a group of anti-Prem editors accusing a pro-Prem editor of "whitewashing" or whatever. Well guess what will happen if we decide to ban all editors with a demonstrated conflict of interest from the article. Evidence speaks louder than agitated hand wringing and finger pointing. Go get some actual evidence. Thatcher 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher are you being deliberately obtuse – the material a quoted clearly is not a quotable source for an article which is not the point – what was quoted is: a) http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/falsity.htm a reasoned analysis of the ‘academic’ material currently quoted in the Misplaced Pages articles related to Rawat. i.e. what is wrong with the current article e.g.

Some 11 separate quotes are taken from this one work by Downton as references for Misplaced Pages articles about Prem Rawat.

"Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable."

These assertions are entirely without evidence, and the proposition that Rawat had any sense of direction is refuted by Finch and questioned by Price while the role of Bob Mishler and the influential Mahatmas is ignored by Downton.

and

Downton’s assertion regarding ‘deconditioning’ is unsupported and while Rawat certainly used a rhetorical formula regarding beliefs and concepts, Rawat was a primary agent in the introduction of ‘replacement’ beliefs, and Downton seems to have confused rhetoric with process. A view of the environment for belief generation in the early US Divine Light Mission is given by Foss and Larkin

b) http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm A list of sources which are unreasonably, even perversely excluded from or used in wholly partial terms in the Rawat articles. Every source is quoted and referenced !

How is any of that not evidence that:

i) The Rawat articles are profoundly and unnecessarily unbalanced ii) This imbalanced occurred while Jossi was engaged in editing and later and more significantly, energetically acting as an admin on those articles.

Maybe Jossi is just stupid and didn’t understand what was going on, but all of this occurred at a time when he was/is being paid to promote Rawat. Why would any reasonable person not conclude that, for instance quoting Geaves, ] who like Jossi is a devotee of Rawat, but not quoting Foss and Larkin http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm whose work Geaves disputes is not evidence of partiality.

The point about the Register article surely, is that many non Wikipedians are now looking at these discussions and wondering just what the hell is going on. My prediction is that there will be closing of ranks and nothing will change, just the same old embarassingly self congratulatory hyperbole. But unless Misplaced Pages not only cleans itself up – and is seen to clean itself up – it will be most visited joke site on the Internet, the place people access not to be informed but to look for literally, the most unbelievable trivia.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that prem-rawat-critique analyzes the wikipedia article, it might be useful as a guide for editors looking to improve the article, but it is certainly not a reliable source for use in the article itself. However, no surprises that an anti-Prem web site thinks the article is not negative enough. The next step is for someone to try and fix the articles on wikipedia, consistent with policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, undue weight, and so forth. Thatcher 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)