Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:59, 15 September 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

During Hurricane Katrina, Misplaced Pages had this warning template on the top of the page

I placed one on the page for Hurricane Gustav but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--Ted-m (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. But that's the whole point of the template. So what's the objection?Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--Ted-m (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be up there. Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:CrazyC83, who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on WP:AN too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....

:o) I think it should not be up there.  :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... over here! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I see it now:

Yeah, let's not. - auburnpilot talk 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse:

-- Mr.Z-man 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{HurricaneWarning}}? WODUP 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are very aware of the storms in this date and age. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{HurricaneWarning}}. WODUP 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav" shows it's Misplaced Pages page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. We are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about WP:UNDUE? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being dicks and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking douchebag. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Mr.Z-man 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we have content guidelines that should generally be used. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... disclaimers. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't call me confused please. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{current}} templates. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

--NE2 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Word. --mboverload@ 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until September 2007. Titoxd 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for Misplaced Pages:

It just had to be said. MER-C 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for Misplaced Pages to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

prelude to edit war

You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Misplaced Pages does not exist in a vacuum. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Titoxd 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - auburnpilot talk 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. Privatemusings (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for incredible stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Misplaced Pages could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Misplaced Pages does exist in the real world. Celarnor 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. Titoxd 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. WP:IAR. Do what you feel is right. --Duk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. SQL 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Misplaced Pages so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. Edison2 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. Titoxd 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) RxS (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. RxS (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. Titoxd 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --Pat (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill WP:WPTC and break my third law. Misplaced Pages has been lauded previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. Titoxd 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Misplaced Pages. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. Titoxd 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps {{current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Misplaced Pages for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. rootology (C)(T) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a bad idea, the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of tomfoolery. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more bold pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Misplaced Pages prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer at the top for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Misplaced Pages for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously." - skip on a bit - "So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!)...". I hope that my point is clear enough. _TalkIslander 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual disaster warning box

<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Current disaster}}—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

This article is about a current disaster where information can change quickly or be unreliable. The latest page updates may not reflect the most up-to-date information. Please help improve this article using reliable sources or help by discussing changes on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

visible on this diff

Isn't that better? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Had to be said... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me... Kevin (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... you may wish to link pantry, unless you enjoy resolving pulse (legume)/lingerie issues (I know I do!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043

This article is about {{{1}}}, a current tropical cyclone where information can change quickly or be unreliable. The latest page updates may not reflect the most up-to-date information. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Misplaced Pages information. Please help improve this article using reliable sources or help by discussing changes on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

--Random832 (contribs) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Looks pretty similar to what WP:SEVERE puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: All the above warnings are in Misplaced Pages, and therefore unreliable. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Color as an issue (convenience section break)

• This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong,,, we just don;t give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just say no to tags and templates. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jerry here. We do not need to include disclaimers in our articles, and it is beyond the purpose of this encyclopaedia to do it anyway. I do not mind the inclusion of the second sentence in {{Current disaster}}, as suggested above by Rootology, but anything more than that is excessive. And it is with a certain shock that I have just realised that there is an option to turn the template red (as in the second suggestion). I strongly oppose the by-nature highly selective and subjective treatment of the template and of the disasters in the articles thereof it is transcluded. Furthermore, I oppose the misuse of the template, which is called to serve a function entirely different from the one it is meant to. I seriously believe that the option to change the colour of the template should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only disclaimer function I see this template serving is by creating a more prominent link to our site-wide hazard disclaimer, otherwise it is substantially similar to our other current event templates. As for it's misuse, it's only transcluded into one article at present and will be removed once the event is past. As for the red option, I don't understand the rationale of your objection to it- the reason it was added was because in cases where life-safety is an issue, people may be reading the article in haste and not even see the template unless it is different from our usual clutter of maintenance templates. The red color is pretty subtle and well done in my perception- not over the top like the banners editors were putting on the articles before this option was added. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with the link and am only taking issue with the colouring here. "Subtle"? The template might not be as ugly and overwhelming as the page-wide banner that started this thread, but with the red sidebar it is still glaring. This is a maintenance template, and the specific colouring downright violates the colour-code on which the entire ambox system is founded, in this case imitating a template which means "this page is up for deletion". Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as far as disclaimers are concerned, because there is no reassurance that the usage of a template feature which is, after all, available to everyone, will remain restricted. In any case, arguments have already been made that it is impossible to draw a clear line between events which would "deserve" extra care of this kind and events that would not, relying on the type and intensity of a disaster; the measure can even spill into other areas implicating danger. We are an encyclopaedia; if people prefer to trust us and the Internet in general instead of their own authorities for information, or at least their local television station, that is their problem, and the many-times-more people around the world reading the article should not be forced to endure such distractions, which only seem to be afforded to Americans anyway. We should have priorities, and our mission is to be an encyclopaedia. We record, we do not advise—especially with geographic bias. Waltham, The Duke of 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your points, let me know if I get these wrong. First that the red color is contrary to the rules explained at the {{ambox}} template documentation. Secondly, that when to change the template color is necessarily a matter of judgement.

For your first point, I'm not attached to the color red- just so long as the template looks different enough to attract attention so a hurried person may be more likely to follow the link to our hazard disclaimer.

There is merit to your second point. For tropical storms the red option is being used when warnings are posted, when there's a current threat to human life- but not every disaster is so neatly organized. Floods and earthquakes come to mind as events where I can't see when the "right" time would be to change the template's color.

As for geographical bias- well I was the person who brought up that point in the first place. The template was being used on 2008 Bihar flood until this morning, though.

I suppose that if we changed the font size/style in the box, that might make it noticeable without changing the color. Would that be a reasonable compromise? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The template should not be red, since that means the page is about to be deleted. What we can do and still be within the guideline for the use of article message boxes is to change the icons or even use yellow minor warning colour or even orange major warning colour. See my examples over at Template talk:Current disaster#Icon and color. But just as a teaser, here is one of the examples:

This article documents Hurricane ASDF, a current tropical cyclone. Information regarding it may change rapidly as it progresses. Though this article is updated frequently, it might not reflect the most current or official information about this tropical cyclone for all areas.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There were complaints before about use of an exclamation point image- too much like a disclaimer. I think yellow or orange would be fine if the ambox wikiproject doesn't find it objectionable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I find yellow an acceptable compromise. How is it to be used, however? Will the blue be retained as the proper colour, keeping for the yellow the same arrangements that now exist for the red (special option), or will it be the standard colour for the template? Neither prospect thrills me; I prefer blue for the template, but I also want consistency and no subjective choices. What can I say, though... We live in a dangerous world. Waltham, The Duke of 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but a little wordy for my taste. How about:

This article documents Hurricane ASDF, a current tropical cyclone. Information about the storm may change rapidly, and this article might not reflect the most current or official information.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of such a template without noting that the article is frequently updated. Otherwise, we're basically saying, "We're too lazy to update it, so go the the NHC if you want correct information about the storm". –Juliancolton 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This version is inaccurate. Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's noncommittal and deliberately so. Since this is meant as a general-purpose template we can't make any promises that every future article on a TC will be "updated frequently." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: Right, the template should normally be blue. The yellow version should only be an option that one can set for special occasions.

Elipongo: Right, I too think that the currently used image with the tiny warning triangle probably is better. But some wanted a stronger image, so I tried to find a decent option for that.

And I agree with Boris, we should keep it short and non-committing. Of course the other option is to make it even longer and explain what we really mean: "Though it is very likely this article is updated frequently"...

With the old image (and Boris' shorter text) it would look like this:

This article documents Hurricane ASDF, a current tropical cyclone. Information about the storm may change rapidly, and this article might not reflect the most current or official information.

Well, it is not exactly the old image since I took the liberty of increasing the size of the warning triangle in the old image, since many have complained the triangle was too small.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new image. I also agree that the template should be blue and only when it's really necessary should it change to yellow. In this case, the single image has the additional benefit of limiting the differences between the two versions to the bare minimum: the colour of the sidebar. Waltham, The Duke of 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review this block

I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at User talk:Nobody of Consequence? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. 75.3.120.150 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — Satori Son 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. Orderinchaos 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the justifications provided since my comment, I'm happy to support the block. Thank you to those involved for providing more detailed reasoning. Orderinchaos 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location. This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. Brilliantine (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. MBisanz 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought of sockpuppetry as something done with accounts. IP editing is not socking, IMO, as there is no attempt to hide the IP address. It is natural, if an account is blocked but the IP isn't, for people to edit as an IP to ask questions about what happened (they should read the block notice, but that doesn't always happen). People who turn up as IPs asking why they were blocked should be politely told to file an unblock request on their talk page, and not be accused of block evasion and have the IP blocked. It's common courtesy, no matter if is it current practice to call this type of IP editing "block evasion". At the very least, the block template should have a message warning against editing with an IP on other pages (does it?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling that  Confirmed on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both User talk:Nobody of Consequence and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - Alison 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're absolutely clear, 75.3.120.150, and User:Nobody of Consequence are both vandal socks?--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a vandal. NoC used the IP to leave nasty anti-semitic edits at user:Einsteindonut's userpage. He denied that althought he didn't give us any explanation why that could happen especially that he edited the same articles Einsteindonut edited. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't understand that sometimes people asks us to be utterly stupid for the sake of being politically correct. This has been a clear-cut case from the beginning unless he got his connection compromised. What is odd is that his opponent, user:Einsteindonut, is claiming innocence in a similar fashion. Some other CheckUser may help review that case as well.

For people unfamiliar with the whole background of this mess, please have time to have a look at this lenghty boring thread. People have spent 2 days out there. Socks are horrible. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly he's lucky to get away with two weeks - in my opinion antisemitic remarks qualify for the "don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out" treatment. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've already addressed this point and I'd have no problem with extending the block. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Once again, anti-Semitic remarks (which I abhor) get treated more strongly than calls for the celebrations of the murders of 9/11. Just pointing out the consistency there. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, this is the first time I'd explain my modus operandi to someone. I am glad this point is being raised and hope the community would correct me if I am wrong. So thanks for bringing it.

Well, when you block someone in a controversial situation you have to be very prudent. So it is better to start the easy way while undergoing more investigation in parallel (the thing we are doing now). In this particular situation, the user in question has been aproached by 2 other admins a couple of days ago. If you get back to the AN/I thread in question, you'd see that today I got back to him including his story on the thread. Until here, there was no evidence other than his IP being used for the anti-semite edits. So had I blocked him people would complain about not AGF (an established editor away from the I-P conflict making those nasty edits? unbelievable and you can still read a similar comment at his talkpage from another editor). However, I didn't hesitate to block him on the spot after user:Einsteindonut brought diffs showing his direct involvment in the JIDF article. What would you do in such a situation? I know most people would have thought about an indefinite block or a long-term block at least. Same here obviously. The difference is that thinking and acting are two different things as acting 70% (even more than that) sure in a controversial situation usually prompt drama (ohhhh, indef is abusive, ohhhhh, indef is baseless, ohhhhh, he shared computers with his X, ohhhhh, you were so quick to jump, ohhhh, ahhhhh, ehhhhhhh, uhhhhhh). 2 admins hesitated to block, I didn't but that was because of the new supporting evidences brought by user:Einsteindonut. It wasn't a simple case and the proof is the very existence of this thread.

Anyway, do you believe that I'd object an indef after a review? Go ahead, you'll have my biggest support if admins review it. Please note that I really appreciate bringing this issue and I am certainly sure of you assuming good faith though not completely sure of my neutrality. You judge it now Corvus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the actions that were taken here. My continued objection is to the leniency shown User:Tree Cannon. Corvus cornix_talk 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Corvus for the confusion because I didn't get it at first. There was no leniency. At the opposite, it was me who found out who that guy might be without even using the CU tool. I could even bring a year-old memory back to life. Everybody then was waiting for his reaction to my comment. He then apologized for the comments but said nothing about his possible connection to other disrupters. And of course I blocked indef his obvious sock 0oors (talk · contribs). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Nobody of Consequence has "retired." seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison, can you clarify whether NoC had edited logged-in from 75.3.147.166 both before and after the vandalism? --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about this doesn't strike me as right. I was looking into NoC's contrib history and among the first edits he made was complaint about the anti-Jewish content of a user box. Is it possible that the explanation on his/her talk page may in fact be true? Tiamut 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before and after, yes, Random832. There was as little as ~20 minutes between login times, at one point - Alison 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that nails it I would say, that is not compatible with his explanation. The coincidence would be altogether too unlikely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As little as 20 minutes? Isn't 20 minutes rather a long time, or am I missing something about what length of time means here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Not for DHCP leases, etc. To explain that, per your question below; IP addresses are farmed out from a range of IPs to our computers via a cable modem or DSL set or whatever. These generally have a fixed lease, so that if you power off your set or if you are idle for some time, the IP address you are given stays with you, sometimes for days, weeks. This is the 'lease time' for an IP. DHCP is just a protocol for farming out these IP addresses to many people across one network (like an ISP, for example). You can sometimes force an IP address change by telling the DHCP server to drop your lease to the current IP address and go get another one. Some fast-moving vandals do this. However, in the case of DHCP, it always dishes out new ones from its 'pool' of unassigned ones, and puts your old one to the back of the list for recycling later. Thus, renewing your IP over such a protocol rarely if ever results in getting "your own back", especially if it's been farmed out to some anon and back again in the meantime? See what I mean about the likelihood here? - Alison 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'resolved' tag. After reading User talk:Nobody of Consequence, I think a clearer explanation of exactly what happened here is needed, even if only for those who are missing the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. A timeline and diffs would be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've skimmed through this thread that Fayssal mentioned above. What is the connection again? Presumably that someone reading the thread made the edit to Einsteindonut's page? How definite is the CU evidence again? IP edits either side link to intervening edits made by the account? Is the message at User talk:Nobody of Consequence credible? Is there any way the CU evidence could be interpreted wrongly? Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea to get a third checkuser report, if you like. However, having DHCP drop the IP address, then an IP editor comes along and vandalizes some particularly relevant pages (even User:Einsteindonut), then modem reboots and you get the same one back?? And that's from a reasonably wide IP range;

PPPoX Pool se4.chcgil 041007 1222 SBC-75-3-112-0-20-0712043420 (NET-75-3-112-0-1)
                                  75.3.112.0 - 75.3.127.255

.. from the above IP address. It's a little beyond the realms, sorry. And now that I'm asked, I began to dig further. These edits came from the same IP as NoC and it was login-logout-login again. Then there's these contribs, once again from NoC's IP address. Then there's this one and this one (with less than a minute after the IP finishes and NoC logs in. And this one, etc, etc. You get the idea. This guy logs in and out all the time to do stuff - Alison 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. When you say "from NoC's IP address", you mean checkuser showed that the account was editing from those different IP addresses (but in the same range - how big is that range is absolute terms?) at the same time (or around the same time) as the edits you flag up? When most people read something like "from NoC's IP address" they will think you mean one single IP address, but I think what you are saying here is that he is on a dynamic IP (hence the talk of modem rebooting) but still within a range, and you've linked edits from the (normally masked) IP addresses he edits from to both masked (ie. logged-in as NoC) edits, and unmasked (logged-out as IP) edits? Is that right? Oh, and what does "DHCP drop the IP address" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also tracked down the featured article. Madman Muntz. I also found out the block was two weeks. For some reason (not sure why) I thought the block was indefinite. Given that it's not indefinite, I think Guy has the right approach here (see NoC's talk page). After things have calmed down, NoC can post an unblock request (or wait out the block) and let's see what happens then. But in some ways, this should be resolved one way or the other. I'm still surprised that a productive contributor would switch between behaviours like this, which is why I was asking if there was any chance that the data could be explained another way. I realise that answering that is a bit beans-like, but was wondering if anything more could be said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The same IP each time, over different IPs. login-logout-login. Same IP, and it happened again and again. I'm having trouble connecting this to someone taking his IP address, vandalizing or whatever, then he grabs the same one back - hours or even minutes later?? - Alison 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, hang on. I am working on this. It seems very but very odd. I'll contact fellow arbitrators because of the nature of the findings. We'll keep you updated. I'll contact you within a few minutes Alison. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. Emailed reply - Alison 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal asked for confirmation of these findings on the CU list so I took a look... I concur with them. There's a patter here of user->IP->user... the user does some stuff, logs out, does some stuff as the IP, logs back in. Repeated across several different IPs in the same range. Seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole detailed case and seeking community opinion

Note: I'll be using alphabetical letters to refer to the accounts, pending opinion of the community.

Back to you guys. The case was left at the point where NoC is blocked for 2 weeks for being connected to the IP who left the Nazi and Islamist Jihadist flag on user:Einsteindonut's userpage. As everybody knows, NoC claims to have retired. To the dismay of many, I must say "not really, he's still among us."

Yesterday, while digging further, I discovered another account used by user:Nobody of Consequence (NoC). While reviewing and double checking this case another account X belonging to this user was found. The account X returned editing a couple of days ago after a long wiki-break. This suggests that NoC was expecting my block because he knew what he did. X started editing almost 2 years ago (end of 2006) but stopped earlier this year. X and NoC have many shared interests of course.

Well, as you know, I had notified the ArbCom yesterday of the case of NoC and in parallel I asked the CheckUser team to verify the findings and the connection with the newly discovered X. Again, positive from Alison and Lar today. I thought that the tracing would stop just there. And because of the insistence of the community above I found myself digging further which led to the discovery of X.

Today, while preparing this report, I went copying diff and checking history files of X. To my surprise, I found out that X used an old account Y. More digging led to the fact that Y started editing on mid-2006 but stopped before the redirection. The first edit ever of Y was a query posted at a former user W (unrelated) asking him why he left him a vandalism warning early 2006 (supposedely a warning by W to Y). This obviously means that Y had another prior account. This also means that W had left that supposed warning on early 2006. But to whom? I couldn't find out as, in fact - as W responded to Y, there was no such edit. I verified and it was true. There was no such warning at all!

This whole case suggests that NoC is in fact an established user who at least started editing on spring 2006. As it is clear now, NoC had at least 2 other accounts. However, none of these accounts were/have been disruptive apart from the IPs used by NoC (like redirecting BetaCommand's userpage and the recent anti-semitic edit on Einsteindonut's userpage). We are dealing here with an established user and not merely with NoC who claims falsly to have retired.

It seems clear that NoC used to start and abandon accounts (no big reasons at all since none of them were ever blocked). What I am seeking here? Your opinion. Do the community think that blocking NoC indef (the account has retired anyway) and leaving X (who returned editing though there's a block evasion) but blocking Y (account inactive) would be a wise decision here or does the community have another say on this? I ask this because apart from harassing Betacommand (three times I believe) and the recent case of Einsteindonut, the person behind the accounts has never been disruptive or sockpuppeting per se or abusively. True, he said he retired after staring to use X again but I prefer your opinion. If the community decides to take action as described above, I'll do it. If not, I'll be blocking NoC indefinitely instead and move on. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting and abandoning accounts is one thing - I've done it four or five times (to avoid building a reputation) - block evasion is another. I'm not an admin, I just made an observation earlier on, and this sort of blocking isn't anything I have enough experience of to be able to justify having a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, it would be difficult to make an argument that a block of X would be anything other than punitive - on the other, the IP edits were pretty disgraceful. Brilliantine (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with starting and abandoning accounts. Cases in which I have supported such in the past involve either quite young users who deserve a second chance and have demonstrably improved since the sins of their original incarnation were a problem, or users who leave their original identity in good faith (be it due to real life threats, poorly considered initial nick, whatever). WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny or WP:EVADE are the main occasions when doing such is problematic. Orderinchaos 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My view is that a block for the harassment would be appropriate, and then allow him to edit restricted to one account, and if he breaks that, he's looking at a longer or indefinite block. Reason being only that I'm not absolutely sure this behaviour has been addressed before with this user, and it is not at a high order of disruption (although would be if continued). Orderinchaos 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing more work on this Fayssal. In my view, restriction to one account might be needed, though maybe this is not needed if the accounts are not being abused, because I think you said that abuse has only been through IP editing. In other words, as long as people remain aware of the connection between the alternate accounts, then possible future abuse can be detected. At the moment, only a few Checkusers know the names of the linked accounts, right? Possibly the options are: (1) restriction to one account; or (2) any alternate accounts must be openly declared on the user pages because of concerns over this behaviour of logging out and editing as an IP (ie. the IP editing indicates that alternate accounts might be abused in the future). If the editor doesn't want to reveal the alternate accounts, then restriction to one account might be the only option. More generally, though, I believe that logging out and editing as an IP to avoid scrutiny is actually fairly common (I think it should be banned - but people sometimes claim the software logged them out, and that can happen, and also, IPs can turn up perfectly innocently and genuinely be an anonymous or new user, not a logged-out account). Given that abusive logged-out IP editing is fairly common (in my view), I'm wondering what is the normal course of action when someone is caught logging out to edit as an IP? I wouldn't want this case to be handled differently to previous ones. Does the action depend on (a) the nature of the IP edits; and (b) whether the named account admits to the edits? I ask this because at least some of the IP edits here were particularly unacceptable, and because the account named by the checkusers has denied making these edits. In the past, I've seen the IPs temporarily blocked (softblocked or hardblocked I can't remember), but no follow-up checkuser done (would that be fishing?). Could someone point me to a page, if it exists, where the phenomenon of "logged-out IP editing" and the responses to it, are documented? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is more complicated than it appears Carcharoth. It is not only about logging on/off or abandoning accounts only. If the accounts usernames were known to you, you'd have another thought about it I believe. You'd be able to verify any edit you'd like. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here. Verify? You mean check that the accounts weren't abusive socks? If I knew, then yes, but as only Checkusers know, they have to do that work. Presumably that sort of thing gets discussed on the CU mailing list? Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates: More oddities - this seems like a never-ending investigation

Again, I am still discovering. Up to this moment, I am thinking of a very weird case of a good/bad account(s) scenario dealing with anti-semitism. Reason? Nothing is clear yet. May it be someone compromising his IPs? Very hard to verify this. I am having a look at an old sockpuppet which stopped editing a while ago. I suppose we'll call this one Z. Both Z and X fought anti-semitism. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the more complex the investigation, the more likely it is that the wrong connections start to be made? What I mean is that if you depend on making 8 correct deductions based on the checkuser evidence, is there more likelihood that one of them is wrong than if the case only involves 2 connections and deductions? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This was very easy to spot. No CheckUser was used for this. This finding comes from here (admins only). Now admins know about the username of Z. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You mean the "creating doppelganger account to quell unrest :-p" and "Created doppelganger account" bits? As I said a few minutes ago, I'll be away for the rest of the day, but as long as the connections are all firm, that's fine. Any case is only as strong as its weakest link, after all. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line...The final score

After all the digging, this is the story in brief (with all updates). If we had just stopped somewhere and everybody agreed with my 2 weeks block it would have been great. But well!

It appears that all the accounts of this guy have always fought anti-semitism. He even sockpuppeted once to fight it (one of the oddities now clarified)! The IP did just the opposite a couple of days ago (please let's not argue about this anymore since NoC apologized in private - see below). It is like liking someone all the time but throwing a stone at that person once from behind a curtain anonymously for unclear reasons (now clarified below). I am therefore going to block NoC and Z. I'll be keeping X. I cannot block Y because of privacy reasons (it is his real name). I am sure it won't be used anymore anyway.

Words of NoC... Yes, I've edited as an IP. Yes, I messed with Beta's userpage and yes, I messed with Einsteindonut's page. No, I'm not an antisemite. I did it because Beta is insufferable and Einsteindonut is a blatant POV pusher/dramamonger. Was it a good idea to do this? No, and I'm sorry I did it. And the other petty vandalism I did as an IP, I'm also sorry about. For the most part, I did it to see what it was like being on the other side. As you probably noticed, I've actually fought antisemitism and regularly revert, warn and report vandals.

I have zero intention of vandalizing or causing anyone any more distress and like I said I'm shocked it's gone this far. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on it. I figured you would have just blocked the account and moved on by now. I'm not going to use the NoC account anymore since everyone now thinks it's operated by a Nazi/Jihadist.

Important note: Both user:Einsteindonut and NoC have asked me to protect their privacy. I've responded to both of them positively. So please, let's stop this mess right here and thanks to everyone for their time here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way out. I assume you've told said user to stick to one account and keep you informed of it (or something similar)? I notice the mention of previous socking.

It's a shame, cause I was all curious after that last section :) Brilliantine (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Fayssal for your thorough work here. It struck me as strange that the IP associated with the NoC account would make anti-semitic edits, gien the user's history in standing up against anti-semitism. The explanation/apology by NoC goes a way toward explaining how this happened and I find the tone sincere. I'm not against allowing NoC to keep one of his other accounts since he has acknowledged the disruption and pledged not to do it again. Tiamut 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot do this job fairly and accurately if concerned users refuse co-opearting and keep denying. We could have blocked this user indefinitely (as some people suggested reasonably) and close this file but his late co-operation made it succeed. This is an opportunity to advice all users who may find themselves in similar situations: if you do something wrong, don't deny it. Be open, apologize (including to the victim) and promise not to do it again. That would have saved everyone's time as well.

NoC will keep one account only. He was the one who suggested that to me indeed. But, as in any other case, you cannot know if someone is using sockpuppets if there's no reason for suspicion. How would we know if they would be non disruptive and not for double-voting and edit-warring? We won't care indeed. He can still have alternative accounts but he should at least communicate them to me or to the ArbCom for transparency.

Note that his words above constitute only like 20% of his complete e-mail. I only posted the necessary. Most of the rest consisted of private information that I cannot post here or communicate to anyone of course. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason, now as before, to question your judgements, but many reasons to thank you for all that meticulous work, in a spirit of scrupulous fairness. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm late to the party, but I agree that 1 account and further monitoring is a good course of action. MBisanz 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest: It makes me somewhat uncomfortable having a long-term member of our community who has admittedly vandalized, lied, harassed editors and abused multiple accounts. My primary concern is that they attempted to maintain the charade right up until the time they were caught red-handed. Were is not for Fayssal’s excellent investigative skills, it seems likely this behavior would have continued.

That being said, I, too, trust Fayssal’s judgment on this matter. Though the ends do not justify the means, it seems clear this user has the best interests of the Project at heart and simply made some very poor decisions. Going forward, I will further trust Fayssal (and others above my pay grade) to monitor this user “X”, via checkuser when necessary, and take firm action should it ever by required. Everyone deserves a second chance, but for decisions as flawed as these, only one second chance. Thanks to all for the hard work clearing this mess up. — Satori Son 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about one thing, the precedent set. There are other editors with similar behavior, i.e., good hand account, bad hand account, or IP bad hands, but the connection may be better concealed. One of these editors looking at this can think, "Okay, I can continue to do this, no problem. If I'm identified, I'll apologize, and I won't be blocked as long as my main account isn't disruptive. And it takes a lot of effort to find me, so probably I'll never be caught." My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate. I am not in favor of automatically blocking a non-disruptive account, no matter what the IP and socks have done. The separation shows that the user has the capacity to know what is disruptive and what is not; but the question would remain if the user could abstain from being disruptive if the option of anonymous vandalism isn't there to blow off steam. I think this is a question which should not be decided by a single admin or even arbitrator. The basic, essential "penalty" for abusive socking should be exposure, and, to summarize, avoiding exposure is enabling the behavior. It's not punitive, it is a natural consequence. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with this outcome is that it's going to be up to the checkusers to keep an eye on this user, particularly the un-named real-name account. If they're okay with that, I am. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that over 6000 checkusers are run each month, and RFCU certainly isn't that long, and given what I hear on the grape vine, a lot of CUing is monitoring and keeping up on old/longterm issues. I'm inclined to agree with Fayssal that we should let him try again, if only because further screw ups will certainly lead to an uncontestable ban. MBisanz 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra, EXTRA late to the party here--didn't know of this thread til I saw it referenced in the block log. I am absolutely flabbergasted that NoC would do this, and I will no longer be so quick to speak up for supposedly "good" editors in future cases. I am really disheartened by this incident. Excellent job, Fayssal, on the evidence-gathering; wish it hadn't been necessary, though. My apologies for doubting. Gladys J Cortez 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to apologize for, especially for defending someone you have a strong working rapport with. It turned out ugly, and turned out to be what you couldn't believe it could be, but nothing to apologize for. One man's opinion here. I've defended many a user that I have/had solid rapport's with (does that make me cabalish? egads...), and until the muddy waters settle, it's hard to see clearly. You did nothing wrong Gladys. Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

I've just responded to user:Peter cohen's concerns on my talk page. I think it would be helpful if I just post some of my response here. The following also addresses some of the concerns raised above. Please feel free to comment.

I fully understand your concerns very well. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

• I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from above, the decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before. The discussions are still open over here. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be - and put concerned people - in big troubles. In brief, the final decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but with tiny minority views judging my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

• CheckUsers have confirmed the findings.

• The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case. The ArbCom is fully aware of Einsteindonut (talk · contribs)'s case as well. The latter will be reviewed per user's request with whom I am in contact in private. It doesn't make sense for an admin to review his own blocks but he wants me to do it. I hope some other admins help me here even though a couple of admins have already declined his unblock request. Can anyone help me with this?

• Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (since it was used to redirect NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs for reporting an anti-semitic incident). So, everyone (including unregistered users) can verify the edits starting from the first one. The account I left unblocked (referred to as X) did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.

• For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Misplaced Pages, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners.

• Abd, there was no abusive socking. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate... I totally disagree. Please read my point regarding privacy just above this one. And no, this is not a decision of a single admin or a single arbitrator. It is open for anyone to review it as you are doing now. And no, I disagree again when you say that such a decision would send a wrong signal to some users who may think that they can get away with it. Why? Simply because they'd know they would get caught sooner or later and I don't believe someone would like being investigated this way just for the sake of doing bad. It may be a precedent, yes. But think about it the other way around... "I would not like to be caught and being investigated". Also, this is precedent for a particular situation. In this case, the bad hand account was an exception and not a rule unless there are grounds for disbelieving the evidence and/or his confession. And please, if you have good reasons to suspect that there are users who operate good hand/bad hand accounts, please let us know about it.

• Sheffield steel, it could be the other way around. He'd do it again before getting caught again. However, that doesn't mean that sanity checks are not and would not be processed. As for the real name un-named account, I must say that no single admin would divulge a real-name account is a similar situation (i.e. real-life threats - Nazis and Jihadists). Indeed, the account has stopped editing more than a year ago (this can be confirmed by both the ArbCom and the CheckUsers). I'd be able to recognize the name of this account if it would pop-up here or anywhere on Misplaced Pages even after 10 years - unless I'd retire before that. In other words, please be assured that it is under control.

• Gladyz J Cortez, Keeper is totally right. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand this. This NoC guy who has 2 or more other accounts admits that he vandalized another users page with hateful stuff and he gets only a 2 week block?! And, this is after lying about doing it in the first place?! That is pathetic. NoC should be banned for life. Is Misplaced Pages about information or about harrassment? Shachna1979 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!! If you haven't understood anything from above then at leat try to understand something from below. I am not going to answer all new SPA accounts. It seems that you are new here to "fight bias" as you say... Administrators are already sick of people coming here for wp:BATTLE. Good luck, but listen to this very well:

A few days ago, an IP (we now know it was NoC) left an anti-semite edit on another user page after a long bickering between the two and others as it appeared later on. He first denied that and lied after being questioned by administrators but when the offended user brought some links showing that NoC has edited the JIDF articles I blocked him for 2 weeks on the spot while pending investigation as nobody was sure of him being the one or not.

While investigating, and after much digging (hard voluntary work which seems unvaluable especially when people like you come here relaxed protesting while sitting on a luxury chair), we could find out that NoC used to edit under his real-name account "A." No disruption with that account. He stopped editing with that account more than a year ago (go ask him why). He redirected it to the account "B". B stopped editing 6 months ago (go ask him why). No disruption. "C" was created as a sockpuppet and it was used to report anti-semitic attacks. It stopped editing after a while (go ask him why). He then started a new account "D" which is NoC. No disruption. As you see both A, B and C and D reported anti-semite incidents a couple of times. This guy says he is a Jew and he is not anti-semite (evidence shows that it is true) and he says he's done that because of the bickering of the offended (ask him why and how). That is not an excuse at all!!!!!!!! Now, you'd tell me "so what? He's still got to be banned if that is not an excuse at all." I say the following:

C and D are indefinitely blocked. What about B and A? If people would see me banning B they would then be able to know WHO is "A" (a name for a real-person 0_0). What if 'Nazis' or 'Jihadists' decide to attack him? Would you come here trying to rub my back and tell me "ohhhh, sorry Fay... If I knew this story would end up this way, i'd have not insisted on crying loud to ban this offender"?????????????!!!! Does all this make sense to you? If not then I am sorry, I can't help answering your protests.

P.S. In a nutshell!!!!! Other people have been banned for the same or even less. This case involve real-life identities. I can't listen to you. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful answers, FayssalF. I, for one, am happy to trust you to take care of this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded SheffieldSteel. I apologise by the way if my initial comment to the matter caused any drama. Orderinchaos 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation, Fayssal, just one single point of criticism: Editors are already sick of admins not caring about wp:BITE! ;-) 89.182.23.60 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and make sure that it is not the case here; I am sure everyone involved is fully aware of the ArbCom cases of WP:ARBPIA and WP:CAMERA and probably WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. The only doubt I am having is whether newcomers are aware of WP:IPCOLL and I believe this is the best opportunity to mention it. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operation and understanding a) 'unproductive newcomers' and b) 'established unproductive users'

a) I am here asking if there are reasonable people at JIDF who can be more responsible. Could you please guys, again, respect the privacy of people and leave my name there appearing on your website if that is necessary to prove a point? I am not asking the guy who wrote the nonsense and who used to never spell my name correctly (the guy who promised me and the ArbCom he'd re-read all of the policies and guidelines of this website before getting back fresh). Thanks.

b) user:Abd... It seems that " primary interest is in the methods by which human communities communicate, coordinate, and cooperate" can be exercised somewhere else (refer to lines below). I had said that I've never argued with people questioning my desicions reasonably. I also said that I only argue much with people who hold weird minority views -- like people calling for full disclosure of private information without having a single clue of what 'privacy' means. Please, improve your mainspace edits' percentage. AN/I is not a forum -- neither is Misplaced Pages (no soapboxing is acceptable). What are you doing here? I hope there were enough admins who could help but faced with such outing and off-site harassment, admins prefer to get back and watch. Well, now everyone can watch it. fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF turned this into a warning on my Talk page.. It's unfortunate that he interpreted my comment above as if I'd called for full disclosure without regard for privacy, which I did not. If there was no abusive socking, fine. Off-site harassment? What? Perhaps those comments weren't about me, but about the case here. As to "mainspace edits," I've mostly shut down all editing (mainspace and otherwise) until the issues in my userspace RfC are resolved; however, certainly, process is my main interest. It is process which produces the environment that makes it possible to find consensus, which is necessary for sound recognition of NPOV. In other words, it's fundamental. --Abd (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If process is your main interest, I suggest you join the civil service - your mainspace edits are about 15%. We need more editors, not wikilawyers. --88.105.251.97 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for us to be judging the value of people just because of whatever percentage of mainspace edits they have or have not. What we "need" is people to cooperate with each other and do what they can to help. Spending time criticizing each other for our interests is the opposite of productive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme)

Subpaged to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals by MBisanz

Nuking the above timestamp so it doesnt archive right away. Kwsn (Ni!)

No edits to the page in >50 hours, we can let this archive now. GRBerry 03:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of User:Moulton's block

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having just had a detailed discussion with folk on the unblock channel in IRC, it was suggested that I come here for a(nother) out in the open, full 'n frank discussion of Moulton's situation. It's been explained to me that our policies dictate that consensus is required in order to maintain the block. My reading of existing discussions (linked to from here) is that there is no consensus for a block, and my understanding is that therefore the block should be lifted. As a wise chap said though, consensus is a fickle animal - hence this discussion is likely a better course of action than a simple unblock, or the maintenance of the status quo. Lets keep this concise if poss :-) - maybe a straw poll is the easiest thing, given the volume of previous discussion? Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Moulton expressed any interest in being unblocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

there are several requests for review on the talk page, and I believe a firm desire to be permitted to participate on wiki, specifically (though not necessarily limited to) discussions about him and his behaviour. In short, I'd say yup! Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to retain a block. A block is retained until there is consensus to unblock, until someone who understands the situation being prepared to unblock, preferably after discussing the situation with the blocker, or unless arbcom unblocks. Until then, the block sticks. So, if you feel motivated to fix this, you're going to have to convince us of the need to unblock, and invite the blocking admin to the discussion. John Vandenberg 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

okey dokey... the 'consensus to unblock required' bit does seem to contradict advice I received elsewhere, so it'll be good to clear that up, at least, and very good point on the need to discuss with the blocking admin - apologies... Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of the block in more detail too, in due course....

1. Support unblock. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support unblock. Moulton tried to fix some biased Misplaced Pages articles. His actions were correct and explicitly protected by Misplaced Pages policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Misplaced Pages’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." Of course, a team of editors known as the ID Cabal owned those biased Misplaced Pages articles and had been working very hard to make sure that they were biased. Rather than welcome Moulton, as required by Wikiversity policy, the ID Cabal harassed Moulton and drove him out of Misplaced Pages. It has taken a year for other Wikipedians to begin to pry Rosalind Picard and other articles out of the grip of the ID Cabal. The damage done by the ID Cabal to Misplaced Pages's reputation among working scientist will take many years to repair. We should start that repair now, when ArbCom is ready to sanction one of the ID Cabal ring-leaders. --JWSurf (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be sadly misinformed – perhaps you've been reading Moulton's attack page at Wikiversity? You also seem to have missed the discussion above, now transferred to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and you should take care to respect the consensus achieved by the diverse group of editors who edited the Picard article. Your piped links to Freedom of speech are odd in that you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source. May I suggest that WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17) are more appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been "sadly misinformed" by reading the disgraceful edit history of Rosalind Picard, its talk page and other Misplaced Pages pages that have been owned and given biased contents by <censored, I am not allowed to use the name that has been applied to this team of editors> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. It is interesting to watch what happens when the bad behavior of Wikipedian editors is discussed. Such discussions are labeled as "attacks". Yawn. Please find a new way to game the system. An open and scholarly analysis of editing patterns by <censored name> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests is not an attack. It is holding up a mirror. It is helping people become aware of what has happened....I'm talking about all the people who do put Misplaced Pages's mission first but do not have time to slog through edit histories. Using the term that you censor from Misplaced Pages is just a convenience, like using any other name. It is fully correct to use a label with negative connotations to discuss violations of Misplaced Pages policy. I suppose the thought police would like me to call <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests the "ID glee club" or something with a similar warm and fuzzy feeling. No thanks. I will not participate in thought control and censorship via new speak and double-talk. "dismissing or discrediting their views" <-- I did not mentioned the views of <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. I stated my view of their editing and on-wiki behavior. I am prepared to describe in detail how my view arose from reading the edit history. I encourage all Wikipedians to look at the edit history of Rosalind Picard. Look at the version of the article that was created and defended relentlessly by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. Read the talk page and see how <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests "justified" their relentless POV-pushing. Look at the current version of the page that has been built by the hard work of Wikiedians who continue to remove the bias that was created by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Misplaced Pages's interests. Then think about how Moulton was treated for trying to help Misplaced Pages fix that article. Then hold your head high as a proud Wikipedian. Yes, let's be proud to ban editors who try to correct biased BLPs. "you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source" <-- Let's examine this claim in detail. Which source? How was that source used on Misplaced Pages? Describe the original research which generated the "information" you are talking about. --JWSurf (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought control? Censorship? Please take your rantings elsewhere. This section is for discussing whether Moulton's block should be overturned, and your screed has no bearing on that. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: thanks for showing everyone that you are so open to having a discussion. When you do not want to have people discuss your actions do you always label their discussion as a "rant"? Which Misplaced Pages policy advises you to take that course of action? Which policy says that you can label my comments as a "rant", but I cannot use the term <censored>? "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page" <-- can you provide a dif to the comment you left on Moulton's talk page when you blocked him? --JWSurf (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still off-topic. Raise issues you have about my actions elsewhere, but please do not hijack this thread for that purpose. KillerChihuahua 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"still off-topic"..."do not hijack this thread" <-- Hypothesis: there was a bad block imposed on Moulton. This bad block inflamed a tender situation, leading ultimately to attempts to ban Moulton. I think it is entirely on-topic to explore this hypothesis. If there was a bad block, then that has important implications for deciding if Moulton should remained blocked. As far as I can tell, neither you or anyone else left a message on Moulton's user talk page giving the reason for the indefinite block that you imposed. Help me out here...is there an edit to Moulton's user page that I cannot see? --JWSurf (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this one, 10 minutes after the block. KillerChihuahua 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua blocked with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, MastCell made this edit which says "indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. So, the reason given for the block on Moulton's user talk page was "vandalism" and there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for the indefinite block that was given in the actual block-tool statement. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did MastCell fail to sign the post to Moulton's page that gave the false reason for a block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page? Moulton was left with an absurd reason for the block and nobody to contact about the block. Why did User:Yamla certify such an obviously bad block? --JWSurf (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're an admin??? I shouldn't be still shocked when discovering those who attack others are admins, but I am. Of course that's why I vote in RFAs; I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was still shocked by Wikipedians who call it an "attack" when violations of BLP policy are described and discussed. No wonder it is so hard to get things fixed. "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" --JWSurf (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crusading", "cabalism" "relentless POV pushing" "damaging Misplaced Pages" are attacks, not simply "referring to other editors." Seriously, as an admin, you should know better. Your complaint about harrassment would go over better if if wasn't littered with such attacks. And I didn't even mention your failure of AGF. I would suggest you refactor, but I don't expect it, because such attacks without even a shred of evidence are somehow acceptable here, at least when it comes to those nonpersons in the "cabal". Your fellow admins will look away. And that is a shame. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been very careful to only use mild language to describe the nature of the editing that has taken place at Rosalind Picard and related articles. Describing a sickening part of the editing history of Misplaced Pages is not an attack, its an attempt to cure the sickness. "your failure of AGF" <-- describe in detail how I have failed to assume good faith. If you want to discuss the evidence then we can start with the evidence to support this claim: "Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source," that was raised above by User:Dave souza. I asked for that reliable source. Let's start there as I requested above. I'm prepared to discuss in detail the edit history of Rosalind Picard and Talk:Rosalind Picard and explain why I characterize it as sickening. I tried to get you started on the page histories here. If you question the nature and reliability of my descriptions of the editing at Rosalind Picard then we should examine the history of that editing in detail. --JWSurf (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse for attacking editors. Not because you think you were being "mild" because your targets deserve worse, or because it's what you consider to be true. Show me the exceptions to NPA in wikipolicy or I won't even bother with your complaints. You can't start a conversation with attacks and expect anything fruitful out of it. That's how attacks work; they mean I don't have to listen to you at all. Show me the link to NPA that allows your attitude. If you aren't, don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested.Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" <-- I've stated my view of what led to Moulton being blocked. I've described the editing history a group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. I'm prepared to have you fully examine the validity of my characterization. "address the issues of content" <-- I've asked you to join me in looking in detail at the content dispute that led to the block of Moulton. You refuse to examine and discuss the evidence. Does this mean you believe that Moulton should remain blocked without an examination of the editing conflict that led to his block? "NPA in wikipolicy" <-- If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that I made personal attacks. I agree that in an ordinary content dispute it is wise to "comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all". However, this thread is a discussion about an attempt to ban a participant from Misplaced Pages. We have to examine the actions of the person who was blocked (Moulton) and the team of editors that has worked together in an effort to ban him from participation at Misplaced Pages. I have given my description and account of Moulton and those who have worked so hard to ban him. I stand ready to defend my description and account in terms of the Misplaced Pages editing history. You refuse to examine the evidence and you keep talking about attacks, so please list the editors that you think I have attacked. --JWSurf (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No thanks. You lost me at "in IRC". No thanks. Keeper ǀ 76 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   don't blame you, Keeper :-) - though your post is a bit ambiguous to me - it could be taken as a 'no comment'? (as in 'no thanks' to the very idea of this discussion, without prejudice etc.) but maybe you mean more 'no way!' to the unblock idea? Privatemusings (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm quite sure Keeper is against the unblock based on that comment. Hersfold 02:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hersfold summarized my opinion correctly. Just one man's opinion though, tainted, perhsps, by the level of drama on-wiki recently. I'm going offline. Keeper ǀ 76 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Despite being the "wise chap", I still support the block remaining. MBisanz 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I also looked into Moulton's work at Wikiversity, to see if perhaps my initial perceptions were wrong, and I find I cannot support an unblock of someone who actively uses one Wikimedia project as a launchpad to investigate another Wikimedia project, as Moulton appears to have done at v:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies1#Case_5_.E2.80.94_IDCab_systematically_publishes_false_and_defamatory_content_in_BLPs. I do love Wikiversity in general, last week I helped move a class of 200 engineering students from FLorida to it from our userspaceMBisanz 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Do not support the unblock. Furthermore, discussions of this nature should be held in the open, not in IRC. seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
4. While I think that some of what Moulton did here has been mischaracterized by his more vehement opponents, I do not believe that he is currently capable (or indeed interested) in functioning here within the confines of current community norms. Whether this is a flaw in Moulton, in our community norms, or (most likely) some mixture of the two is a moot point. Oppose unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose unblock. Moulton has started working on en.wv, and I think that is great. I usually support unblocks when someone really gets into another WMF project (with one recent spectacular failure), but I dont think Moulton has yet spent enough time on en.wv to have demonstrate he is good for the wiki community. If we look at his contribs there, the are primarily to user talk pages, and otherwise they are focused on a single learning project. He needs to diversify on en.wv, or start helping out on other projects. enwiki is not the only project. If someone only wants to work on enwiki, they are probably bad for enwiki. John Vandenberg 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute—that's a pretty striking claim. I have no interest in working on any of the other projects, but surely you're not suggesting I'm bad for this one? In fact, I'd assume most of our contributors are only interested in working on this project. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Most users here, including renowned ones, have only significantly worked on Misplaced Pages, and have no desire to get involved, and invest their time, in what may be called lesser projects. Personally, I appreciate wiktionary, and meta-projects like meta-wiki and commons are useful, but I've never been convinced by wikinews, wikisource, wikiversity, etc. Cenarium 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have serious concerns about the handling of the incident which led to his block in the first place. I will go into detail if desired, but it seems sufficient to say that the worst that will happen if he is unblocked is that he will be unable to color within the lines and will be re-blocked. Thatcher 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I should perhaps be explicit that I do not oppose an unblock. The handling of the situation that led to his block was unacceptable. If he is going to earn an indefinite ban, let him earn it on his own, and not with the assistance of, let's say, unfortunate circumstances. Thatcher 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Is "unfortunate circumstances" the new euphemism for the "ID cabal"? --NE2 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Thatcher. I don't believe he's ready or suited to be back editing here, and I think he will simply get reblocked very soon if unblocked. I don't see the point of it really. how do you turn this on 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Must comment I've seen that meme repeated here quite often...simply get reblocked...and every time I wonder if I've accidently left Misplaced Pages. Are we in the same place? Because I lurk these admin boards to follow the Big Picture, and from what I've seen there is nothing simple about a block. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was unable to color within the lines last time. What purpose would be served in repeating the experiment? Oppose unblock until and unless there is some reason to believe that there would be benefit to the project. Let him edit his talk page if he wishes, that's fine. Let him participate in other projects such as Wikiversity, which have different participation mores and norms, that's fine. But not here. Entirely unsuited to edit here. 12.161.217.2 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult for me to evaluate anonymous comments without knowing your history and biases. Thatcher 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I WAS signed in earlier today... sigh. The EC I had meant i was rushing to hit save. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• IRC discussions should only be informative, not decision-making. I don't see a reason or benefit to unblock. Cenarium 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I don't think he will be readily amenable with our editing norms. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for reasons stated by others above, particularly concerns about the editor's ability to edit here on EN in a constructive and non-disruptive way. Sarah 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. And anyone who disagrees should be sure to look at the attack project at Wikiversity. Why Wikimedia feels the need to allow a "sister" project to contain such a thing is beyond me. --B (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Attack project? o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attack project. It is a forum for airing personal squabbles like this. Real reform doesn't happen when criticism takes the form of Moulton's hysteria and, I believe, one of the big reasons that the C68-SV-FM case is being dismissed with a yawn is that personal squabbles drowned out the legitimate complaints about abuse of the admin tools. --B (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not label Wikiversity a BADSITE :-) It wont take you to long to understand why that project has been retained if you took the time to understand what Wikiversity is. John Vandenberg 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity have epic failed this time but. Their equivalent of our "conflict of interest" policy should be a "professional detachment" policy. Hesperian 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ? Ideas this way. ? John Vandenberg 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, as has already begun at v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Disturbed? KillerChihuahua 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I do not think he is capable of consistently editing in a collaobrative manner amenable to WP, from what I have seen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Unceremoniously no. user:Everyme 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. On principle, I reject the notion that any banned user may demand a review of their status without warning or schedule, as many times as they wish, and that the community must muster afresh ad infinitum to maintain the ban. Even if the proposal is made with the best of intentions (and I am willing to assume it is), it must be obvious that this is a highly gameable proposition: a small number of coordinated trolls could hamstring necessary business--simply by rotating their requests to return--until by exhausting the patience of the community in an entirely new manner they return by attrition. No, I won't do business that way. Request speedy closure of the discussion. Durova 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova's comment that community blocks shouldn't be endlessly reviewed. However I note that this is the one year anniversary of the original block, so as a final review this is an appropriate time. I agree with B that the Wikiversity page is worrisome, and the fact that this appears to have been one of the Moulton's major Wikimedia contributions in the past year indicates to me that there's more interest in stirring the pot than in writing the encyclopedia. I have not followed Moulton's case and don't know most of the details. However I have seen the name appear again and again here and on other administrative pages. In the interest of getting on with the work and lessening time spent on discussing problem editors, I oppose unblock and oppose further reviews until the next anniversary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• My view on this is uncertain. As detailed before (at quite some length) on this page, I do not believe the original block was handled fairly. Moulton keeps seeming to "get in trouble" despite only being allowed to edit his talk page -- I think a lot of that is because editors assume bad faith when it comes to banned users. My experience from lengthy email discussions is that everything Moulton does is in complete good faith. He is sometimes spectacularly misguided, but never, I think, malicious. That said, I do not support an unblock unconditionally. If Moulton was forcibly kept away from the subject of intelligent design, I think he could edit productively. Unblocking is very unlikely to cause harm. Sam Korn 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Lar and B present a fair and well-informed assessment, Moulton essentially wants a soapbox for ideas at odds with Misplaced Pages's principles. He can talk persuasively, but is a nightmare to try to edit with, and if unblocked would need a huge amount of attention in mentoring. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock, enough time has passed. If he screws up the opportunity, we can just block him again. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment seems to me that what disrupts wikipedia's work is not so much the damage problematic users do (which can be reverted in a few clicks) so much as the divisive and time-absorbing discussions their treatment generates. Durova is correct that "reviewing on demand" is not good. However, as this long discussion shows it is almost inevitable. And we will have the same debate next year, if not before. Pragmatically, it might be better to unblock any banned user after a year, providing we receive their parole (=promise of good behaviour) and with the strict policy that ANY breach is an immediate block/ban without discussion. That way, we either get the user back behaving (win) or we continue the ban with much less discussion (win). An automatic policy here, which allows both for redemption and no tolerance of future nonsense, might decrease the dispute and disruption all round. Let's face it, some of us are more lenient, some more intent on protecting the project, a policy like I outline would perhaps go some way to meeting both concerns.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, for now. I've always had zero tolerance for outing other editors, which is why I threw the indef on him a few months back. However, I'd be willing to reconsider--albeit with very onerous restrictions--if he can prove himself on Wikiversity or another project. Blueboy96 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Last indef was placed in June for "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here". This looks like another request originating at WR for the unblocking of one of their own, but the blocking issue is not addressed. Neither is the "POV OR warrior" issue. Any appeal belongs with the arbitration committee at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one of the unblock supporters explicitly invokes the "ID cabal" puts the lid on it for me. I have had enough of that particular meme, and to suggest that bringing Moulton back to assist in the work of resisting NPOV-pushing is almost enough on its own to persuade me that it would be a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, I just need to interject on two points of order here. A) You were the one who mentioned how labeling people and auto-assuming bad faith from a group of users isn't productive, over a recent discussion, and even the post above you mention it. And B) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there's quite a few people who post at WR (and you can count me in that group) who do not think an unblock would be a good thing right now, so close to the last time where he got given "one last chance" and went outside the lines. Rather more then those WR posters who do support it, if I don't miss my guess. I know with all the history behind it, it may be hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction here, but I think that you're a bit mistaken here with regards to motives. SirFozzie (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with SirFozzie, Guy - so far a majority of those of us who are active on WR (Lar, SirFozzie, Viridae, LessHeard, DanT, me - MBisanz, Seicer, and B too, if you want to adopt a broad definition of "active") are opposing an unblock. Actually, the only WR users who appear to support at this point are Privatemusings and Everyking. Request that you strike or clarify that portion of your comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Third this request - Guy, please strike the WR assumption. Otherwise, I agree with Guy. KillerChihuahua 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is with they hypocrisy of a group of people who collude on WR and then come here accusing Wikipedians of cabalism in resisting their blatant attempts to push a fringe POV. It's not about WR per se, it's about a web community whose aims are not our aims putting DefendEachOther above the values they should adopt when they come here. Colluding there and then accusing Wikipedians of cabalism for enforcing one of our fundamental policies is rank hypocrisy. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that here, people are pointing out there's not a group of people on WR colluding for this (this time). Just liking many were jumping on Kelly that there's not an IDCabal colluding on the Sarah Palin pages (this time). Whether groups at WR are colluding to push POVs on wiki is debatable on a situational basis, just like whether current or former members of the ID wikiproject do similar. And you're right that it's a bad mindset to be in to automatically go looking for this sort of conspiracy, not just for individuals but the project as a whole. But several folks are trying to point out to you, that you're doing the same thing right here, right now. And to someone like me, who's not involved with WR, ID, Sarah Palin, or any "cabals", it looks a bit hypocritical. And it pains me, because I feel you're on the right side here (I agree with the general assessment of Moulton's unsuitability to return at this time), just with all the wrong arguments. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think Moulton has the temperament to deal with enwp. Yes his original block was undoubtedly handled badly, and he has/had every right to feel wronged there, but his pursuit of justice has, I feel, gone far beyond a reasonable reaction from someone wronged on a website that is fairly minor in the scheme of things. It strikes me that Moulton's quest for that which is "right and just" is an admirable quality in the real world, but an unhelpful one when taken to extremes when there is the pursuit of a single common goal (ie writing a half decent reference work). In other words wikipedia should strive to treat everyone fairly, but wikipedia is not for everyone and some people get left by the wayside, forcibly or not. If however he demonstrates a willingness to adapt to the wiki culture in his work on other wiki's I would then consider supporting an unban, taking into acount enwp's more heated nature. Viridae 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It saddens me to see someone say that Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. Moulton is an unusual guy, but I've seen little to indicate that he is temperamentally incapable of contributing productively, as some people are suggesting. I've seen him talking a lot on WR, but I wouldn't try to predict how he would behave in this editing environment based on that. In any case, I feel that, unless a person has behaved in a totally abhorrent manner, they should necessarily be given another chance after some reasonable amount of time has passed. Furthermore, after a year of concentrating so heavily on WP during his ban, Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Misplaced Pages operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time. We ought to at least give him the opportunity to demonstrate that. Everyking (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That opportunity has been given. " Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Misplaced Pages operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time." I see no evidence of that. I've had more discussions with him than some, and I just don't see any fundamental change in behaviour or approach, any acknowledgement that sometimes consensus is right or at least operative, and he is wrong, or at least out-consensed. I'm sorry to say this, but it is indeed true that Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock As I am aware, Moulton has been "suspended" at Misplaced Pages Review in respect of his difficulties in operating within the parameters of a website and, although I acknowledge and admire his intellect, I feel he does need to consistently demonstrate the ability to work within the guidelines before being given another chance... However, since Guy has determined this is a case of WR participants supporting their own I guess I have to default support. Twit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No you don't. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Echo the above... I can't go against my WR cabal buddies... that just wouldn't be right! No, seriously, JzG is being highly hypocritical to condemn the "memes" that label people as part of a sinister clique, when he does the same himself, sometimes in the same breath. As for unblocking Moulton, I think the original block/ban was unjust, but also agree with some of the comments to the effect that he's probably temperamentally unsuited for Misplaced Pages participation... I tried to give him some friendly advice while on a Not The Misplaced Pages Weekly show with him, to the effect that rather than him simply making demands that everybody else on Misplaced Pages change to suit him, he needs to do a little "give-and-take" himself and admit his own approach hasn't always been productive, and that he needs to make some attempt to follow policies and fit in the culture even if he disagrees with some of it. He wasn't interested in any of this, unfortunately. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, JzG is right about memes in general. No he's not right in applying the WR meme here. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year, recommend closing this thread before it becomes yet another clash of factions. Tom Harrison 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock. Really, the fact that Lar, Dtobias, Guy and B, and Less Heard all agree that someone should stay blocked should make things clear. Lar and B in particular give very good rationales for keeping him blocked and I couldn't say it better myself. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year per Tom H. Strongly suggest that those who are (rather childishly, IMO) repeating the "support my WR Cabal buddies" might wish to review their position as a bit POINT-y. If you have a view on unblocking Moulton, well and good, we welcome your input - but if you wish to start a playground fight I suggest you go elsewhere and not waste others' time here. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if he promises to behave and is adopted. Bstone (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I predict mentoring won't work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that Moulton cannot handle himself appropriate with certain people. He is more easily baited than I am, which says a lot. This does not say that he is a bad person. It just says that a situation with him can easily become very bad very fast. Old dogs do not learn new tricks, and some people are set in their ways. If there was a way that he could provide information and be isolated from the politics, or kept from being able to deal with them and instead let leveler heads deal with them, then maybe. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Opppose unblock for at least 3 months. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unblock - His time on Wikiversity appears to have been spent writing a pseudo-scholarly attack on everyone he disliked here - And this is the evidence provided for his reform? If he wants back on Misplaced Pages, he shouldn't be endlessly trying to rerun the disputes that got him banned on another Wikimedia project, and particularly shouldn't then use his activity on that project to justify being unbanned here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. You have got to be kidding me. Does his situation need a review every two or three months? Every month? This is getting ridiculous. What has changed? Here is a short list of over 50 Wikipedians who have looked at the "Moulton unblock situation" in the last year in some detail and at least at some juncture, decided that unblocking Moulton was a bad idea (some of course might have subsequently changed their minds, but I would be highly doubtful that a substantial fraction of those on my list have changed their minds). My own position on the Moulton situation is described here for anyone interested. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion, please feel free to come visit the NTWW crew at Skype, or otherwise contact me through Skype and I will be glad to discuss my position on Moulton at length with any interested party. I am unique in having much more of the relevant background necessary for evaluating this situation than almost anyone else here, and having dealt with Moulton in greater depth and for longer than most others commenting here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock --David Shankbone 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - the original block was bad, carried out by a disruptive group of editors. Kelly 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Please clarify. I am now "a disruptive group of editors" according to you? KillerChihuahua 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock I don't believe Moulton has done anything worthy of an indef block. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Really, I think this has come up quite enough. At this point, it should go to Arbitration if the interested parties wish to continue this. There's nothing to indicate that he won't continue his disruptive practice of outing editors and personal attacks; until there is something of that nature, then there's no reason to keep doing this ad infinitum. Some people just can't work in a heterogenous environment with people who hold views contrary to their own, and I think his edit history demonstrates that he is one of those people; blocks are preventive, and this particular block prevents a number of problems. I don't think undoing it is going to be a net benefit to the project. Celarnor 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. There's a lot of merit in the argument that a low-effort, low-drama block/unblock/reblock cycle would be a good approach to long-term problematic editors, but in this case I don't think it fits. Moulton positively leapt at the chance to play the martyr during his RfC, and there is no sign of a break in the roleplaying, if his "all about ethics" Wikiversity collaboration with JWSchmidt/JWSurf is anything to go by. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion to close

What I see here is no consensus to unblock. I'll also note the marked absence of the thread started once the thread kicked off. Request permission to close this thread? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if you meant 'thread starter' above, nonvoc, then /me waves :-) - this process has helped clarify a few things for me, and I think you've been rather conservative in describing 'no consensus to unblock' ! I would think that regular archive processes will deal with this thread in the usual way, and I think that's for the best. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open, discussion is ongoing. Kelly 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose closure of section as I'm yet to oppose unblock. Voting is fun. Giggy (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are approximately 30 oppositions, 2 supports, and 0 on topic conversation. Issue is essentially resolved.--Tznkai (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is - but valuable insights might yet be had. Leave it to die on its own, don't force it (I'm looking at you NVS) Viridae 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok... that is why I asked permission to add the tags. I won't force a closure. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five editors who support an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So? Not a vote, remember? There is clearly a lack of consensus to unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, you'd said there were but 2 supports, is all. I lean towards keeping the block for now btw. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support motion to close - I mean, it was only in July that he was inspiring this kind of anger by a long, long-time contributor to Wikinews. I do not see how mentoring is going to fix the fundamental flaws Moulton has shown in communicating to work well in the creation of WP:ENC. --David Shankbone 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oh wow, fresh life has been given to this thread. Since it is still open, it is worth pointing out that Moulton has been recently been issued a short block over on English Wikiversity. Now the ethics project there will have some local ethics to discuss rather than trying to fathom the complexity of English Misplaced Pages. John Vandenberg 06:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Extension of mentoring of Privatemusings

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring_notices. Durova 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary? This seems like a good faith attempt by Privatemusings to bring up an issue for discussion. The consensus was clear when it was brought up. But I at least wasn't aware of how strong this consensus would be until this discussion occurred. It isn't clear to me what PM did in this case that is problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom: Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings ... is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.

How is this related to the editing of BLP? Ed Fitzgerald 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I echo ed on this one. Viridae 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? That seems very odd. The remedy states "Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons...", so I'm more than a little confused on how the above discussion is even remotely related, or how it could result in an extension of the mentorship. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad call I think. You can't extend the mentorship for this and cite the remedy - does not apply. This type of action also has a chilling effect. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the extension of the mentorship, perhaps one of the three mentors might be good enough to leave a message on Privatemusings's talk page, at minimum notifying him of the decision, and preferably explaining it as well. And perhaps the person opening the request for clarification might want to notify the individuals named in the request. Risker (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the notifications. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one. Fixed now, however, you could have fixed as well :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a post that consists only of fyi plus a link does not deserve a subheading of its own. It tends to generate the appearance of controversy by assigning it a subheading after the fact when the original poster did not, and it borders on disruption to reassign the subheading a second time after the original poster removes it. Our goal in mentoring is to reduce drama rather than increase it; our action was agreed by unanimous consent of all parties, including Privatemusings. It was a reasonable interpretation of our terms of mentorship and--much more to the point--a reasonable step toward the ultimate goal of equipping an editor who already has considerable intelligence and goodwill with specific skills to volunteer productively without undue consumption of administrative time. As a result of the confusion at this thread we now have a formal RFAR motion (which I hope will soon be withdrawn), and it is taking some of my time away from an expansion DYK I hoped to complete tonight. Let's all return to article building rather than making sprang out of molehills. Best wishes, Durova 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to harp on it, but if you had said that: "FYI, by consent of all parties, including Privatemusings, etc etc..." there would have been no questions, no drama, no need for a subsection heading, etc. Ed Fitzgerald 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you in this case, Durova. You changed the subject of the subsection, from moving to close the discussion about the Moulton unblock to reporting an extension of the mentorship of Privatemusings. As such, the break is useful to the readers. Your wish to keep the drama down is irrelevant in this case; if you wanted to do that, you could simply have posted to the log of blocks and bans on the relevant Arbitration Committee case and not said a word here; it happens all the time for similar Arbcom remedies. I am shocked, however, that this extension appears to have been discussed completely off-wiki, including the notification of Privatemusings. This is not okay; such notification should always be on-wiki, to the user's talk page. Risker (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed and Risker, Misplaced Pages's assume good faith policy may reasonably be applied to cover a situation where all mentors have signed an extension of mentorship. There is nothing shocking about omission of a minor formality, nor is there a policy or guideline anywhere that requires all mentorship to occur onsite (indeed, where drama reduction is the goal, discretion is often the better part of mentorship). Unless one is inclined to construe mischief this is a nonissue. Now I'll be returning to mainspace where I'm citing archaeological textile finds. Misplaced Pages has plenty of matters that require intervention. This isn't one of them. Durova 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no failure to assume good faith here, Durova. It was the second time in 24 hours that I encountered discussions of editor sanctions that were being carried out off-wiki, the other not involving anyone in this thread, neither of which needed to be carried out away from the eyes of the community. It would have been reasonable to expect that you would be well aware of the drama potential for posting a non sequitur announcement that an additional sanction had been placed on the editor who started this thread. Let us not forget the potential chilling effect on other editors who might have otherwise been motivated to bring forth a potentially unpopular idea for discussion within the community. I do not construe mischief, simply a lack of foresight into the consequences of your actions. This is an extension of an Arbcom sanction. The place for this to have been documented was the Arbcom case log, and the user's page. It was not this thread. Risker (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And let us not forget the potential chilling effect of this response to a simple unanimous agreement. Mentors are not responsible for anticipating and deflecting potential objections to one link by people who had shown no prior interest in the mentorship and who do not provide fair opportunity for clarification before reacting. Risker, I doubt it is your intention to discourage people from volunteering to be mentors, so please consider the unintended consequences of this aggressive stance. I am returning to article space (this is the third time posting to that effect here) and I will not be returning to this thread again this evening. The encyclopedia would be better off if we all did the same. Durova 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply did not understand how the notice you placed jibed with the information that was publicly available at the ArbCom page your note directed people to. It looked, on its face, as if something was wrong, which is why I asked the question I did, and didn't make any kind of accusation. You placed the notice, and provided the link, and your accidental oversight in not mentioning that the extension was justified under another (private) agreement, or that the subject of it had concurred, pretty much set the ball rolling on this. But, since it seems to be resolved, I heartily agree that we can all get back to more constructive pursuits. Ed Fitzgerald 05:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case I apologize for any overreaction. It was quite a surprise to post a simple link, then return a few hours later to discover that a whole subthread and a formal arbitration motion had resulted. Durova 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I for one think this deserves a full thread of its own, because it raises several important questions: Who decided this? How valid is that decision? What exactly does "broadly construed" entail if the above leads to a reset of the mentoring timeline? How can it be challenged? Where is my pitchfork? user:Everyme 06:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aha. Everyme 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day all...I'll post something over here soon.. I'm just catching up with stuff... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly standing up for what you think is right is something to be sanctioned for, simply because it dare require us to question the logic behind this block?

Oh noes, we don't want to think about this, it hurts our brains! It might cause large amounts of discussion! Then people will call it drama! Wait, don't worry gies, this Privatemusings fellow got in trouble for something else under the broad definition of "drama", maybe we can use that to shut people up about this?

>:|

-- Ned Scott 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

POV-Pushing from fr.wikipedia.org

There are three persons banned from fr.wikipedia.org mainly for POV-Pushing and unsuitable behaviour that are back in en.wikipedia.org in order to continue their POV-Pushing agenda (especially José Fontaine, a well-known walloon militant in Belgium) :

• Stephane.dohet : banned for flood contributions, sending empty snail mail to other contributor, sock-puppeting (list here), … (also banned from es.wikipedia.org es:Usuario:Valonia)
• José Fontaine for mass POV-Pushing
• Adumoul : banned for being strawman of Fontaine on fr.wikipedia

All the three of them are working on Wallonia page for the moment. Speculoos (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notified the three users of the existance of this thread so they can answer. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What should I say? I have with a French administrator this discussion where he is saying that everybody is wrong about this difficulties on the Belgian pages, linked to the very hard political difficulties of Belgium in the real life... Incidentally (everybody is wrong), Speculoos too is not allowed to make important changes on these Belgian pages during six month. I wish that instead of coming and coming again with what happens on fr:Wp, he and I will become positiv on en:Wp. I don't want to speak longer about that. José Fontaine (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

José. I'll not be commenting on content. But, bringing conflicts from frwiki is not a good idea. I advice you all to sort out your problems there before starting a new front here. That's all the matter. fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I want only defend me and I, too, am not wanting to have a discussion about that. You can believe me. I am am absolutely not interested in... José Fontaine (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What Speculoos is calling POV-push is the way people like me or José Fontaine try to make the page Wallonia more NPOV. Speculoos tries to prevent the adding of sources that prove Wallonia and Walloon Region are the same thing. Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not contributing very much, and my focus is not to enter into polemics, but I have the feeling that Speculoos tries to repeat here his strategy of denouncing his opponents and throwing mud on them instead of discussing the points in debate, like here, the point if "Walloon Region" and "Wallonia" can or can not be used as synonyms. His POV is to deny it. He accuses Of "mass POV pushing" other opinions. I hope that the administrators here won't indulge to these smear tactics that Speculoos chooses to use rather than to debate. Adumoul (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edits

Take a look 70.17.112.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made some vaguely anti-Semitic edits, but he's stopped for several hours. I suggest that someone keep an eye on him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism, antisemitism and the like are unacceptable. I checked and agree with your assessment. Will keep an eye on this user. Please warn and if needed post to WP:AIV. Thanks. -- Alexf 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Script deletion

Someone has just deleted a widely user script. They have even "ranted" on the talk page as if proud of their actions. User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js & User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js. Is anyone here able to reinstate is. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to out-and-out restore it for you at this point without discussing with the original deleting administrator, but have you considered listing it at WP:DRV? Lankiveil 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

I suggest we keep it deleted for the reasons outlined on the talk page. Giggy (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that too. It was a valid deletion as far as I'm concerned, albeit one that seemingly came without warning and which will affect a large group of editors. Community review and input wouldn't be a bad thing, but at the same time, it was Outriggr's script and I morally support his right to do with it as he pleases. Lankiveil 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Far fewer teeth will be gnashed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The deleting administrator deleted the script on request from the person whose userspace it resided in, and it was the person who created the tool that posted the "rant" on the talkpage. The deleting admin was just following a G7/U1 CSD request. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the script and willing to grab it back if the community thinks it's useful and it should be retained (to someone else's userspace so that a user doesn't need to have something in his userspace that he doesn't like). The part that puzzled me is me stating the "Article assessments SUCKS" part. Since all classes, including FA and GA are indeed article assessments, does that mean he's opposing to these classes too? OhanaUnited 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The text of the script is covered by the GFDL so any other user could expect a request for an undeleted copy in his/her own userspace to be granted, without need to consult the deleting admin. As for the rant, article assessment has always been a dubious business - at the wikiproject level it tends to be insultingly cursory - a problem that, seemingly to the chagrin of Outriggr, is exacerbated by his script. CIreland (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the admin refuses to undelete, you can still ask him to send you a copy by email so you can use the script on a different wiki. Notice that GFDL does not force distributors to keep distributing the content after they stop finding it useful, if just forces to distribute it for free and with attribution. Removing GFDL content from your website is totally OK by the license. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• The way to decide on how to assess articles is in a general group discussion, not by the unilateral actions of one editor. I am unclear whether if it were placed in user space it would still function, without everyone who wished to use it changing the name. So the question really is undeleting it. I consider the use of the script by multiple parties the same as if it had been edited multiple times, and disqualifies it for a G7 userrequest. I'd have no hesitation in turning down user requests for deletion of something that appears to be useful to at least some people in the community. Nobody owns a contribution to wikipedia, and the GFDL is irrevocable. I note that I do not work in any of the article review processes, so I have no particular feeling on the underlying issue. DGG (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good call by Ouriggr, talk page rationale is absolutely sound. These boxes are, as it says, very often added in drive-by manner on creation and never updated afterwards, bear no relation to the objective quality of the article, and are in sundry other ways actively counterproductive. Like Esperanza or AMA, an idea that was good in theory but turned out to be hopelessly flawed in execution. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nice rant. :-) I tend to agree with it. Drive-by assessments are OK for quick-and-dirty overviews of what needs doing in a large field, but they are useless for determining the actual quality of an article. Just a word of caution: considered assessments, with comments added on the talk page, and work done to improve the article, is helpful. I'm wondering if the way to go is to let all the wikiproject assessments be "unofficial" (ie. meaningful only to the wikiprojects trying to organise their articles) and for the real assessment (call it the "Misplaced Pages assessment" or the "WP 1.0 assessment") to be one that needs a discussion, and that should only be added after a discussion. ie. the wikiproject assessments are just placemarkers, and the "official" assessment should link to a subpage where the assessment was discussed and consensus reached (as you see in the GA and FA and some wikiproject A-class processes)? Any changes to that official assessment would have to be discussed on that subpage (or on the talk page and a link added from the subpage). Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The last thing we need is more bureaucracy - if I improve a stub, there's no reason I should need to start a discussion and get consensus (more likely is that I'll wait and no one will reply) just to change the "official" assessment. The ratings may have their problems, but I have used them in the past to find and improve high-importance articles needing improvement. --NE2 09:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • There should, though, be a way to distinguish between assessments that are the opinion of a single editor (the vast majority) and those where there is agreement. Underlying a lot of this is the assumption that silence is agreement. People might assess the article and agree with the rating, but if they don't leave some record of this, no-one else knows they have done this. You only see what happens when people disagree. You also don't know whether the assessment is unchallenged merely because no-one else has bothered to read the article or look at the assessment. That is why assessments should be signed by everyone who agrees with it, not depersonalised and made into a passive voice conclusion. The passive voice bit I got from Geogre's views on this. I may have misrepresented what he said, so hopefully he will weigh in here (I've left a note on his talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would be a good use of my time to go around signing a subpage if I agree with the assessment. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact that USRD does a decent job of assessing. --NE2 09:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Starting a discussion for each article? Please... we don't want 6,929,793 pages of discussion. One, as NE2 pointed out, time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving. Two, a lot of stub and start class articles aren't watchlisted by a large group of members so rarely someone noticed that something is up for discussion. What if no one responded the discussion for 1 month? Leave it unassessed (and hurt WP 1.0)? Or assess it (and risk being called POV-pushing and ignoring consensus)? Three, sometimes different projects may rate the identical article with different class because one may think it's comprehensive enough but other thinks it's still short on something. Under the current system, it's not necessary to have debates on this but if it's mandatory to have a discussion, it may add fuel to the fire. Discussion is good, giving POV-pushy people another opportunity and venue to argue over minor things is bad. Anyways, in a couple of days I will copy the deleted contents to my userspace, then let those users of the script know of the current situation and they can choose if they wish to continue using the script. While we're on this issue, we can ask someone to try merge Outriggr's script with Pyrospirit's script so that all article quality ratings are displayed AND people can continued to tag projects. OhanaUnited 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
          • "Starting a discussion for each article?" - that is called a talk page, yes? Theoretically, each article can have a talk page. There should be no problem with that. "time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving" - is it better to have an inaccurate, undiscussed rating, or an accurate, discussed rating? The answer is to carefully consider each case and get the balance right between discussion, assessment and article work, in each case. Some people clearly feel that too much work is being done on assessments that have little value without discussion and work to improve the article. How do you suggest that problem is tackled? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I do agree with you that one-size-fit-all assessment approach is not good. So I suggest that each project should develop its own guideline on what constitutes a B, C, etc. (like MILHIST's assessment is somewhat different from 1.0's criteria) to target articles within their scope. OhanaUnited 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The ratings may have their problems?" The ratings may not have a purpose. Axiomatically, no one has yet offered a rationale for why any of them should exist (like the passive?), much less that they should exist in this way, and far, far, far, far from that they should be performed (see the passive?) in such a reckless and insulting manner. "This script has been rated as deletion-worthy." How's that? Until assessment is not only performed by human beings, but signed by the humans who do the assessing and offer up an action rationale, then they are -- get this -- not edits. They are mechanical functions, when done by script, and they are vandalism, when done by a person who does not sign and does not rationalize and does not read. We have some bot around here that comes along to sign posts that people make without attribution, and yet it doesn't extend to these top-of-page banners? I support the deletion of the script, and I would even support deleting all assessments that are not performed by a person who not only can but actually does stand behind the judgment. Geogre (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It does have a purpose, see WP:1.0. It has been the goal of Misplaced Pages since 2004. OhanaUnited 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that assessments are useful, but I also agree that people should openly sign their assessments. An assessment with no visible indication who has made the assessment is suspect. Before I accept any assessment, I want to know who has made the assessment. At the moment, people have to dig through the talk page history to find out. If all assessments were signed by those who agreed with it, then that would be fine. At the moment, there is no indication of the amount of care and effort that has gone into an assessment, and that is a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Charming how people are complaining about my deletion of User:Outriggr's userpage at his request, and yet nobody has notified either of us of this discussion. This was a straightforward user request deletion, and there's no expectation that the user "explain" himself when making such a request; I certainly didn't try to decipher the code before deleting. I am not inclined to undelete outside of the request of the user. Since I am not able to decipher the code (and thus cannot be certain of its appropriateness for use onwiki), I don't feel I can provide a copy to anyone else without (at minimum) the agreement of the author. Having said all that, and having now read the talk page and this thread, I agree with Outriggr's decision to have the code deleted; it's pretty clear he feels its use is not helpful for the encyclopedia, and I tend to share his concerns about drive-by article assessments. Risker (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, as a user-deletion request, the deleting admin is really only enabling the user's request. The admin judgement as regards deletion and undeletion is minimal. It is fairly normal in such cases to not blame the deleting admin or to notify them. The issue people have, presumably, is with Outriggr requesting deletion of the script. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Carcharoth, although the thread does start off somewhat accusatorially, including a comment about ranting on the talk page; I am correcting this misperception, as I certainly didn't do any ranting and never posted on the talk page. As the usual practice is to ask the deleting admin to reinstate or to provide a copy of a deleted page, I am making it clear in advance how I will deal with any such requests. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of User:Outriggr's feelings, the code was released under the GFDL and anybody could rightfully obtain it legally if he or she so desires. --seav (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The script was being used for purposes (mass tagging and bagging) that Ourigger was uncomforable with, to the extent that he left the project. I think fuck the GFDL, pay respect to our users, and let it die. Ceoil 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Seraphim♥Whipp 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on Geogre's talk page , and since I'd say essentially the same thing here, this is my statement. The action I took was quite rash by the nature of the problem. Anyone accusing me of abandonment or inappopriate behavior might stop to consider how much I want to delete my own work, something that I developed over months and answered many users' questions about, because I thought it might help Misplaced Pages. It didn't. You might wish to consider how, having worked both sides of this "assessment" business, I am in a particularly informed position to pass judgment on its merit -- this is far from a drive-by rant or a spur-of-the-moment sentiment. –Outriggr § 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Limitation of CSD

So there's this article that doesn't really fit any of the CSD criteria because the author claims that he broke world records, but the article makes it obvious that it's a petty hoax (and obviously there's no google results of the person). Does this kind of article still need to pass through AfD? -- Mentisock 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

G3 includes "blatant and obvious misinformation". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism also fits. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM to "Abusive User:Noclador, his impunity..." - EVENT HISTORY

Addendum pertaining to this complaint:

I made reference on my talk page, as discussed of the sockpuppetry. It will remain there as documentary defense material against further unreasonable and slanderous sockpuppetry accusations, deliberate false charges of fascism, and calls for my banning – which appear to be inevitable. I am continually subjected to it, and nothing is done about it, so I must. What follows below will show why I do not agree with statements that Noclador did nothing wrong, and it will also be referred to as documented evidence the next time I am accused. This is an issue about conducting investigations properly. If my accuser showed some good faith and behaved in similar manner as, say, User:AlasdairGreen27 has on the matter, then I certainly would not have piped up this much. The sockpuppetry material and detail of the slander I have received will remain on my talk page until I am satisfied that it will not happen again. Someone requested a summary (and now because it has become obvious that the full story is not known, particularly my accuser’s actions), here:

I was a new user (officially joined 27th May 2008) , who saw this passage under Italian Army (presumably added by Generalmesse) and believed that I could help constructively improve it, make it NPOV and add relevant citations, so I began working on it here. As I thought the content was inappropriate in the section I originally found it in so I moved it to Military history of Italy during World War II, where I believed it more apt, and created a new section (dif of newly created section). I stated what I was doing in the edit summary of the edit. I then continued working on it.

A justification for the content was later placed here, with the request that people work together on the issue rather than bicker.

Went to Brisbane between 23 and 27th June (which is no where near Sydney and not in NSW, which is a very populous place and one of the alleged centers of sock activity, according to Noclador) – I declared my activities with sincerity from the beginning of the farcical sock puppetry investigation. I came back and logged on to add another citation found:

1. The section initiated on June 1st 2008 was deleted & I was accused (wrongfully) ) of being a sock puppet of Giovannigiove.

a) Directed to a page that made no reference to User:Romaioi (this one)

2. The entire content of my talk page (the welcome to Wikpedia I received, giving me pointers on navigation, editing and signatures etc, and previous conversations) had originally been completely wiped by Noclador with solely the sock puppetry accusation remaining . i.e. judge, jury and execution before any reasoned investigation. Hello!

3. I undeleted the relevant historical section , pointing out in the edit summary that the content was most relevant there, if anywhere (it was still a work in progress). I stated to Noclador that I was doing so.

4. Noclador re-deleted the material , and claimed I was generelmesse .

a) This unconstructive deletion was the final straw in what ticked me off, and I stated Use some of that good faith that you mentioned. Open a discussion page. Help me improve it instead of “vandalizing” the contribution. I have more to add when I get the rest of my sources out of storage. I cannot vouch for the radio Berlin links. I did not inlcude them. However, if you have an issue with them, as I said, put it on a discussion page. . This is where others feel that User:Romaioi over-reacted.

i) Note that Nocaldor has presented this statement in completely different context in his response to my ANI – a standard theme.

b) It took Karriges’ assertion that the subsection had merit to stop further deletion .

5. I finally found the sock evidence page and discovered that:

a) Noclador presented false information about the pages I contributed to (no. of mainspace contribs. was wrong too) rebutted here

i) He also was incorrect about the location of Brisbane and timezone differences, and the meaning of the word romaioi. These are too simple for an adult who shows due diligence get wrong - so I believe they are deliberate misrepresentations.

b) Misrepresentative/distorted quotations, patched together from disparate locations to present passages completely out of context with what I was saying. These passages were inclusive of statements that I never made. second sockpuppetry defense page, .

6. Discovered that Noclador was canvassing and presenting unsubstantiated speculation of guilty behavior.

7. I wrote a defense detailing pattern, citation/source, NPOV of my contributions & characteristic differences (apparently almost one has read it).

a) During the process to this point I was called:

i) FASCIST , , – this originally only implied, as he referred to the socks as fascist and then stated that I was one and has only reinforced his position since. This is particularly absurd considering that his patch-worked edits to portray out of context montage of my statements have been extracted form sections that were markedly anti-fascist in nature. Now, however, he blatantly states it classic e.g. – claimed this to be damming proof.

- My sources (explained here & here) are by British, American and Swiss authors and their sources can be traced to British military accounts, such as Gen. Alexander. One of my main sources is Chester Wilmot, a WWII (&I) BBC war correspondent who was present on most campaigns. So this is fascist?

ii) FANATIC

8. I was cleared of being a sock and told I behaved inappropriately (by Justin ) for calling Noclador a liar.

a) Justin made the unsubstantiated assertion that the profile of my edits fitted the profile of socks . One coincidental contribution of material on a similar topic does not justify a profile match. Particularly seeing that my contributions were clearly verifiable and NPOV.

9. Noclador instigated an AN/I against me, which I was not informed of

10. I wrote a statement on my user page about wrongful accusation and abuse & manipulation and how thorough investigations are needed in future {final version here}

11. Justin Instigated WQA . He believes I have no position because I called my attacker a liar, which he rates as a personal attack.

a) People involved with the WQA were satisfied my comments did no harm (but they felt it sounded spiteful – they are there as defensive measures against future sock puppetry accusations) e.g.

b) One user who understood where I was coming from (User:Ed Fitzgerald) was politely criticized . In his defense I do not think he was taking my side, just presenting an observation.

c) I toned down my statement as a sign of good faith. But WQA was unresolved.

12. I instigated ANI regarding the inappropriate treatment I received .

13. Noclador canvassed his buddies for support, the several of whom, stated they did not read any of the accusations but believed that "Nocaldor must be right" and "Romaioi must be lying" (paraphrasing) e.g. (two other examples have no dif in the edit history – one was by Buckshot06, the other by Polarlys. link)

a) Ed Fitzgerald made a minor summary and was criticized again.

14. Noclaodor accused me again of being a sock, now User:Brunodam , and vandalized my user page .

a) Noclador canvassed his mates, and Ed Fitzgerald, to win their support by spreading logistically impossible slanderous insinuations without merit. His canvassing revealed that he has no regard for the previous findings and maintains that I am a sock of Generalmesse & Brunodam (this one was not certain) . refer here for explanation

b) No investigation was initiated – signifying the accusation was launched for the sake of misdirection, or for the purpose of character assassination (misinterpreted or not User:Bahamut0013 stated it smacks of character assassination). In trying to convince a skeptical user he gave the impression that checkuser had been conducted for this second accusation and stated that I was GeneralMesse (yet another lie!) .

c) Another example of slanderous insinuations (copy edited): ... was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans……added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on……Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi… is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people??. More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related... . More lies! And of course, his definition of Romaioi is wrong.

d) Another user made another unsubstantiated comment: Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi There are no such links. The statement is baseless and the mere suggestion invites more slander. The merit of such a statement becomes apparent when the same user cites the complaint of abuse as unfounded when in the same passage he admits that he did not read the evidence, presented in plain English, by User:Romaioi, claiming TLDR . If you take it upon yourself to police, then you need to take the responsibility of considering ALL the information.

15. It was once again demonstrated that I am not a sock (this time checkuser was not instigated, although I repeatedly called for it – instead I conducted an IP check). Someone actually compared the styles that I have long stated were different

16. Common theme’s pertaining to Noclador’s campaign:

a) His assertions are inconsistent, misrepresentative and take statements out of context; where I come from, an OECD country, this is considered slander.

b) His only proof is his “say so”, which is never backed up with anything substantive. The real proof (backed by real evidence) has always been to the contrary.

c) Repeatedly petitions and canvasses for my expulsion (continued after innocence proved).

d) He never bothered to investigate, but rather adopted an unfounded (illogical) opinion, and based on that, felt he had the right to slander and denigrate my character.

e) HE WAS THE FIRST TO BEHAVE BELLIGERENTLY – because of his inaccurate pre-conceived ideas. And he shows he still holds onto these ideas through his deliberate false claims of my fascism, racism and travels around the world to post fascist propaganda.

Note 1: To claim that I over-reacted and behaved a certain way is a moot point, as it has already been acknowledged. It was established early on that I did not know the procedures, being a new user, and was of the belief that I was being subjected to a "free for all" attack. As per above, Noclador clearly had a belligerent attitude towards myself before he received any return correspondence. I do not believe that those who feel that I behaved inappropriately were aware of this sequence of events.

Note 2: As can be seen from a little observation, my ability to contribute to such topics have been stymied by Noclador’s unconstructive deletions and his campaign. Irrespective, if you would like to believe the BS that I have not been contributing, it is suggested that you DYR and start to check it out here & here. You can see how thorough I can be, and you know I always cite. That signifies how much more I would have been able to contribute if I had not been attacked.

Note 3: Some said Noclador did nothing wrong. (e.g e.g). Supposedly, slander and insult while presenting false evidence is ok in some countries. Where I come from, the behaviour I was on the receiving end is classed as slander and it is seen as very wrong. So if you think there is nothing wrong, I must really question your objectivity on the matter. Belligerent behavior towards someone before an investigation to determine their guilt/innocence is also wrong.

- if the claim of noclador, that others believe me to be a guy who goes by generalmesse is true, then it indicates that others have not bothered to investigate the facts or read the evidence presented as defense that Misplaced Pages gives me the right to present. If true, this is rather uninspiring and flies in the face of wikipedia ethos. However, whilst I have not found any evidence that others continue to believe me to be a sock (the statement appears to be another devised fabrication), it would explain why some believe that Noclador has done nothing wrong.

Note 4: Based on Noclador’s own POV comments pertaining to Italian military prowess it can be just as easily concluded, using his own model of reasoning, that Noclodor is as much a sock as the Generelmesse, Brunodam, Giovannigiove etc – definitively more so than me. Especially when you consider that he is in fact, Italian, and I was born and raised Australian.

Note 5: Someone thinks I am being punitive? Ummm… what about the repeated calls by Noclador to have me banned irrespective of my innocence? Regardless, its not about that.

The accuser has failed to demonstrate the ability to competently assess sockpuppetry with a NPOV, but rather has used slander, abuse derogatory conjecture and falsified information to petition for my guilt and banning. All due to one coincidental contribution in on subsection where I attempted to constructively improve on an alleged sock’s edits – a contribution which Noclador is unlikely to have read closely at all. That is hardly constructive on Noclador’s part. You can continue to refuse to acknowledge to evidence but the facts are there.

I will quote two passages from Jimbo Wales’ user page:

• Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". Point 2 of the Statement of Principles

• Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Point 7 of the Statement of Principles

Neither has been extended towards me. Want to ban me? Go for it. I am sure there are higher authorities in the form of senior foundation members that would not mind knowing about how poorly some newcomers have been treated here and how those who attempt to do good deeds (i.e. turn a POV topic into NPOV, in this case) go punished. If that has to be my contribution to Misplaced Pages, then so be it. The issue is not about me its about the of abuse and lack of respect by editors who attempt to be policemen.

Romaioi (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want someone to actually read this, you may want to condense it into about a paragraph. Mr.Z-man 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They got into an edit war, got accused of being a sock, edit-warred some more, was found innocent of being a sock, some other user was canvassing, got called names, had an ANI thread made about them, got accused again of being a sock, was again found innocent and is now here to complain about their treatment because it contradicts something Jimbo once said, with the usual threat of "I am sure X would like to hear about this". ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-Man, this is a step-by-step event history. I tried summarizing last time. It got messed up with people raising issues that required more explanation. So I did this for the sake of record and to avoid ambiguity. But Ameliorate has already introduced some. That's not what I call a threat - perhaps that point is going to be ambiguous to some. Oh well. Plus there was no initial edit war, I had barely started editing. Romaioi (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the administrators who read this board should ... Mr.Z-man 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its up to them. But it was pretty clear to me early on that nothing would be done. I'm putting it up for record with the hope that people remember what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about, rather than resorting to the means that my accuser did. Plus I have something more structured to refer to next time, rather than having to spend time re-writing a whole bunch of evidence. Romaioi (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ameliorate!'s summary just above. This is all well-known material to those who followed the Generalmesse sock business. So far as I can tell Noclador has not pursued his sock charges about Romaioi since 12 August, so I don't see any new issue here requiring our attention. I personally do not believe Romaioi is a sock. Romaioi is not about to be banned so far as I know, so all parties should just calm down. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So no one is guilty of anything except arguing and writing excessively long AN threads containing too much drama? That sum it up? KillerChihuahua 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much the size of it... Orderinchaos 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, a sockpuppeteer (Generalmesse) created multiple sock puppets to "correct the image of Italians as poor fighters in WWII", during the clear out of sock puppets, Romaioi restored one of the sock's edits leading to suspicion he was a sock puppet but he was cleared by check user. Later another sock puppeteer (Brunodam) implicated Romaioi in what I suspect was a deliberate act leading to a second check user. He's over-reacted consistently since despite the edits of several editors to smooth it over and explain it was nothing personal. His talk page is now largely an attack page and nominated for WP:MFD. Can be a good and productive editor when he isn't obsessing about this, from the history of his Talk Page, he has spent the last week preparing the latest diatribe. Nobody is looking to ban him and he had he let it go all would have been forgotten about by now. Justin talk 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#User talk:Romaioi includes a long list of the number of times this has been elevated to WP:AN over the last three months. Justin talk 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin is nominating that my talk page be deleted, hence attempting to remove my right to discuss on my own space. The long list of WP:AN's WQA's etc that Justin is referring to were predominantly instigated his camp, signifying the one-sided belligerency against me. I have only instigated one AN/I. The current page is a continuation of that. The material I have currently presented is to serve as structured documentary defense in the event of continued accusations. Its like these guys (metaphorical) want to have a free hand in accusing me when the see fit, yet get extremely critical when I present defense - just because I presented defense. Romaioi (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Search engine indexing updates

A few minor software changes have been implemented today that change the way we deal with search engine indexing. It's now possible to control en.wiki's robots.txt file from the wiki at MediaWiki:Robots.txt.

Additionally, bug 13890 has been resolved, making all of the User_talk: namespace no longer indexed by search engines that obey robots.txt (most do). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User pages (including some sandbox articles that are actually quite good) are still indexed, right? Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. Though any admin could change that at MediaWiki:Robots.txt. The only thing that really isn't override-able is that all pages in the User_talk: namespace are not indexed any longer (sandboxes are usually in the User: namespace, so they are still indexed). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget useful primary source transcriptions that are not complete enough for Wikisource: User:NE2/valuations/Alabama and Vicksburg Railway --NE2 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but {{INDEX}} may override the no-indexing on individual user talk pages. Mr.Z-man 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true for the moment (I just tested on my User_talk: page). Though after bug 14900 is fixed (or the underlying issue, really), it won't be override-able. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe bug 14900 is about __(NO)INDEX__ overriding $wgArticleRobotPolicies, not $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies, which is what the de-indexing of the User_talk namespace has been implemented with. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thus the parenthetical. The issue is that __(NO)INDEX__ ignores variable set in LocalSettings in general. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The only thing that really isn't override-able is that all pages in the User_talk: namespace are not indexed any longer"

Is there any reason why all talk spaces cannot be not indexed? - jc37 11:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From a technical perspective? Not at all. From a social standpoint, you'd need to find community consensus first. On a side note, robots.txt probably wouldn't be the method to be used; you'd probably need to file a shell bug and have a sysadmin set it in the configuration files. But that's not really here nor there. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Search exclusion of AN

All of AN was recently added to the robots.txt exclusion. I object to this (as I also objected to it in past discussions). Few threads on AN identify people by real life characteristics. In the past I've asked for examples where a google search on just someone's name returned a negative AN result in the top 20 or so results, and no one was able to produce an example. Hence, I see little evidence that AN (in particular) has been creating problems for people. Balanced against the good of having easier search access to AN pages, I don't see enough evidence of harm to justify excluding AN from search indexes in my opinion. Obviously there are areas of Misplaced Pages where discussions are often focused on real life identifiable individuals and search exclusion makes sense, but I don't consider this to be one of them. Dragons flight (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation

A user informed me that in the article on Counting sort someone had added a method called the "tally" sort claiming it was "well-known variant" of counting sort and gave as a reference a book entitle "Programming Pearls" by Jon Louis Bentley, 2000. The methodology which is described turns out to be the method I copyrighted and published on the web in 1996, and then again here which was subsequently moved to the Wikia here after being deleted here as original research. To have a look-see I found an online copy of the "tally" sort reference here, found the sort routine on page 6 and read the description. Since the method and code are very simple and easy to remember I can imagine someone passing this information on to Bentley over the phone and Bentley subsequently describing the method in his book in a way that makes it sound very computer scientific and then published it in print without reference to my copyright or any other reference as to its source. However, aside from that he did not call it by any name in his book or label it the "tally" sort which defies the users claim that it is a well-known variant of the counting sort. This is to provide notice to the Misplaced Pages administration of this case. I am posting the following deletion tag on the section. {{db-copyvio|url=http://mysite.verizon.net/adaptron/rapid.html}} 71.100.3.239 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize you could copyright an algorithm. Ed Fitzgerald 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably can not keep you from using the algorithm but that is not what the copyright law is about. The copyright law is about redress and compensation should you steal my work as content to enhance the income from your publication. If you are indeed a crook then you might try to rename it or alter it in some way so it can not be easily recognized. The copyright law allows me to seek redress and to gain compensation. 71.100.3.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Per using the work from others - "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Misplaced Pages." - which (at worst) appears to be the case here, the section in question is not substantially the same as yours beyond expressing the same idea. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If they had done that then their work may have gone unnoticed and a comparison not generated for example in stating that "...where the input is known to contain no duplicate elements, or where we wish to eliminate duplicates during sorting..." which is nearly if not actually word for word. But even that is not the issue here. The issue is that the reference they used by Bentley does not call the sort routine a "Tally" sort so where is their "Tally" sort reference? You can't have it both ways. No valid reference it violates WP:NOR. Also it is obvious from doing a Google search that the claim of it being a "well-known variation" of the counting sort is bogus and qualifies as original research as well.

Misplaced Pages, which gains no income from its publication, takes copyright law very seriously. You can read our copyright policies here. This page sets out the procedure for officially requesting removal of the material from Misplaced Pages. Do, please, consider though, as that page notes, that "Facts cannot be copyrighted, only their expression. That is, you cannot claim a Misplaced Pages article infringes your copyright just because it happens to cite the same facts as a text or page that you wrote; you may only claim if the text in the article was copied from your work without permission."

I'll have to check with IRS to see if donations are considered income whether taxable or not. What reason would there be for anyone to donate besides to support its publications? Hence, its publications do produce donations and whether donations are taxable or not I'm prettry sure they are considered income.

As 82.7.39.174 notes, copyright law has specific scope and provenance. Copyright protects expression and is automatically conferred on creation. Patents protect ideas. (see also patentable subject matter and software patent.) Patents are not automatically conferred, but must be applied for. If you wish to patent your algorithm, you should probably consult a patent attorney. I don't know if publication 12 years prior will be problematic with respect to this process. I wish you luck in resolving your situation with Bentley. I can well imagine how frustrating it must be to lose control of an idea. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Any loss due to theft is bothersome and again its not about an idea, its about publishing content in a manner which will in the end cause you to be obligated to pay compensation.

He published it, so it's prior art. --bainer (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again its about avoiding a, "to be imposed" obligation to pay compensation for violating someone's copyright.

You have been provided the information necessary to pursue your copyright concerns, if you believe this violates your copyright. Again, it's right here. To quote from that page, "If you are the copyright owner or represent the copyright owner, we can assist you best via e-mail." Further information is provided there. --Moonriddengirl 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the information. I have sent the email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.239 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

←For info, this is User:Julie Dancer back again, evading a block for harrassment from a few weeks back. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to exclude a page title from local title blacklist

Article title: Two Tragedy Poets (...and a Caravan of Weird Figures)

Title's blocked possibly due to the "excessive punctuation". This is the band Elvenking's upcoming album. I see the subheader "(...and a Caravan of Weird Figures)" being necessary as it is, to my experience, included in most sources such as the official site, Blabbermouth and Way Too Loud.

Blackcrowned (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Five consecutive characters that are not letters or numbers are disallowed, in this instance SPACE-BRACKET-PERIOD-PERIOD-PERIOD is blocking it. Two Tragedy Poets (...and a Caravan of Weird Figures). An admin should be along soon and can create the page for you. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Page created. Viridae 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

When you rollback, is it not obligatory (perhaps even mandatory) for you to notify the user of the revert? I always though that it was, but some recent activity has demonstrated maybe not. Caulde 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is very little that is "mandatory" on Misplaced Pages, but a series of test messages, warnings, and notifications are generally considered a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As Tznkai said, there are very few absolute rules here, and everything else is a matter of perspective. However since rollback is supposed to be used only on blatantly unproductive edits, and since blocking policy strongly encourages us to warn/educate editors before they can be blocked ... warning vandals after you roll their edits back is certainly almost always a good idea. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally give a user a warning when I rollback, but if the edit I rollback is from an anon, and it was several hours or even days ago, I see no point in issuing a warning. If it's a logged in user, then regardless of how long ago the edit was, I'll give them a notice. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the whole point of rollback is to make reverting vandalism faster, I don't see the sense in it compelling the user to then go and write a message to someone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is also used when it's an automatic matter. This is where we can be in trouble. I have reverted -bots, for example, as there is no one there to talk back. -Bots are lousy correspondents. Others will rollback "obvious" bad edits. When one of those, like a -bot edit, actual has someone at the helm, then, yes, in retrospect, it looks like conversation would have been better. Geogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending the above case. The indefinite ban against Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifted, and he is placed on an editing restriction. Tajik is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

— Coren , for the Arbitration Committee, 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan MacDonald

Jonathan MacDonald may be a vanity article and might need a check whether the portrayed person is notable. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been tagged for speedy deletion. I also removed a large section that was a copyright violation of this. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Banned 'Gay Pornography vandal' is back

You should all be warned that the banned “Gay Pornography vandal” (ban date: March 6, 2008) is back on Misplaced Pages on a different IP range. Although he still has access to his old IP range, he has begun using multiple IP ranges. Commons has been wrestling with the issue for awhile.

Aside from death threats and his usual boogedy-boogedy, he is also back to working on the porn articles, specifically, his vendetta with Michael Lucas, which spread to me. It also spurred the creation of new meta tools to deal with cyberstalking.

This is the range he is working in currently. Can someone please softprotect that article (Michael Lucas (director)) for a month. There is a long, voluminous, and threat-laden history to this page and its talk page. I suggest the longer soft-protect, the better.

As everyone remembers, this person's boundless anger quickly transfers to other people, and disrupts the incident board endlessly with complaints from multiple editors. I will cross-post this on a few former targets to give them a heads up. --David Shankbone 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense here, but this post sounds more than a little paranoid. J jackson (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what do you know? --David Shankbone 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the hallmarks of paranoia, most are present above. Denial and lashing out are common. J jackson (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid? Heh - how about this? J jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) hasn't't edited since September 2006, and then all of a sudden you re-appear and you remove my content off the Chihuahua page, you lied that I was canvassing about an arbcom I was never part of, and you come on here saying I'm paranoid. Sounds like a Checkuser candidate to me. --David Shankbone 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• David Shankbone, kindly stop reverting my legitimate edits to the Lucas bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.39 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for anyone who hasn't been following this: This is a clear and longstanding harrassment and stalking campaign against David, including real life incidents. Large sections of IP space have been blocked repeatedly, along with a number of accounts. This is serious and is being treated as such. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this be related to the sockfarm detailed in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton? This morning I blocked 76.167.91.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after he edited that archive page, revealing him to be the previous user of that IP who had been blocked for 6 months for being part of the sockfarm. Last week, that IP requested unblocking claiming to be a new user unrelated to the previous abuse, so I unblocked but watched the edits and sure enough he started in on gay porn articles, and then the alleged murder of Nathan Hamilton, so I reblocked for 6 months as it is pretty clearly a static IP. I don't believe this is in any of the IP ranges mentioned but if you look at the edits from that IP in articles like Karen Dior it seems awfully similar. --MCB (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And today I learned that the serial vandal has his own nickname: Gay Pornography Vandal. Can we start attributing awesome titles to others? seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nasty long-term IP-hopping vandals need to be given some kind of a name for convenience in referring to them. I note that David Shankbone's user talk has been kept under permanent semi-protection since March, due to this vandal, and it is unquestionable that the threat justifies a very active response by admins. In my opinion restoring an indefinite semiprotection on Michael Lucas (director) is also justified, now that this IP is evading some of the previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious ban request

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

Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miyokan, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan.

Miyokan is an immense nuisance. He's the very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned. He's racked up far more blocks than he's worth in his various incarnations, and his POV-pushing on Russian politics articles is just silly. I have taken him to AN before, asking for revert parole - that never happened, as the thread got hijacked, but the warning shot across the bows totally failed. Recently he's been involved in attempted outing and harassment of User:Biophys, a decent bloke who doesn't deserve this. (admins, please see the deletedrevs of my talk page, and indeed my talk page currently). I am requesting a full community ban here, as he really has exhausted all his chances. Moreschi (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not too hard a decision. support ban. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my message with links to Tiptoety.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• This user is indeed extremely hard to deal with, and makes wikipedia very unpleasant. He treats wikipedia as a battleground. As for trying to publish private information on users, apart from outing Biophys, he recently did it again with another user. He was warned by Alex Bakharev quite clearly after the attempt to out User:Biophys on his talk page on the 30th of August. Ten days later he tried to out me (again) here: which I did not enjoy because the reason why I have a new account (and which I also announced to administrators) is because my old one carried a real-life name. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Miyokan is very disruptive, and he completely disregarded Alex Bakharev's warning about outing others. Ostap 23:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Too many last chances thrown away, we don't need editors like this. --Rodhullandemu 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Banned for what? There is no justification for such a ban. Not agreeing with my edits is not a reason for a ban, I have never been blocked or placed on restriction because of the content of my edits. It is highly inappropriate that an administrator throws around accusations like these ("He's the very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned...his POV-pushing on Russian politics articles is just silly."), no one has blocked me or found me guilty or of such behaviour, as another user noted when you said this kind of stuff before, it is an appallingly undeserved attack on editor's character. Moreschi has been been antagonistic towards me since I've encountered him - see this discussion (scroll down to "Ultra nationalist alert"), where even I was defended by another editor, and in the content conflict he is referring to, my position was supported by other editors including an administrator. With regards to "racked up far more blocks than he's worth", they were for breaking the 3RR rule (ie technicalities), and I have not been blocked since May (and do not plan on breaking it in the future). With regards to my previous account, I announced to the whole community when I stopped using User:Ilya1166 and started using User:Miyokan .

The double standards come in here. When I walked away from User:Miyokan to User:Berkunt (which I fully admitted I was the same user as soon as asked, I never tried to deny that I was the same user), User:Moreschi "outed" me , saying "One should not be allowed to walk away from a previous block-filled history simply by getting a new account and not telling anyone about it". That is the reason why ("walking away from a previous block-filled history" as Moreschi said), I reported another editor, who changed accounts straght after his 6th block. With regards to "outing" Biophys, I have done no such thing since I did after he used multiple accounts to vote on an image deletion on Wikemedia Commons (which even everyone thought was allowable until User:Alex Bakharev said out that Misplaced Pages and Commons are two different projects and therefore you can't mention what happens on Commons in Misplaced Pages)), I specifically asked Biophys permission , he didn't give it, so I didn't say anything.--Miyokan (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This threat is clearly serious harassment, not asking his permission as you claim. How can you possibly justify that especially when Bakharev told you to "never do it again" while warning you that it could have serious consequences? Ostap 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And after he replied allowing me to show my alleged proof (he said, "What proof?"), I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked "so you consent to me showing my proof?". Bakharev said it is appropriate if there is a convincing reason to do so. Of course I would not mention it for no reason, nor was I even the user that even brought it up there. Other users believed a user (Biophys) to be hiding a conflict of interest - an important note, I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. User:DonaldDuck did , followed by User:Russavia .--Miyokan (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Being Georgian is not a COI that needs to be exposed. In that AFD, Biophys says Although this is hardly relevant, do you think I am a Georgian "ethnically" or I am a Georia citizen? He asked what you *think*; he didnt ask what you can *prove*.

Proving that someone is a certain ethnicity or nationality implies a threat of exposing their identity.

Someones ethnicity and nationality should not be repeated unless the user is disclosing that fact on their userpage, or are mentioning it in recent discussions. If someone complains about you mentioning their ethnicity or nationality, then you have mis-read the situation, and should apologise immediately. John Vandenberg 07:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the deleted edits, and agree that this attempt at exposing the identity of another editor was extremely inappropriate, and a very serious matter. What is more, it was unnecessary. I recommend either a topic ban on all topics relating to Western Europe, a long block, or a shorter block if someone is willing to mentor this user (I might depending on how the user responds here). John Vandenberg 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment If Biophys did not sockpuppet on Commons, evidence which I stumbled across about a week ago completely out of chance, and given some crews absolute desire to claim that anything that promotes their anti-Russian views (such as the 2008 Red Square demonstration) is notable and deserves inclusion in WP, this situation would not have arisen. I believe it is highly inappropriate for User:Moreschi to make the comment he did above (very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned) considering my own experience with Miyokan's edits is his own desire (and rightly so) to present Russian history on WP which contains the Russian POV (not entire Russian POV, but balanced POV), this seems to me to be nothing more than a gang-up to get rid of an "adversary". --Russavia 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban unless the assumed identity of Biophys would be put by Miyokan on any public forum (on or offwiki). As far as I can tell the "outing of Biophys" was not intended as an action in WR or ED manner there the real life identity is used to create real life trouble for the user. The "outing" was partially caused by inappropriate using of multiple accounts by Biophys (although on another project). He also seems to bait Miyokan into this action by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity. I agree that Miyokan's action on public disclosure of assumed Biophys identity was a very bad idea. I hope we have limited the damage so far but if it repeated I would strongly suggest an indef ban. On the other hand I see no possible real life troubles for Biophys from mentioning his assumed ethnicity. I agree with John that it is not a COI worth mentioning but certainly not a bannable offence either. Needless to say that if found that he used his knowledge of RL identity of any wikiuser to hurt him in real life I would support an immediate block.

In general I have monitored activities of Miyokan for quite some time. He is certainly an opinionated editor partially inspired by the national pride. In the past he had problems with edit warring and licensing of images taken taken from Flikr. He seems to improve a great deal in the last few months (since May) showing his ability to learn. I think he is much more asset for the project than liability, although now and again may require some administrative attention. In many way everything I have said about Miyokan is true for Biophys (with exchange of the "national pride" to "criticism of Putin"). Anyway I would want to keep both of them for the project, they are good working as a team cancelling each other's bias Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this disingenuous. All Biophys did on commons was foolishly to use his real name. When he found that his affairs on en and commons began to interact he (quite understandably) talked about the en account in the 3rd person on commons and pretended it wasn't him. I find it hard to blame him for this. It is also disingenuous to paint Biophys as the POV-pushing counterpart to Miyokan: sure, Biophys has his biases, but they're much saner and much less far-out than some of Miyokan's egregious nuttery. Moreschi (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Niyazov was killed because of gas (Russia is paying market rates) and a belief in the claim that Putin is a paedohpile is not nuttery? I guess your definition of nuttery differs to mine, and hence what you just wrote is fact enough that this is nothing more than a gang up to get rid of someone who does not subscribe to their anti-Russian views. What Biophys did was not simply letting out his own name, he engaged in sockpuppetry on Commons. --Russavia 12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you make the 'paedophile' claim right up. Anyway Miyokan was warned after this 'sockpuppetery' was known, so that's no reason to violate warnings from administrators. Grey Fox (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I made that up did I? Funny, because when Biophys said that claims that Putin is a paedophile is "probably true" he mentioned your alter-ego in the same breathe. Here's the evidence. And you guys are calling Miyokan a nutter? This is beyond ridiculous. --Russavia 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you didn't, just out of curiosity, how did you know of this comment without having been involved in any discussion on that article? As for the specific comment, I don't know in what way Biophys meant that, but such a claim doesn't come out of the blue and was a reply to Putin publically kissing a boys belly. What matters though is that this was on a talk, and it's edits that matter. Grey Fox (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I have followed certain discussions. We all know what Biophys meant, that he believes Putin is a paedophile. I have yet to see any diffs which show Miyokan's so-called nuttery. --Russavia 13:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to show that? Moreschi concluded this himself. Besides, what's the point? Miyokan and you yourself will simply violently defend any of the allegations, in the same style as you agressively defend anything related to Russia. I checked your userpage, and you don't seem much different. You even have a box up making fun of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. There's several policies against that, such as WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE. Grey Fox (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I violently defend anything related to Russia? Hmmm, I'd like to know where I violently defend Russia in anything? Balance is what it is all about, and I will defend balance till I am blue in the face. As to userboxes, I also have a userbox which states I have a sense of humour, a point obviously lost on some. ;) --Tovarishch Komissar 14:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that User:Miyokan put a lot of effort into preventing the unbanning of a good contributor who had civility problems not long ago.. Alex Bakharaev (above) was the one who proposed the unban and what followed was a long list of archived uncivil comments and an appeal by Miyokan to prevent this from happening. The outing of users is not just in violation of policy, but extremely uncivil as well. And that's what Miyokan always is, very uncivil, which creates a constant atmosphere of passive agressiveness on the many eastern-europe articles he edits. What's more is that there are discretionary sanctions in place for East European topics which apply here as well. Grey Fox (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys outted himself on a Wikimedia project, Miyokan didn't out him, and has perhaps misinterpreted what Biophys said in the AfD, but as Miyokan himself noted, he has not outed him. So what are we here for, apart from getting rid of an adversary? --Russavia 13:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty much deny everything? Miyokan did out Biophys, and was warned quite clearly because of it. All references to the outing were deleted and are only visible to administrators. A week later, he outed TWO users again. Grey Fox (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"What matters though is that this was on a talk, and it's edits that matter." - Moreschi was talking about our "biases", not our edits. So far you haven't provided any evidence of my so-called "nuttery" views, and you won't find any.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The ironic thing is that User:Miyokan put a lot of effort into preventing the unbanning of a good contributor who had civility problems not long ago". That doesn't have anything to do with this case. Unlike the user there, I didn't evade any permanent bans, nor did I say "fuck" non stop and call people "fucking idiots" or "stupid vandal fucks" like that user.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but civility doesn't end there. You never assume good faith, often brand peoples edits as 'vandalism' when they're not, threaten them with "final warnings" and out them (aka harassment) without any respect for other users. Grey Fox (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you've resorted to posting general accusations that can be applied to anyone including yourself, when I haven't been blocked or found guilty of none of this, nor even warned by an administor.--Miyokan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bare facts to consider: on August 30, 2008, Miyokan (talk · contribs) harassed Biophys by publishing (what he thought was) the latter's real name and other personal details on User talk:Biophys and User talk:Moreschi (read both, if you are in doubt about his intentions). All the contributions have been deleted and Miyokan has been warned by Alex Bakharev. Now, after the warning, on September 12, Miyokan goes on threatening Biophys with disclosing his identity: . In my opinion this is enough, yet he has caused much more troubles. He (Miyokan + Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) + Berkunt (talk · contribs)) has got eight blocks for edit-warring, during the last block in May attempted block evasion as Berkunt, who started editing a day before Miyokan's block expired, and has an impressive record of copyvio image uploads (as discussed at User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 10#Berkunt/Miyokan again and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan). This is the case regardless of Miyokan's POV-pushing. Colchicum (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Berkunt" cases have already been taken care of, and can't be considered in the context of this discussion. The image uploads have stopped. Basically all that is the problem here is a threat to out an already outted editor. --Russavia 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just a threat, he actually did it. Grey Fox (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, apparently you have had no chance to read the deleted contributions on Biophys and Moreschi's talk pages, so I don't see how this discussion can be useful. Basically he is a very problematic contributor, and he still is. Colchicum (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Actually did" nothing, I didn't post any evidence, and 2 other users already said Biophys was Georgian before me , I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. Even after baiting me by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity, I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked his consent. As Alex Bakharev said, there was no intention to cause harm in real life nor any possible real life troubles for Biophys from mentioning his assumed ethnicity, and Biophys "baited" me by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity.--Miyokan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. But the facts speak for themselves. Colchicum (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You confirmed it though, even though you were told explicitly not to do so. The fact that you don't admit your fault here proves again you never learn anything from your mistakes. Grey Fox (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not do any outing on this occasion. He was somewhat baited by Biophys, but stopped short of doing it again. Again, you are all simply trying to get rid of an adversary, and that is plainly clear going by certain talk pages. And the message he left on Biophys talk page is in relation to messages which Biophys left on my talk page all but accusing me of supporting "nuclear terrorism", something I don't have to answer and removed, and which Biophys again posted. As I mentioned, there's another infobox on my talk page, and its a point which is clearly lost on many people. --Tovarishch Komissar 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How much evidence do you need? Besides he also started outing me by publishing my personal info (as well using uncivil language while doing it), after he was already warned never to out people in public. As for your userbox, I take it you find murder hilarious? Well some users don't, especially those who enjoyed reading the victims work. I'll assume good faith and assume it's indeed an attempt at humour but you should probably still remove it per WP:ETIQUETTE. Grey Fox (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What's that evidence of exactly? He didn't out him. Two users (one of them being me) commented that he is Georgian. That was not Miyokan. As to yourself, you likely outted yourself, in much the same way that Berkunt outted himself. As to User:Moreschi and his comments. Like I've said previously, opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. I'd like him to explain his comments in this discussion, because frankly, they in themselves are clearly uncivil. --Tovarishch Komissar 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The link I showed you shows that Miyokan also told that "he is Georgian", even though he was explicitly asked not to do so. As for my previous account, it carried a real life name which is not recommended, which was one of the reasons why I took up a new username (without secrecy towards admins). Miyokan then outed me, thinking I violated policy (I didn't) and was then asked to "stop the trolling" by an admin. This was _before_ the warning from Bakharev. So after the warning from Bakharev (which specifically stated "Please avoid any statements that can be seen as outing of real identity of wikipedia editors especially those who maintain their anonymity unless there is a really convincing reason to do so.") he started outing me again as well as spreading around my real life name. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Tiptoety 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More about outing. To be fair, there are also other Russian users who acted like Miyokan. For example, User:ellol came earlier to my talk page with this message translated by Bobbani. He uses my real first name ("Hi Andrei" - not in the title of his message but below) and asks me to be more cooperative with regard to edits about Russian government. He basically tells: "I know who you are!" after making this coded threat on Russian semi-criminal slang. Well, I do not take this too seriously and edit articles like Alexander Litvinenko and Web brigades (the latter article is almost destroyed by a group of certain users), but this is still a reason to remain anonymous in WP. Perhaps for that reason I was too apprehensive here. Coded messages...Biophys (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And more outing by Miyokan. Biophys (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. These users have ignored warnings given to them by admins, they need to be blocked. Ostap 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was done by myself Biophys; before I was aware of any of this, so don't blame Miyokan for that, that has nothing to do with him, and you'll see I removed it almost straight away. Unlike your own WP:BLP accusations of Putin being a paedophile, which you have not addressed, and feel deserves an answer. --Tovarishch Komissar 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alex Bakharev said: "Oppose ban unless the assumed identity of Biophys would be put by Miyokan on any public forum (on or offwiki)". According to this evidence, Miyokan indeed provided personal information about me off wiki to User:Russavia, apparently by email. Alex, would you now change your mind?Biophys (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  That email was sent after Russavia's comment, see the time stamps.--Miyokan (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not Biophys. As stated I stumbled across entirely by chance the sockpuppetting on commons episode. The email which he sent to me was in relation to sources for an article we were considering writing. By the way, I see you are avoiding the Putin being a paedophile remarks made by yourself. Care to enlighten us all on that? --Tovarishch Komissar 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process

Just a note of change, comments are welcome. link. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification of a restriction between editors

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and Collectonian (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
• A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Misplaced Pages. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

General notice; Any parties wishing to participate in signing up, or otherwise reviewing and commenting, are welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely Blocked Ip addresses

Hi, the other day (thursday), i was having a look at some of User:RickK's contribs and block log, (i was just curious about this famed former vandalfighter), but i noticed that during his time here he blocked a number of Ip addresess's Indefinitely, which is obviously not supposed to be done, perhaps that rule wasn't around then, i don't know, but anyway there are 14 that are still blocked indef, and they don't appear to be TOR nodes or proxy servers, so i've brought them here so that they can be unblocked, if its right that they should be, that is if its not gonna unblock a bunch of old vandals(unlikely), so i'd be grateful if someone can have a look at them. Heres the links, i've done it like this because its quicker, i've got them all bookmarked. , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I started unblocking from the last going forward, and after a few found they were already unblocked so I guess someone else started at the beginning and got most of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, on the earliest page of rickks block log, , does any see $2 instead of an expiry date? Anyone know why that is? or is it just me?--Jac16888 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it, too. I suppose it is an older style formatting/coding for enacting blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess the data simply isn't available for the variable substitution, as we overide the standard Mediawiki message the history of that suggests that there were some issues with the $2 variable at about that time. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the link above. Don't forget the old block log. You'll have to use your browser's find feature to figure out which blocks and unblocks were by RickK. Also see why RickK was desysopped from the Signpost. Graham87 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB

User:CarloscomB has been steadily creating some very nice star stubs, however, in the process they are also creating a steady stream of links to DAB pages (via the star catalogue acronyms used in the starbox infobox on each page). Myself, AndrewHowse, Darkage7 and ASHill have requested them to please not do this. We've been ignored. Looking at CarloscomB's talk page there's also a lot of warning notices about images uploaded without copyright information. Again the same problem's been ignored over a long period of time. Is it possible that CarloscomB is a bot? It would explain the complete lack of response. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not a bot, just ignoring his talk page. I've blocked him until he responds there. Any admin should unblock once he acknowledges the problems here. Chick Bowen 03:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

When it comes to hip hop musicians, are mixtapes allowed to be on Misplaced Pages? Fclass (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't link to or include copyright violations. Do you mean can they be mentioned? Only, I suppose, if they are genuinely notable. Chick Bowen 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Headline text and unreverted test edits

I just discovered that there are hundreds of pages that link to this nonexistent image, File:Headline text, as a result of test edits. On some articles like Celia Cruz it hadn't been reverted for weeks, and I'm sure there are more similar pages out there. Not sure if this is the right place to report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.103.58 (talk • contribs)

There are actually only a few articles. Other namespaces don't really matter. I'm cleaning them up now. Chick Bowen 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for "Headline text" is another good way to find these. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Other favorites:

• Image:Example.png
• Image:Example.jpg
• Image:Example.ogg
• Link title (quite a few false positives here)
• Bold text (false positives)
• Italic text (false positives)
• Insert non-formatted text here
• Insert formula here
• Insert text
• Strike-through text
• Superscript text
• Subscript text
• Small Text (false positives)
• Block quote
• Insert footnote text here

Have fun. MER-C 07:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time :) My bot devours these. I haven't done a run lately, so I'll set it going now. ~ User:Ameliorate! 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish and not vanished

Hmmm, I just asked this question on another board and then realized it might be more appropriate here. What, if anything, is to be done in a case when a user has invoked his/her "right to vanish" and seems to have reappeared almost immediately under a new username? (I think that I might have identified such a user through the style of argument given at AfD.) I ask because it's clearly stated that the 'The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity'. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well since anyone can create a sock account and edit using that, provided they are not using them in an abusive fashion, it isn't a problem, if they start editing in a different way/different areas/different emphasis it may be that no one is any the wiser. The way I would understand the WP:RTV is that it is as you say for the individual (not the account) to completely leave and be forgotten about. If the individual hasn't actually left, but just rematerialised under another account, then there right to vanish is moot (since they didn't) and should be no issue to reveal who they previously edited as. A different quesiton would be to what end you would want to reveal that information, would it be constructive (say was the previous account disruptive/subject to frequent sanctions etc. for which knowing that it is the same individual would be useful), or some other reason? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As an addition to that, although WP:RTV may not grant a universal "right" to a fresh start, the community is of course at liberty to let any editor do so if some circumstances dictate. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here, we're talking about the way that Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using much the same arguments as the now-vanished Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RTV#What vanishing is not emphatically states that RtV is "not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity," as Craw-daddy said above. I find these instances of invoking one's right to "vanish" only to come back under another account immediately to be highly disappointing, and insulting to users who truly have been forced to vanish; it seems that almost always, faux-vanishing is used simply to avoid scrutiny. krimpet✽ 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, her behaviour does look similar in many regards to his. Elisabeth Rogan is manifestly not a new user as she has gravitated very quickly to AFDs, been able to link to her log, and do several other things that new users just don't do. May as well wait for the response to Krimpet though. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, probably not a new user. Plus the elaborate edit summaries appear to be a strange form of performance art more than anything. If the only similarity is "voting keep more often than delete" it could be anyone. Of course I haven't looked closely because I frankly don't care if she is Grand Roi, as long as he doesn't resume using the old account (which would be hard not to notice as it's an md5 hash)... and as long as bondage photos are not involved. No, seriously I don't think it's him. — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was naturally familiar with Misplaced Pages before I decided to register an account. As I indicate on my userpage, I was somewhat hesitant to do that for the same reasons I do not have a MySpace page either. I did try to familiarize myself with this site by looking at the history of articles before editing. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another new account that gravitated straight to AfDs is User:Testmasterflex. See , etc, and User_talk:Testmasterflex#AFD. Doesn't that sound familiar? Also, see this comedy AfD where the brand new user calls LGRdC a deletionist! There's something wrong there. Black Kite 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: Testmasterflex is just an inclusionist who is parroting LGRdC's "Five Pillars" argument (s/he wouldn't be the first). Elisabeth Rogan, on the other hand, is clearly the same person as LGRdC—AfD participation aside, certain details of the user's edits are a dead giveaway. I was going to watch the account for a while before deciding whether to say anything, but now that it's been brought up, I think it's best to do as Stifle says and wait for a response to Krimpet's query. I must say, though, that ER's hamhanded attempts to pose as a naive newbie are somewhat insulting to anyone with half a brain. Deor (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, except that Testmasterflex found AfD and started commenting like that about 10 minutes after registering his username. Clearly a returning editor, though I agree it's not necessarily anyone named here. Black Kite 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Testmasterflex is LGRdC, we have some cases of double voting in AfDs on our hands. I still doubt that LGRdC has the nerve to try to get away with that; though the behavior of Ms. Rogan is making me wonder. Deor (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention any names, but was curious what the usual policy is in these cases (if there is such a thing as "usual policy" for this situation). Names have been named now, but I will wait for a response to Krimpet's query. It wasn't my intention to somehow "get somebody in trouble" but was genuinely curious as to how this situation is handled. I welcome any comments on how I might have approached this or, indeed, if I should have raised my query here. Obviously I wasn't alone in my belief/suspicion. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess we could just assume good faith until a greater pattern of behavior shows up. we also have to realize that we are all looking for a LGRDC account because he left so recently. We may be creating patterns where none really exist. Let's see what she says to Krimpet and then wait for a few weeks. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, ER has responded to Krimpet, choosing to keep up the uncomprehending-newbie act. I find that response, along with edits like the top one here, so off-putting that I don't really want to say any more about this topic right now. Deor (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to this page due to a comment on my talk page. Anyway, as regards my comments at Articles for deletion, I came upon one while looking for information on Ulala, a strong female character who is featured in a tennis game I was playing for my Playstation 3. I noticed the discussion template and decided to comment. I followed the links to some other disucssions as well. I have a lot of interest and knowledge about video games and believe these are articles I can contribute to. I actually have lots of interests and you are likely to see me contribute to all sorts of articles over time. Some of the assumptions of bad faith and hostility posted here are astounding. Do all new accounts get suspicion against them? As I posted on my userpage I do have some hesitations about editing here and now I have to wonder how safe of a place this really is and to what degree those here are focused on writing articles. If you are really that curious, cannot you just check my IP and see if anyone else has used it or is that not technologically possible? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a request for checkuser would do that but I don't think the checkusers would accept that request. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Then, what can be done to establish that I am indeed a new account and I am not using other accounts? Yes, I accidentally made an edit as an IP today, but as you can see from that IP, I only did that once. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• When I review AfD cases, I typically discount or ignore garbage comments that include, "Keep because of 5 pillars" or generic and patently false rationales. Like most of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and the ones cited in this thread. If they want to keep an article, fine. Give a decent rationale and don't go spewing the exact same tirade in every AfD. I've grown tired of the whole bullshit "inclusionist versus deletionist" crap because quite frankly, a lot of articles are junk and deserve to be deleted. And many are. And some are kept because they are noteworthy or notable, or have some promise of being reformed. In addition, Right to Vanish does not mean you can vanish due to criticisms of your actions, and then re-appear elsewhere. seicer | talk | contribs 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what all of this about, but I do not consider myself as part of some "versus" deal. Are my arguments in Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Camberford_Law, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carlos amador munoz, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard really that bad? If so, please let me know how to make a stronger argument. I know my arguments there are somewhat repitious, but I am not sure what more I can see and I see others who make what look like more or less the same arguments to delete in multiple discussions as well. I just do not know what to think now. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I said that I was going to keep my mouth shut, but if this person continues to engage in editorial behavior that requires others to clean up after him and to waste people's time with questions that he knows well the answers to, I'm going to start pursuing the matter further. Trying to hide one's identity is one thing, but engaging in trollish behavior to do so is quite another. Deor (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Come again? I added cited information in the first case from a result of a Google News search, I asked a question as a new user, and Elisabeth is a FEMALE name. I do not know who you are or what you are about, but please do not mischaracterize my edits or insult me. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Without focusing on any specific editor, would abusing WP:RTV be considered a violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser part F: namely, evading a remedy issued by the community? Randomran (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Without focusing on any specific editor, if this nonspecific editor abused RTV by coming back with a different ISP (say an AOL account with dynamic IPs), I'm not sure that a CU could make the connection. I may be wrong though. Deor (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no other way to check a user's identity other than their IP, so I guess there's nothing we could do in that instance, correct? Randomran (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alright. this is getting into silly season. It is possible this is Legrand. It is possible this is another returned editor. It is also possible that this is a new editor. If is is legrand then eventually that will become clear. If it is another editor then we may never know who it was. If this is a new editor then this whole thread is a little BITEy. I suggest that we archive this discussion and let this editor, whoever they may be, go on their way. In a couple of weeks we can check back and see if there is an apparent pattern. But other than that we should just assume they are telling the truth. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No accusations. WP:Assume good faith. Just trying to understand what we might do in the future. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, agreed for now. Just make sure we get back on it before the checkuser deadline. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel sorry that I brought the whole thing up. I agree with Protonk and I think it's wise just to let things lie now. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right to vanish is for a person, not for an account. We should put that in the sitenotice. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Deor. This is either Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles doing a really poor job of pretending to be a new editor, or some random troll doing a masterful job of pretending to be Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pretending to be a new editor. Suggest checkuser sooner rather than later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Andrew. And if this is LGRdC, then this is deceitful and disruptive behaviour designed to evade scrutiny and sanctions. Which is abusive sockpuppetry. A CU seems warranted to help clear the matter up. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is thataway. HiDrNick! 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser results came back as  Likely. And if that comes as a surprise to anyone, please contact me for information on exciting investment opportunities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have indef blocked the account, but still encourage a discussion about unblocking Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, giving him a second chance. With the agreement to only use that one account of course. Tiptoety 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind this was not a harmless, cute l'il prank. A good number of helpful editors wasted a considerable amount of time answering "Miss" Rogan's fake questions and such. Given that Le Grand Roi was likely headed toward an eventual block/ban anyway, if anything this episode doesn't redeem him any. Indeed, quite the opposite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, LGRdC isn't blocked (at least under that name, but then again that name has vanished). (My bad, didn't notice the ban on the old username.) LRRdC invoked his right to vanish and, apparently according to the CU is back. So not only did he waste time of editors who answered her his questions, he wasted the time and effort involved in the RTV procedure (how much effort that involves exactly, I don't know). Regardless if he had valid reasons for the RTV, it seems to be a clear abuse of the "right to vanish" and then reappear under a different account name (which RTV clearly states that's not the intent/purpose). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we keep the indefinite block on LGRC's account. This is the second time he has been convicted of abusive sockpuppeting, which isn't something to be taken lightly. Add to that that he has been that worst case of editors: a polite, civil, disruptive single purpose account that no one could quite justify blocking. He left, good riddance, no reason to bring him back.Kww (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite right to think that polite comments that push the limits in terms of receptiveness are the worst kind of editor behavior. I can think of much worse, and we've seen quite a bit of it in the last week or so all over Misplaced Pages. Would that the fiction article afds and related matters were the most disruptive thing we had to deal with, rather than just a continuing annoyance. And there are a few editors about whom i would say good riddance if they decided to leave, but i wouldn't say it to any of them in public. DGG (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In Le Grand's defense, he has never been blocked for anything but abusive sockpuppetry. He has been warned several times in recent history, but it's possible he may be willing to cooperate. This isn't personal. This is about one editor's disruptive behavior. If he comes back and stops the bad behavior -- misrepresenting people's arguments in AFD, ignoring policies like WP:N or WP:PROVEIT, playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to warnings and consensus that he disagrees with -- then he should be welcomed back for his productive edits. We don't have to respect someone who lies about their health because they're trying to gain sympathy over frikkin *Misplaced Pages*, nor respect someone who threatens to quit because of their real health problems but lacks the willpower to take responsibility for their own well-being -- either of which would be more embarrassing than evil. But Misplaced Pages is about a person's edits, not a person's character. I know he technically violated policy and wasted some peoples' time, but Elizabeth Rogan was relatively well behaved compared to Le Grand. If he stops being disruptive, I see no reason to care if he comes back. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Rogan account was a day old. Evidently a new sock would have to be well-behaved initially in order to avoid immediate blocking. That its edits were solely on the kind on non-productive stuff Roi spent his last few months on (copyediting articles which were likely AfD candidates, and arguing to keep others on specious grounds) doesn't bode well. And precedent heavily favours the permanent exclusion of editors who have sneaked back on and (comparatively) behaved themselves since, as Roi knows full well from his pursuit of Fredrick Day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that only describes the last few months, Randomran, I beg to differ. That describes his behaviour over the past year.Kww (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And, since he's reading this, it is a damn shame he made us go through this. This little escapade wasted time and goodwill. This just makes it harder for anyone to show up new to AfD and be treated like a regular newbie. I figured that, on the outside chance it wasn't him, we should just let this lie for a few days, but it is pretty immature to not just fess up. So, gratz, LeGrand. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the confirmation. As I noted previously, I discounted most of Le Grand's opposing comments because they were essentially copy-and-pastes with no real insight into the article itself. "5 pillars" and a generic "I like the article" doesn't cut it. Any new users who pop into AfD's and use the same criteria should be discounted as well. seicer | talk | contribs 00:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the current name of the previous Le Grand Roi account is? I'm curious to see the other blocks that should appear under the name of the renamed account (which was previously le Grand Roi). Also, I don't think a permanent block is necessary in this case. Actually I think it should be set to expire at a fixed point, even if that point is just provisional until an appropriate length can be determined.

The reason I say that is this - if the user hasn't decided to respond yet, there is a good chance that he is (or will be) registering another username. Since I don't know that a block is necessarily warranted in this case (he was using one account at a time, and while he clearly misused RTV I'm not sure we really block for that) I don't want him to be banned for good through block evasion next. Users are allowed to abandon old accounts and start new ones, just not through RTV (i.e. page deletion, rename, etc.), and it doesn't look like there was a second account operating in tandem with Elisabeth Rogan. I find the lack of honesty on his part (or her part?) distasteful, but is it blockworthy? Avruch 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Horace Horatius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kww (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC was quite adamant that he did not want to abandon his old account and start a new one; he was begging for his account to be blocked and renamed and for his user pages to be blanked and protected. His administrator pals were happy to oblige, and I'm sure they informed him exactly what RTV entails. As far as I can see, he's in the position he's in of his own free will, and I oppose an unblock on the renamed LGRdC account. Deor (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seemed curious to me that this "stalker" forcing LGRdC to vanish conveniently surfaced right after questionable actions by LGRdC were brought to AN/I. Faux harassment claims like this are a slap in the face to people who have been harassed; it's also a serious breach of the community's trust. If the community decides to let him back, he needs to be under close scrutiny, and not be allowed to exploit the community's empathy any further. krimpet✽ 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HiDrNick! 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't that account blocked from editing? I thought that was a standard part of the RTV process.Kww (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I count myself as one of his friends who happen to be administrators -- though I have never taken any administrative action in anything where he has been involved. There are several aspects of the Rogan account I do not like; 1/the pretence at being a new user. LGC knows very well how to do a proper search. Finding unlikely sources was a strength of his when he was willing to do it. 2/The "delete" on a clearly acceptable article, based on an unspecified but clearly low quality search. 3/the evasiveness in answering Krimpet 3/The evasiveness here. On the other hand, the actual editing is not disruptive. Minor useful contributions, some not wildly inappropriate afd comments. DGG (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd misuses his user page to canvass his private RfC

Since more than three weeks, Abd misuses his user page to canvass a private RfC against Fritzpoll. At least 38 times, Abd posted invitations to take part at his private RfC ( ). Also most of his recent edits are devoted to his private RfC ( ).

There are guidelines about what a user page may contain. Point 9 of this guideline says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."

As his private RfC already takes more than three weeks, I asked Abd for a binding timetable for his RfC to make sure that this RfC is started in a timely manner . However, Abd removed my request without giving an answer .

I recommend that Abd should be blocked for violating Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, for violating Misplaced Pages:User page, and for his persistent disruptive behaviour. Yellowbeard 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't violate WP:CANVASS by posting at a single page. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is about the number of invitations and not about the number of promoted pages. Yellowbeard 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm looking at this right, you're upset that Abd is inviting multiple editors to participate in a request for comment about himself, contained within his own userspace, that he started? It might be a bit unusual, but I don't think you'll find an admin who will block for that. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As the actual subject of the pseudo-RFC in question (as I think I understand the reams of text, Fritzpoll isn't the subject; the subject is my alleged "abuse of admin powers" in blocking Abd for his personal attacks on Fritzpoll), I have no problem with Abd using his userspace to store the draft of this for as long as he likes while he works on it. I (and I believe most others involved) will ignore any conclusions this "RFC" reaches, as long as Abd keeps it in his userspace and insists on complete control of the process and the right to remove comments he doesn't like, but I have no problem with him writing an essay about me and my evil ways, or inviting others to join in. In any case, it's been a month since his canvassing and thus far not a single person has commented; he's more than welcome to hold conversations with himself. – iridescent 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention, here, Iridescent. However, the core of the RfC isn't "reams of text." It's actually quite simple, it's at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Standard deliberative process is being used: questions are posed; the questions can be amended if anyone wants to propose that; the goal will be to come up with Yes/No answers to well-defined questions. User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block contains the questions that were written by me, there are other questions proposed on the Talk page. The user page will be a report of the conclusions of the RfC, in my judgment, but upon advice from those who participate. There is a method to my madness. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• D'oh, I misread this and then got distracted by some Poulenc. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Correction of fact: I had already commented on Abd's RfC nearly a day earlier than Iridescent's statement above. I had requested that Abd keep me informed, and I welcomed Abd's message on my talk page reminding me to participate. My comments were about Abd's behaviour, not about anyone else's behaviour. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd did not canvass only on user pages. He also canvassed on other Misplaced Pages pages ( ). Yellowbeard 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, give it a rest. That's not canvassing, and even if it were, then as the subject of the "RFC" I hereby give him my consent to publicise it anywhere he sees fit providing it's not disruptive. – iridescent 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an account whose entire raison d'etre has been, for many months, to harass me; it was blocked for canvassing oppose !votes in my second RfA; before being involved with me, it was an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles in a narrow range based on a political agenda. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows the field of election methods.

Be that as it may, the RfC is indeed about my behavior; however, an analysis of my behavior could possibly point out facts that would relate to the behavior of others. If, for example, I did not do what I was warned about, nor what I was blocked for, that could imply error on the part of the admin warning and the admin blocking. However, the focus is my behavior, not theirs. Because the purpose of the RfC is to advise me, first, how to understand what happened, and second, how to proceed, it's appropriate that I control it. If I control it badly, I'll succeed in creating bad advice for myself. If, however, it is fairly conducted, it might predict what would happen if there were an RfC in WP space. If there is participation. If not, I'm simply where I started, and if I want to proceed with further dispute resolution, I'll have to make the decision myself without much advice. I have not, by the way, removed comment that "I didn't like." The only comment removed has been vandalism from User:Fredrick day; other comments have been refactored in a few instances, simply for orderly process. Nothing significant has been removed.

There is no discussion of "Iridescent's evil ways." If she thinks that is what is there, she really should look before voicing that opinion as if it were a fact. It isn't. There is only a request that, at present, boils down to "Did Abd do what he was warned about." If I did (except for the non-specific part of it that is quite subjective, i.e., creating "drama"), that's quite bad enough, I'd stop editing, voluntarily and necessarily, it would mean that I could not trust myself. If I didn't do it, it's still possible that I was properly blocked (the reasons were ostensibly different, andthe later offenses could simply fall into ordinary error on my part). So ... one step at a time. WP:DR. Those who love to take stuff to AN and AN/I should try it. It usually works, if done with sufficient patience and caution.

I'm grateful that Iridiscent supports my right to examine these issues, nondisruptively, in my user space. It's been obvious to me that she gets some things right, even lots of things (apparently we were in agreement on the substance of the problem I had been trying to work out with Fritzpoll), and, if I were to criticize her, it would be that she can jump to conclusions based on inadequate exploration of the evidence, and the application of stereotypes. My hope is that, at some point, she will re-examine what led her to block me, and remedy the damage done. So far, however, she's declined to actually look at it; but, then again, she hasn't been forced to, i.e., there is no intervention being attempted with her at this time, and, like many hard-working administrators, I'm sure she is busy. No hurry. But, if the first stage of the RfC concludes, as it looks to me like it will, that the warning was improper, that I did not "personally attack" Fritzpoll or "assume bad faith" with respect to him, nor did I "harass" him, my attention will turn to what happened next; that warning attracted a host of "Yes, I agree" comments and an atmosphere of "Somebody block this guy, please." After I had voluntarily restricted myself to my own Talk space, because of the pile of warnings, proper or not, which were coming so fast that I had edit conflict after edit conflict, she did, nevertheless, block me. To disentangle this will take orderly process. If anyone wants to know why I'm bothering -- I'm not blocked, after all -- they are welcome to ask. On my Talk page. AN doesn't need this, I did not and would not have brought this here. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to look, the active core of the self-RfC is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a moratorium on further threads about User:Abd. We've already wasted much too much time discussing this user's activities, ad nauseum. Jehochman 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. If Abd wants to talk to someone he's perfectly capable of contacting them; if someone has a problem with Abd they're perfectly capably of contacting him. – iridescent 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. If I do something offensive, how about discussing it with me on my Talk? I make mistakes, and I appreciate notification of them. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am now blocking Yellowbeard for harassment and disruption; this sample edit is emblematic, restoring a veritable linkfarm for no apparent reason at all other than that it was Abd who removed it. This is clearly unacceptable. I invite discussion at Yellowbeard's talk page as to when this should expire. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I'll put some evidence there, but I'll abstain from advocacy as such. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any particular problem with the block, but I'm curious whether or not this post by Abd constitutes outing and should be removed? - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's open, and it is blatant, and he's acknowledged it, it's not like I'm revealing some big secret that User:Robrichie is Rob Richie, Executive Director of the primary organization promoting Instant runoff voting, FairVote, and this is the editor Yellowbeard cited as supporting his edit to that article. It was relevant there to point out that the user is COI, and this has been done many times. How could we ever establish and apply WP:COI without "outing"? But it was never hidden in the first place, not since that account was created. Previously, Richie had edited abusively as IP, which I identified as being his (and he confirmed, pleading ignorance), and was blocked for it, but he has been reasonably well-behaved as a registered editor, and he should be -- and has been -- encouraged to continue. He is not responsible for Yellowbeard's abuses.--Abd (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou - that clarifies the issue. :) I misread your "this user" to be Yellowbeard, not the other user referred to. Clearly it is a non issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the block of a wasteful single purpose account. Your mainspace edits are non-existent, and your only contributions in recent memory include harassing Abd (talk · contribs) and restoring link-spam. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace WikiProject redirects

I notice a lot of cross-namespace redirects belonging to WikiProject College Football, see Special:PrefixIndex/CFB:. Do any other WikiProjects you're aware of use these? I'm inclined to mass RFD them otherwise. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A less confrontational approach would be to leave a note on the WikiProject talk page (if it is active) and to suggest moving the redirects to something starting "WP:". And then update all the existing links. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS has shortcuts from the MOS prefix. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Casey Ash

This single-edit "article" may need immediate deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and so-deleted. For future reference, CSD tagging is generally sufficient; no need to bring it here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jiang Yuyuan

I'm trying to bring inline with WP:NONENG and WP:GRAPEVINE, yet Tinbin keeps reinstating it -- I've only stepped in (as a member of WP:WikiProject Gymnastics at the request of both Tinbin on my talk page (ironically) and DanielEng on the project's talk page. I'd rather not get caught out by the 3RR, so I'd like to ask you guys for some assistance in the matter. -- ratarsed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request for help. Tinbin is a SPA who seems very angry that the article addresses controversial material, and has not listened when the relevant Wiki policies have been shown to him to explain why some material is appropriate and other material is not. DanielEng (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest heading towards dispute resolution. The people there should be able to help you out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CoolKid1993 redux

Check out User talk:CoolKid1993 as some editors are having problems with him again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified this editor of this discussion, but some diffs would be slightly more helpful in the context. His history isn't great, but not irredeemable, if he will only understand our policies and guidelines. I guess from his username that he is 15 or so and needs some mentoring. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How is "some editors" equal one editor? I've removed my comment after much thinking about the subject, and I do admit that I overreacted about the situation. I would appreciate some guidance though as to what the user was referring to with the italics suggestion, as I can't seem to find anything regarding the subject. CoolKid1993 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Denniseugene

Recently, this user has been claiming that he is country music artist Michael Peterson, and has been making unacceptable edits to his article. This diff appears to be a copyvio from his website, and in this diff, he claimed the photo was "unflattering" and would like to upload a different one. I know that we can usually get photos via OTRS, but I don't know a thing about it. Can anyone tell me how I should deal with this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd highly suggest getting him to send an email to the WP:OTRS (which oddly seems to hide exactly how to...). Also, this is most decidedly unhelpful in this matter. I'm leaving him a note on his talk page, but let's everyone be nice, okay? It's no good to piss the guy off, especially if he is who he says he is. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Swamilive sockpuppet

Packed Lunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Evidently another sockpuppet of banned user Swamilive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). It's the same old crap. -- Dominus (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards