Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 4 October 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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)

Chiropractic

• Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been watching a fair amount of disruption at this article for several weeks now, and believe it could be helped by the general sanctions laid out by the Arbitration Committee, specifically the discretionary sanctions which would allow uninvolved admins to take measures to reduce disruption to the project. The scope of the Pseudoscience case, "interpreted broadly", is said to include but not be limited to all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Although Chiropractic is not specifically categorized (by us) as a pseudoscience topic, it seems fairly obvious that Chiropractic does contain some ideas that are at least "pseudoscientific". For example, see this article, titled "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". In fact, I'd say that the "pseudoscience" aspect of the topic, is one of the key sources of the problems leading to the disruption. So, I'm thinking that the authority from the case's discretionary sanctions would be an appropriate way to address the dispute. Anyone have strong objections? --Elonka 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is pretty mainstream anymore; I'd be pretty hesitant to call it "fringe" given its level of acceptance by pretty conservative groups, like insurance companies and government health programs. There are pseudoscientific elements within mainstream medicine as well. The editing issues in this article are reminiscent of those seen on psychiatric articles. While there is something to be said for helping this article get into shape, I think it's stretching things a fair bit to say this should be considered pseudoscience. Risker (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I think you are confusing generic "mainstream" with "scientific mainstream", which is what is generally meant in this type of discussion. Insurance coverage and legal registration are notable for being influenced by political and economic pressures unrelated to the scientific legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject. Even the most pseudoscientific of all alternative medicine subjects - homeopathy - is protected by special legal exceptions in the USA. If enough voters will sign a petition or write letters to their Congressman, or if an insurance company will earn money by it, anything can get "recognition". Chiropractic is at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. It has characteristics of both, or as some reform chiropractors jokingly put it: "Chiropractors are alternative, but are pretending to be doctors." (Said in the context of how scripts are used in practice building, some of which have been leaked to the outside world as the manipulative things they are. They are normally used only by actors, but are also used by many chiropractors, showing how both professions are pretending (acting) to be something they're not.)

The profession is a blend of obvious CAM, and yet has some mainstream characteristics, so it's "at the crossroads." "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice." The last two paragraphs in this article deal with this, as summarized in the introduction: "The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care. The next decade should determine whether chiropractic maintains the trappings of an alternative health care profession or becomes fully integrated into all health care systems." The implication is obvious: if the "trappings of an alternative health care profession" are dropped, acceptance and integration may follow. Many notable chiropractors have pointed the profession in the direction of dropping belief in the fictive vertebral subluxation and overreliance on spinal adjustments, and seeking acceptance as a back care specialty, akin to dentistry and podiatry. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion - while chiropractic is a topic with some mainstream acceptance, in looking at what's going on on that page, it's being treated as another battleground for the pseudoscience wars between editors who are already under restrictions elsewhere. I think for the purposes of applying the discretionary sanctions it can be included, since it is being included in the same edit wars. This does not reflect any judgment on the classification of the subject matter but rather the classification of the nature of the dispute and its participants. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Morven. -- Fyslee / talk 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in many of the disputes at Chiropractic, and have some comments.

• Whether chiropractic is "pretty mainstream" depends on what one means by the word "mainstream". Although there's a strong consensus among reliable sources that chiropractic is not "mainstream medicine", there's no agreement about what category it should be in. To quote Chiropractic #Scope of practice: "Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); however, a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine."
• Chiropractic is an unusual profession in that so many of its practitioners are clearly WP:FRINGE, and at the same time so many practitioners are just as clearly mainstream (for some definition of "mainstream"). For more on this subject, please see Murphy et al. 2008 (PMID 18759966), entitled "How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry".
• With the above in mind, I expect that it will take some expertise in the area to know whether a series of edits to Chiropractic is about the "mainstream" or the "fringe" parts of chiropractic, and that it will therefore be relatively difficult for uninvolved administrators to decide the best action for a dispute.
• I should mention that User:Elonka and I had a discussion in July about the contents of Chiropractic, with respect to a relatively-minor formatting issue; see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Speedy deletion of former red link. After discussion, we ended up doing things Elonka's way. During the discussion, successive comments by Elonka on Talk:Chiropractic accused me of WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:OWN violations. These accusations were not helpful to the discussion or to Chiropractic, and if this is the sort of oversight that's being proposed here, then we should not do it.

Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not chiropractic itself is "mainstream" may not affect whether the wikipedia disputes about its article have a lot in common with the pseudoscience disputes, and whether the user/s in the dispute are those seen engaging in other disputes on fringe and pseudoscience articles. So I would not look whether the topic is mainstream, but more whether the nature of dispute is similar to the pseudoscience disputes. If it contains a fringe/pseudoscience element or associations, then it is quite possible those same kinds of aspects and issues are at the heart of the dispute here too. On the last point, perhaps a lighter touch in some ways would lead to less contention, but that's a separate matter. Brief comment only on application of a sanction. FT2  10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Largely per FT2, I notice a strong correlation between the dispute over chiropractic and that over homeopathy and other examples of alternative medicine. The same people are involved and the same arguments used, although chiropractic is probably closer to the mainstream medicine side. There is a pending legal action in Britain between the British Chiropractic Association and an author who disputed the benefits of their craft - see Simon Singh - so be careful. My view is that articles about chiropractic do fall within the ambit of the Pseodoscience case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This lawsuit is one of many of a similar type, and is another type of behavior engaged in by supporters of pseudoscience (Scientology, Hulda Clark, Matthias Rath, etc.) Such attempts to silence criticism, which are normally part of scientific disputes and discussion, are pretty much unheard of in the mainstream scientific world. Such disputes and criticisms are normally dealt with through discussion, rebuttal, and the provision of documented evidence, not by suing the one who is criticizing. If any editor receives threats (legal or otherwise) because of their editing here on these subjects, Misplaced Pages authorities need to be contacted immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And psychiatry: . --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect this belongs on WP:AE but I agree that while the content overlap is not 100%, the editor overlap is pretty high, especially if you consider those editors who are making a lot of noise. So it makes sense. In fact, I think that sanction is a sound and pragmatic approach to any long-running content dispute. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The presence of expert editors like Eubulides and Fyslee has helped keep the article balanced. Elonka's summary seems not to recognize this. Ludwigs2 has recently showed up on the talk page; Elonka champions him very much like Jagz/161.243.114.45/Fat Cigar. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is mainstream, the sources even say so. This one is a no brainer. AtticusLecter (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bye now. Thatcher 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that I agree with Mathsci comments. There are regular editors there that work hard to have everyone follow the guidelines for editing that article to try to keep it balanced. Eubulides works especially hard to listen to all comments and writes what they all want to put into the article on the talk page to let everyone edit it there until they reach a consensus to put it into the main article. It's actually very impressive to watch this routine they have set up. I don't think that Elonka needs to step in at this time. My personal opinion on this is that she is not 'uninvolved' since she did have the situation with Eubulides which wasn't pretty plus she has already been involved with a few of the editors there with her restrictions at other articles and isn't really received that well. This is just my opinion that I felt I should share from being mostly a watcher of this article. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGal 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We operate by consensus. Arbitrators and administrators are nothing special. Their opinions here count no more than those of regular editors. Several involved editors have expressed doubts about Elonka's perceived neutrality in this area. I agree that the article can be covered by the pseudoscience case, and encourage her to make a request for sanctions at WP:AE, but to leave enforcement to other administrators. It is best if the parties to a dispute view the referee as a neutral party. Jehochman 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a decision anyone can make, who wishes to act as an uninvolved admin. Looking at this thread, some brief observations:

1. Elonka as I understand it, is not asking to sanction any editor. She is asking for guidance whether or not topic X may reasonably be construed to fall under Arbcom sanction/remedy Y. That is something anyone could ask, involved, uninvolved, anyone. There is no restriction on checking for views or suggesting it. In fact if a user were involved this would be where to bring the idea for consideration. Its a fair reasonable question.
2. Elonka clearly feels that if allowable, the general sanctions would help the disputes on this page. If she has significant "history" (ie, roughly, bad blood) with any editor, of a non-admin nature (ie beyond that she has been an admin on issues related to them in the past) or would not be seen as neutral in warning, tools, or sanctions on them, then she has to weigh that up before making a decision related to that editor. And others may want to comment, or she may wish to ask another admin to review it instead of her. That's normal. but it's not salient for the question she's asking here.
3. Elonka's main involvement as evidenced by QuackGuru's diffs, does seem to be of an administrative nature. This one is about civility, editors' roles and some content issues others need to attend to, and this one and this one about editor conduct. None of these three shows any significant involvement in the topic beyond that of an administrative nature.

Hope that helps. FT2  19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Three arbs have commented on this routine WP:AN thread. You don't see that very often! In any case, please review this conversion, and then this one for full cluefulness about why Elonka might not be the best before choosing an administrator to manage sanctions at chiropractic. Jehochman 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you ever going to let Elonka get on with it without critiquing her approach? How many times have you declared an intention to "avoid Elonka" and yet continued to spring up to comment on threads that involve her? You disapprove of her conduct, the whole wiki probably is aware of that by now - we don't need periodic reminders... WJBscribe (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the merits of what I said. Did you read the links? It is not appropriate for you to attack me because of who I am. Please look at what I said and evaluate it objectively. You will see that I am pointing out an actual issue, citing evidence, and making my remarks in the correct forum, with perfect civility. I wish you would uphold those same standards. I have been active in both Homeopathy and Chiropractic. It is not necessary for me to run and hide when Elonka appears at a locus where I am already active. Jehochman 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are not required to, bar your own undertakings (e.g. ). You could have stuck to just commenting on whether the article fell within the scope of the Arbitration remedy being decided, but apparently couldn't resist needling an administrator you have been a perennial critic of. I don't see an attack in what I posted and my reason for commenting is nothing to do with who you are but rather your attitude with regard to this particular admin. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned once yourself, Elonka and I both operate in the same areas of Misplaced Pages and will inevitably bump into each other quite often. I very much want to avoid strife for the good of Misplaced Pages. FT2's comment above seems not to be fully informed, which is why I posted the follow up, including links. There is history surrounding chiropractic that is not obvious. I agree with the approach being proposed, but suggest we recruit an administrator who does not have a history of disagreement with one, or two, of the main contribut<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ors to the article. Thanks for your input. I have edited my remark above to make it less personal. Jehochman 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking while the iron is hot- not having read every bit of this thread: I think there are only three editors at that article who are likely to get sanctioned. I won't name them, but I think that since the main source of disruption is so limited, but quite pervasive, it would be a good idea to apply the sanctions. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the number is so small, why don't you present evidence at WP:AE and then those particular editors can be warned or sanctioned individually. That way other editors need not be inconvenienced. We should aim to use the minimum force necessary to resolve a problem. Jehochman 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not suicidal, myself. It isn't an article where I have a lot of interest or involvement, and so I don't want to cause myself so much hassle. Further, it isn't as good a solution, because the problem is so totally about only a few of the editors who edit war and argue per IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page, the sanctions won't have any effect on the other editors. This is a good way to make it not about particular editors: just apply it, and whoever falls into the net, those are the ones who should be caught. So, the sanction is the minimum force. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The disruption at the Chiropractic article appears to be fairly complex. On the one hand, there does appear to be a lot of drive-by POV pushing, so some editors there have been doing good work in standing guard over the article and keeping it free of cruft. However, based on what I've seen of the history, I think that at times the article may be being guarded a bit overzealously. I have sometimes seen what appear to be reasonable edits from established contributors, added in good faith and with reliable sources, but the changes are still reverted within minutes. Edit summaries on the reverts range from things like "rvv" to "added without discussion" or "rv to consensus version". However, there does not appear to be an obvious consensus at the talkpage. Indeed, I could probably point out a few places where people in the discussion are saying that there's a consensus, but I think that other reasonable editors might disagree as to whether a true consensus existed or not. At times, some editors seem to be confusing the idea of "consensus" with "majority", which is definitely not in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Consensus. So with strong opinions on either side, the article appears to be in the middle of a large game of tug of war, being yanked this way and that.

Another conflict at the article has to do with the sequence of edits. Some editors seem to be of the camp of "Discuss controversial edits before they can go into the article," and others are more following WP:BRD, meaning they're going to make controversial edits until/unless someone reverts them. And of course it's always problematic when an editor uses one method for themselves, but insists on something different from everyone else ("I can add anything I want at any time, but you have to get permission first before you can post something ...")

In order to try and get the article back to a state of healthy editing via discretionary sanctions, this could proceed in one of two ways:

• Sanctions focused on editors, meaning identify a few editors whose presence might be causing more disruption than it's resolving, and asking them to stay away from the article for a certain period of time to see if that helps stabilize things.
• Sanctions focused on the article, such as to put it under a revert limitation, or other editing conditions such as, "Do not delete citations without discussion".

My own feeling (which others may disagree with), is that one of the first things that needs to be done is to get people away from using the Revert button as an editing tool. So a revert restriction might help to calm things down a bit. I tend to like a "0RR except for vandalism/unsourced" restriction, but others may disagree. In my experience though, once an article's atmosphere can be changed to a style of, "Don't delete other people's edits, change them", that it can help get past the kind of roadblocks that this article is experiencing.

What do others think? --Elonka 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an extensive history of edit warring and protection? If so, I think we should allow a single revert (1RR) followed by discussion. We may need to ban A-B-C-D type revert wars where each editor does one revert. The problem with 0RR is that it puts good faith editors on par with tendentious editors. If something goes in, there needs to be an ability to take it out, and then follow up with discussion. That is the natural state of things. Ordinary dispute resolution and noticeboards can be used to help resolve disagreements, even when general sanctions are in effect.

If there are limited number of editors who have been causing problems, can we identify them and apply warnings or restrictions? If so, I would very much support that idea. This article does fall under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Lastly, I recommend starting with the least intrusive sanctions, and then increasing the restrictions as needed until the problem resolves. Jehochman 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some combination: something like 1RR, plus sanctions on disruptive editors. The problem with 0RR is that one can put in or delete anything, and no one can do anything about it. You could take out a whole section, and to put it back, an editor would have to re-write the whole section. Also, one can put in information which just should not be there- and no one can do much about it. So I don't think focusing on the article that way is a good idea: you are dealing with clever people here. However, a 1RR per day on the article coupled with editor banning for disruption or other violations might help a lot. (1RR helps because editors are much more conservative with their one revert, being as it's golden). The "Do not delete citations without discussion" might help. However, what you say about consensus- Is that true? My reading of it is that consensus = supermajority, between 75 and 90 percent, as I interpret it myself. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As Martinphi says, 1RR coupled with article banning for disruption should work. Jayjg 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a disheartening example of admin or ArbCom actions taking article editing out of the hands of some of our finest editors (eg Eubulides) and really making a mess of things. Anytime we're deprecating an editor of the caliber of Eubulides, we're on the wrong track; that appears to be where Elonka's direction has taken the article. This is ranking right up there as one of Wiki's greatest gaffes. Placing editors of the caliber of Eubulides (who actually know what they're talking about, are civil and courteous, and can cite high quality reliable sources all day long) on par with tendentious POV-pushing SPAs, and then deprecating his knowledge to second-guessing by admins who don't know the topic, does not bode well for Wiki's future. It's most discouraging for the many civil and knowledgeable science editors to see this happening. I hope that if Wiki persists in staying this disastrous course, taking editing out of the hands of the most knowledgeable, that we will at least bring in neutral, unbiased and clueful admins who are known to work well with others. I can think of many who could do a fine job here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said Eubulides? I doubt it would effect him. He and I disagree about the issue of what is and is not OR/SYNTH, but he is not going to get whacked with this. And I promise that any admin who goes into Chiro and does anything they do based on what they think in a content dispute, rather than what they think of user behavior, I will take every action against them that I can. Yes, I've heard things like this have been done on other articles. Admins have no business in content disputes when they are acting as admins. But I'll certainly do my best to see that doesn't happen here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of her past actions, Elonka would probably not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers. I would guess that she is probably a little out of her depth here: her analysis of editing behaviour was made independently of content issues, a bad sign. Her use of the word "overzealousness" is also disturbing. My fear is that her 0RR rule and push for micro-compromise will not result in a more scholarly encyclopedia article. It could create a borstal atmosphere on the talk page that could well alienate star contributors. It would seem more appropriate if one of the many administrators that have been more actively involved in discussions on WP:FTN could keep an eye on the page, e.g. Dougweller, MastCell, etc. Elonka's recent brush with pseudoscience was not particularly helpful, when she edited on behalf of a POV-pusher Zero g over a fairly minor matter. Elonka got caught up in her own pet conspiracy theories which she trumpeted on talk pages. A hands-off more informed touch is surely what is required when dealing with pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, that three arbs have weighed in here in favor of Elonka's management of these articles, even after seeing diffs of her treatment of Eubulides, should give anyone reading a clue as to whether good, civil, conscientous, knowledgeable science editors are going to want to continue to engage these articles. How many editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers and Eubulides does ArbCom think we have; they don't grow on trees. This entire situation gives the appearance that we've turned article editing over to those who know the least about the topics, and we put knowledgeable editors on an equal stance with tendentious POV-pushing editors. If these articles need this sort of oversight, I can think of several knowledgeables admins who also have good interpersonal skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you're missing the question being asked. Elonka asked whether the scope of Arbcom remedy X "broadly interpreted" covers topic dispute Y. That's why arbitrators have posted comments. It's to be expected when an Arbcom matter is the subject of the question.

Separate from "can this sanction be applied", if you are worried that Elonka may misjudge Eubulides' editing, I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force.

FT2  17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Separately, some of your apprehensions are badly mistaken. You say that three arbs "weighed in to favor Elonka's management". In fact the question the arbitrators here were addressing was applicability of the remedy. Of these three, not one mentions Elonka, much less shows any "favor" for any named editor to "manage" the issue. My second post mentions Elonka in the context of correcting others' errors, and likewise doesn't "favor" anyone. Without great discussion, can you take care not to claim others to be saying or doing things they haven't.) FT2  17:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1) You're missing the question being asked. No, I'm answering the question that should have been asked and is implied in the question that was asked: the question goes beyond "should sanctions be applied" to "should Elonka continue to be among the group of admins monitoring such sanctions" considering the judgment she has already shown. As others have stated here and elsewhere, she does "not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers", so how effectively the sanctions can be applied is a function of who is applying them. 2) I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. My conversations with Elonka have already been linked in this thread, and you can see how they went. I can link you to other examples of other discussions with Elonka if you're interested. 3) Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force. The editors I most often interact with are never in territory of having any sanctions applied to their editing. More importantly, with the heavy handedness already in evidence, what I am trying to make very clear is that I (like many other editors) have no intention of going anywhere near those pages. That is the problem being created and that is the question I'm answering, even if the wrong questions are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, your post clearly stated as a given fact that "three arbs" had spoken up to "favor" Elonka's "management" -- and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way. If the question you have is (quite reasonably) "should Elonka be one of those monitoring the sanctions", that's fine, discuss it. But don't ascribe to others, stances that they haven't in any way held, for the purposes of arguing against it. Like it or not, that is the very definition of straw man. FT2  09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Take care there with the same, FT2: ... and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way ... rather than obliquely accusing me of making false statements, in fact, it would be helpful if you would explain how the notion of ArbCom endorsement of Elonka management of these cases evolved, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't spend all their time following ArbCom cases. Are you saying ArbCom's doesn't endorse the preferential standing Elonka has assumed in the management of these articles? I don't knowingly make false statements so I thank you not to accuse me of same. Heavy handed replies to legitimate editor concerns aren't going to help restore good editing by content experts to troubled articles—a situation which appears to have been created and furthered by ArbCom; please address the current issue rather than digressing into how closely I followed what brought us to this point or how intimately I followed the ArbCom case. (You may not have noticed that keeping up with one massive ArbCom case at a time detracts from content contributions, which is what some of us primarily spend our time on.) No, my question goes even farther than "should Elonka be monitoring these sanctions" to "how did we get to a place that ArbCom appears to be appointing or sanctioning people who aren't content experts to place content experts on equal footing with tendentious SPA POV pushers. Now if my impression of what is going on here is incorrect, feel free to correct that impression without accusing me of misrepresenting what I perceive to be the current situation. I'd like some understanding of how this approach (favoring SPA POV pushers over content experts) is going to result in better article content, but please don't ignore the impression created with heavy handed responses that create a distraction. Why is ArbCom furthering an arrangement whereby one admin, who has already been in conflict with content experts, is managing these articles over content experts? I realize you may have a different view from the time you spend in Wiki's messiest situations at ArbCom, but accusing a good editor of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL is not something good editors take lightly; regardless of whether Elonka actually used admin tools, that sort of management of these articles sends a very clear messages to Wiki's finest science editors to stay away from those articles, so they are likely to fall under the influence of the kinds of editors Elonka has supported. The threat of action can be as powerful as admin action. Surely, FT2, you agree that intimate knowledge of sources, and reliance on and understanding of how to use the very best sources, should be a goal in editing science articles, no? Particularly when that intimate knowledge comes in an editor conveniently packaged to include a healthy amount of AGF and civil and courteous editing? Surely that's not the kind of editor you want to discourage from editing, no? So how have we come to a position whereby ArbCom appears to be behind an arrangement that places content experts on par with tendentious POV pushers, an arrangement furthered by what many have stated is ineffective management of that decision? Is the problem in the decision to begin with or in by whom and how it's being enforced. And if my understanding of ArbCom's role in this case is incorrect (which it very well could be, considering the time it takes to wade through them), I welcome you to politely set the record straight for all readers, but accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting something isn't going to resolve the unfortunate fact that POV pushers are now favored over content experts on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully. I wasn't commenting on the administration, the editors, or any other matter. Questions of how sanctions got chosen, who operates them, other peripheral issues -- none of that was the topic of Sam, Morven or my own comments. You made as a starting point, a comment that you knew was absolutely not so. Three arbs had each made utterly clear they were commenting on applicability of the existing sanction to the topic, and nothing more. Not one specified Elonka or any other admin in any way. (I posted a follow-up post that mentioned her to correct visible errors.) Despite this, you represented as a fact in your post, that "three arbs weighed in favoring Elonka's management", which clearly was not so. Although the posts and their authors specifically and obviously did not comment to suggest who should manage (if anyone should), you stated as fact that all three did so post, a clear, obvious, and significant misrepresentation. It is courteous not to misrepresent others in a discussion, and to apologize if you have inadvertantly done so. That is true for all of us, whatever the case. FT2  00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Mathsci, content issues are not to be considered. Both the admins you mention, while of good intent, carry heavy POVs relative to the subject area, and DoughWeller has expressed a willingness to allow OR. So no- an admin willing to restrain herself to editor behavior is exactly what we need. Tim Vickers and Eubulides, I guarantee you, are not going to get whacked- certainly not over content decisions on the part of the admin, not without me making such a stink as you've seldom seen. However, again, any use of admin authority (including threats) to determine content is out. Thus, what the admin actually knows about the subject does not need to be that great. Rather, they need to know policy. If people here want to set up WP as something done or overseen by experts, fine, just change WP. But don't try to apply it in limited cases, or without officially changing WP. So, please leave off thinking that an admin should determine content. Else, I have a few admins I'd like to oversee articles and apply these sanctions. Not really (that is, I respect NPOV and WP too much), but you get the point. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian. He has made extraordinary statements about adminstrators Dougweller and MastCell. Elonka's interactions with Eubulides have been problematic. It is unclear why she feels that her intervention here will help matters; is she determined to make a point with one of her ill-fated "experiments"? Why has she made no mention of the beneficial participation of experts on this page? She has not said one positive thing about Eubulides, which surely must sound alarm bells for many wikipedians, including those on the arbitration committee. Elonka appears to have serious problems with expert contributors. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I edit the Chiropractic article, though not much in recent weeks. I think 1RR would be preferable to 0RR and no remedy may be needed at all. I follow 1RR voluntarily, and if 1RR is applied to the page I might decide to voluntarily follow 0RR at that page.

I agree with SandyGeorgia that Eubulides is an extremely valuable contributor to the Chiropractic article. Eubulides puts in a lot of time and effort following the various discussions and reading the sources. Eubulides listens and responds to the substance of arguments, is very civil and knowledgeable, avoids editwarring, and acts as a stabilizing influence to help form compromises between other editors. I often disagree with Eubulides in content disputes, but I nevertheless believe that any remedy applied to the page which alienates Eubulides would be doing far more harm than good.

I agree with Martinphi that admins acting in their role as admins should not enforce decisions on content disputes; this is essential to having the best chance of maintaining a NPOV encyclopedia.

WJBScribe, I don't quite understand on what basis you're criticizing Jehochman for expressing an opinion here. Perhaps your theory is that if someone has criticized someone else extensively, then they should not criticize that same person again. With respect, I disagree with that theory, and apparently so does Elonka.

Mathsci, re "Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian": please comment on the substance of this discussion, not on the participants. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored the first comment. Martinphi's comments about MastCell and Dougweller seem quite unjustified, in view of their known qualities as administrators or editors. This debate concerns how various personalities might interact if certain sanctions were implemented. I would add that WP:expert retention is also a major issue here. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring, Mathsci. You've stated that some of Martinphi's comments seem unjustified, but you haven't explained why you hold that opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, because MastCell and Dougweller are commonly accepted to be two of our most able, informed and balanced administrators? Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of Elonka's involvement at chiropractic

Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article. and Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides. Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Those were all in July. Any evidence that she should recuse herself from the recent dispute? --erachima talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated. While Eubulides has edited the article recently, he is not a part of the current dispute, so past dealings regarding him should be moot. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Elonka is not part of the current dipute. Per WP:UNINVOLVED: If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question

Since Elonka has been involved in a past dispute she does not qualify as uninvolved. QuackGuru 05:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

She isn't a significant editor of the page, and she wasn't in this content dispute but rather some trivial thing over redlinks that's unrelated to the issue. --erachima talk 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this wasn't a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the style of formatting for references. This misrepresentation is typical of the disruptive editing that occurs at Talk: Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Elonka is a significant editor or is not involved in a current content dispute. Once an admin has been involved, then that admin is disqualified to be uninvolved.

She has been involved in a content dispute in the past with a significant contributor and was edit warring against a significant contributor. QuackGuru 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the diffs you cite show Elonka in a rather mild tussle with Eubulides about a technical issue of whether or not to link journal names and publishers in references. This is Manual of Style matter rather than a content issue. Elonka hasnt participated in writing the content of the article at all. I personally agree with Elonka that all journal names should be linked, even if they are redlinks. When I am acting as an uninvolved admin, my first step is to improve the citations that are already in use (collapsing duplicates, adding redlinks, finding ISBNs and OCLCs, etc), so that I as an uninvolved admin can better grasp what parts of the article are well cited and which are not. It also invites editors to research the sources that they are using in order to write meaningful stubs, which helps everyone involved to understand exactly what bias each source has, so that the source can be evaluated more thoroughly. If the editors dont do this, I will often go ahead and create bland stubs for them to get the ball rolling. I am sure that a lot of admins do the same, or if they dont -- they should! The tussle that Elonka had with Eubulides over this was ages ago, and is not a content issue. Do you think that those diffs indicate that is Elonka likely to take a side against Eubulides? Or act like an involved admin? What conclusions are you making about those diffs? It looks to me like you are inventing a problem in order to declare that Elonka is involved. To what end? John Vandenberg 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait! For purposes of the discretionary sanctions, the proper definition of "uninvolved administrator" to use is this one: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Remedies, subsection "Uninvolved administrators", which says "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." Therefore, a dispute in the past over formatting of references does not prevent Elonka from enforcing sanctions at this article as an "uninvolved administrator". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup query

Per the three links posted at the top of this thread, I see a message at Talk:Chiropractic stating: "FYI, according to discussions at the administrators' noticeboard, there appears to be a rough consensus among uninvolved editors and admins that the Chiropractic article falls within the scope of the Pseudoscience arbitration case." I'm not seeing that rough consensus; I'm seeing as much well founded doubt, concern and opposition as support. Does the consensus reside in the fact that the decision is under the remit of ArbCom per the previous case, and some arbs and former arbs are in favor, in spite of concern and warnings from other editors? I just want to make sure I understand what drives this process. Since the result of putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers could be article deterioration, I hope we're clear on why we're doing this. I'm not yet clear if it's a good idea because I have yet to see it well implemented, but what I have seen is editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers bringing controversial articles like Evolution to featured status rather quickly; this is what we don't want to risk losing by putting our finest editors on par with tendentious SPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. One is whether chiropractic should be under "article probation"; it appears there is support for this, and I would tend to agree, since it has been the scene of unfortunate editing practices and in theory probation simply makes these easier to deal with. Properly implemented, probation should make it easier for excellent editors like Tim or Eubulides, or User:Dematt, to develop the article while better restricting tendentious or agenda-driven accounts.

The other issue is whether Elonka should be one of the admins enforcing the probation. While Elonka undoubtedly does many things well and I have absolute confidence that she acts in good faith, I am not confident that her involvement here will lead to a better editing environment or an article which better furthers the project's goal of producing a serious, respected reference work. That is my opinion based on a series of prior events which I don't feel like elaborating upon at this juncture, but which are probably high-profile enough to be familiar. My concern is that her approach has in the past tended to place solid editors at a disadvantage with respect to agenda-driven tendentious accounts. I think that's the sort of "probation" which Sandy and a few others are concerned about. MastCell  21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I second SG's concern regarding the rough consensus.

• The notification at the Chiro talk page was 00:43, 26 September 2008. The discussion on the notice board at this time was thus. Of the participants who had taken place in that time frame, four had raised objections (Risker, Eubulides, Mathsci, and CrohnieGal), and four had made "in principle" agreement (Matthew Brown, FT2, Sam Blacketer, Guy).
• Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page was created two-ish days before at 15:35, 24 September 2008.

brenneman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno'. Most of the people who don't like the idea say the reason is Elonka's involvement, and not whether or not the article falls under the ArbCom case. Since there are other admins who've volunteered to work on this (such as myself, MBisanz, and brenneman on Talk:Chiropractic), it shouldn't be a problem.

Elonka has stated that the Admin log was created early as a platform to figure out which editors would be considered involved, so that they could be notified if the above thread resulted in a consensus that the article falls into the ArbCom case. Being prepared seems kosher to me.

Given the amount of resistance to having Elonka work on this above, though, I do have to agree that she might wish to remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. I make no assumptions about her actual involvement, but editors would raise a royal stink if she actually applied any sanctions, which I believe is generally not worth everyone's collective time.

As a possible other solution, which I believe would actually be better all around and should address the concerns, perhaps everyone on the list of uninvolved admins should discuss any sanctions with the others on the list before applying them? This should ensure that heavy-handed, improper, unnecessary, or otherwise improper sanctions aren't carried out. I know that I have no bones to pick in this area and can remain neutral, and I believe that MBisanz would be the same. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that however this turns out doesn't involve too many drahmahz. lifebaka++ 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not only sanctions: it's the threat of sanction and unjust accusations towards solid editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions and can continue edit as normal. The sanctions, as far as I can tell, should and will only be directed towards users who are disrupting work on the article. However, if these solid editors could actually be affected by sanctions, under the instance I just described, I would hope that they will adjust their editing patterns such that sanctions will not actually be necessary.

What I believe you are objecting strongly to, when you allude to "putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers" (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that you believe the sanctions imply that all editors working on Chiropractic are somehow disruptive. I'm not sure that this necessarily holds true. Simply because there are issues involving an article does not mean that all users working on that article are at fault. From what I've seen watching the article for the past few days, most of the contributors there don't cause trouble. So, the purpose of the sanctions first should be to determine which editors are holding up consensus by beating dead horses; are edit waring in excess, with or without consensus on their side; or are making edits specifically against consensus. Then, these editors can be properly dealt with through the use of whatever sanctions are necessary so that the article can continue to be developed/worked on/etc. I personally am still working on the first part of this process, since I haven't been watching the article very long. I can assure everyone keeping tabs on this that whichever editors are considered the most solid at Chiropractic probably are not currently the ones I am watching. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that made sense. lifebaka++ 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All editors working on Chiro are disruptive? No, that assumption is completely incorrect; have you read this thread? Aware that I'm repeating myself, I'll try again. It is not the threat of sanctions, because the editors that I most often associate with and edit with would never put themselves in a position of being anywhere near sanction; they just don't edit that way. When reputable editors, known for solid reliance on the highest quality sources as much as they are known for civil courteous and respectful editing and "writing for the enemy" are accused of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL, the issue is that good editors will simply stay away from the article and our articles will suffer as others who are coddled and supported move in. We have someone involved in managing these articles who has already shown tendencies towards some editors and not others. Most editors of repute don't enjoy having their reputations damaged by heavy-handed accusations. And if this begins to happen across other science or medical articles, well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll also point out the level of commitment, knowledge and awareness of policy that it takes to maintain multiple articles subject to off-Wiki canvassing at featured status: articles like autism and Asperger syndrome. Eubulides has 875 edits on Template:FA autism, 848 on Template:FA Daylight saving time and 309 on Template:FA Asperger syndrome (and he maintains just about everything related to those articles), and yet there has not been an issue with his editing until Elonka's accusations; how many admins have that kind of record on any article, or a featured article, or a controversial article? For this arrangement to result in the professional articles we should aspire to for medicine requires effective and fair management by experienced admins who respect, understand and recognize quality edits, editors and sourcing. We already have indications that may not be the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I believe I understand. While there have allusions to activity of that sort on the part of Eubulides above (of which I have no opinion), I do not believe that is the reason the article falls under the possibility of sanctions. The reason for that is that the article involves a dispute between mainstream and minority views of science, and is the issues cropping up are of the same sort as those in the Pseudoscience case (the application of which is supposed to be "broadly interpreted"). Specific actions of editors don't appear to have factored largely into this decision, whether these actions be disruptive or not. It seems your complaint is with Elonka specifically and not the sanctions generally. Because of how apparently widespread sentiments of this nature are, I asked Elonka above to please remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. It will and is clearly a cause of contention, and I'm sure that myself and MBisanz, as well as any other admins who would like to help us, can handle the dispute on our own. Elonka has indicated to me that she was hoping to leave this mostly to us anyways, so this shouldn't be too big of a deal.

If there are similar sentiments about me, I will also gladly remove myself from the list of uninvolved admins. It is not worth the collective time of everyone involved if actions undertaken by myself in this need to be second-guessed and checked over, or will become the source of unnecessary drahmahz. There are other admins who could easily perform the same function. So, please let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents, I'm intending to take a light-touch method to sanctions on this article. It is on my watchlist now and I will probably at some point place a comment on the talk page invoking the need for reliable sources, adherence to the fringe guidelines, and an emphasis on discussion over edit warring. Hopefully that will be all that is required. If not, then other methods will need to be considered. Ideally the article should be editable to the most people, so I am thinking that per-editor restrictions will be the way I will lean. Probably starting with 1RR on warring editors and escalating to article-edit bans. My goal is that the mere fact sanctions may be applied will persuade tendentious editors from disrupting things. MBisanz 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR proposed for all editors of Chiropractic

An administrator has now proposed a 1RR rule for every editor at Chiropractic. This proposal seemingly goes against several of the comments made above. For example, it disagrees with the comment "solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions", as the rule affects solid editors along with everyone else. Discusson of this proposal is currently at Talk:Chiropractic #Requesting page protection. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit late for the party, I'm afraid. Consensus over there is already well against it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka proposed 1RR, MBisanz wrote that 1RR is better than qualitative restrictions, and Levine2112 favored 1RR; QuackGuru and I opposed 1RR. This isn't consensus for 1RR, but it's not "well against it" either, surely. Unless that "well against" is not counting the uninvolved administrators (Elonka, MBisanz)? Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The language I used is rather strong, but that consensus is much easier to read than a lot. I guess it'd be more appropriate to say "obviously" against. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be curious as to who exactly Eubulides thinks are the "solid editors" and who are the "non-solid editors". --Elonka 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Solid editors are those who use high-quality sources (as per WP:MEDRS for medical articles), and who summarize what those sources say as accurately, as clearly, and as concisely as possible. Also please see #Coaching suggestions for Chiropractic below. Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Coaching suggestions for Chiropractic

• Coaching can help non-solid editors become solid, and solid editors to become more solid. When coaching, though, it's better to focus on the core aspects of Misplaced Pages, e.g., summarizing what reliable sources say. It's less helpful to focus the coaching on procedural issues. For example, coaching an editor to modify unrelated pages so as to not appear to be a single-purpose account focused on Chiropractic, in such a way that the editor immediately goes off and adds some other pages to their contributions log, is not that helpful for advancing core Misplaced Pages goals.
• Another suggestion for coaching is to give similar coaching advice to both sides of the dispute. Advising one side of a dispute to avoid the appearance of being a single-purpose account, without giving similar advice to the other side, gives the impression of partisanship on the part of the advisor.

Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lurking comments: the crux of the first suggestion should be to persuade the user to not edit like an SPA, not to not appear like one. The underlying message of the noted suggestion is to have them become further interested in building a better encyclopedia. When that is not made explicit, a user whose goals are not all aligned with the project can follow the suggestion to the letter but return without their goals changed. This helps no one, and in fact may be subtly harmful, as in the worst case scenario a user who needs coaching has learned a skill to avoid scrutiny, and thus deflecting incentive for others to support calls for their coaching.

For the second suggestion, in any case the coaching should take into account the individual editors' areas deemed amenable to coaching. No specifics were given, but of course if the areas are the same for more than one editor, appropriate equity is needed. I should point out that in the case of the topic page, different editors have considerably different areas where coaching could help. But in general, the advice is sound.

A third suggestion from my uninvolved but not disinterested self: Let's always keep in mind that we are not a battleground. Even when good faith differences of opinion exist, it pays to remember that we are here to write a good encyclopedia. We can all be on the same side of that endeavor. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this shouldn't be a battleground. There aren't "sides", either in talking about the dispute or in reality (from what I've seen over there). So, my view is that suggestions should be given to editors who are a problem, and it'd be sorta' a waste to give those suggestions to editors who aren't a problem, regardless of the ideological position of said editors. I mean, you'd find it disruptive if I cautioned you "not to edit like an SPA", right? Anyways, just my two cents. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru topic ban

I'm considering topic-banning User:QuackGuru from these articles for one week, since the consensus on the talkpage seems to be that his editing is disruptive. I'd welcome other input on this, either here or on the article talkpage (Talk:Chiropractic#Topic_ban), and if anybody wished to volunteer to act as a long-term mentor for this editor that would be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The 19th block ever - Request for a serious topic ban/ban for a former community banned edit-warrior

Today, we witnessed the 19th block ever of Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Refer also to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Koavf.

This user and edit-warrior has been editing for so long and has amassed a large number of edits. He's been an asset to Misplaced Pages in some areas especially with edits dealing with tagging and other technical ones (moves, redirects, etc) though I am not sure if some other editors would agree with me since there have been many editors discussing his moves during different periods (see his talk archives).

However, his history of blocks (with no less than 18 19 blocks) is more than alarming. He has a history of edit warring and tendentious editing. In fact,he was community banned back on November 2006 for " extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience" as his block log shows. (see indefinite block of 10 November 2006 by user:Dmcdevit). At that time, I opposed an indefinite ban and opted for a topic ban instead (see comments by my former username user:Szvest by following the link above)...

A couple of months later, he filed an unban request and sent it to the ArbCom. And on June 2007 user:Newyorkbrad, acting as an ArbCom clerk at that time and implementing the ArbCom ruling, unblocked him with "implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year" as shown on his block log.

Between June 2007 (his return) and May 2008 (his last block) he was blocked no less then 6 times for the same behavior.

...Now, and after exactly 2 years after his community ban, here we are again. Nothing has changed at all.

I must say that I've had relatively good interactions with him for more than 3 years now but I really regret seeing no change in his edit-warring behavior. It is really too much and it is more than "exhasting patience". I cannot edit articles with someone who has a long history of edit warring with no signs of restraint.

So please comment on this issue because it is really tiring to see someone with a long history of non-stop edit-warring still editing Misplaced Pages and never caring about wp:Consensus (he refuses to acknowledge there has been any consensus as long as he's the only one not accepting it - see Morocco's talk page and the archive page N°2 of the talk).

I, therefore, see no other option except requesting a topic ban (or a complete ban) for user:Koavf unless he promisses the community seriously that he'd be respecting wp:Consensus and abide by ]. He's said this before requesting his unban appeal and I must be very cautious to assume good faith now. A 20th block would be a joke.

Note: The following is a summary of the community ban of 2006 for people who won't read the whole detailed link above (copied and pasted from that same thread):

Summary of 2006 community ban poll

• Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*,Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
• Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
• Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
• Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
• Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
• Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*

• • Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)

* indicates non-admins.

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

-- fayssal - wiki up 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I was just acting as an Arbitration Clerk last year implementing a committee decision. I don't believe I had any opinion one way or the other at that time regarding the unblock/restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I've just noted it. -- fayssal - wiki up 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why ArbCom didn't either reopen the case, or implement the sanction they deemed appropriate by adding another motion for that case...particularly if this was the 15th or 19th block, basically concerning the same issues that were encountered in that case.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Endorse ban. I know the history rather vaguely, though i have read up on it just now. 19 blocks? Inexcuseable, no matter the cause. Note that if you remove the later unblocks, it's 15 blocks total. That's still a ridiculous amount. Wizardman 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Ditto, and really does seem incapabl of working well with others. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have no objection. It looks like they have such a long history of disruption that they are incapable of changing. Jehochman 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban I don't have any memories of interacting with this person, but having just spent some time reviewing his case, and he has not shown any desire to abide by either the standard set of expected behaviors of all Misplaced Pages editors, nor has he been particularly good at abiding by the specific set of guidelines developed when his last indef ban was lifted. It is an insult to all editors to be given a second chance as he was, and then to refuse to ammend ones behavior. The ban should return. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban I do not think I've interacted with this user directly, but a look through his history of interactions with other editors and block history shows ample cause for a ban. henrik•talk
• Endorse ban This shows why we need a forum like WP:RfBan. MBisanz 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - 19 blocks is simply too many second chances. Where is the theoretical limit to the amount of blocks one user can be issued before they can be banned? I'd guess at less than 19. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seems he hasn't learnt his lesson. However, I'm hesitant to say ban permanently because of all the good he has done. Some people are just very passionate about the topics they're interested in. I don't see that as a problem. -- how do you turn this on 12:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, this argument has been used and tested more than once. I, myself, used it twice in different years. It never worked and I, among many admins and users since 2006, see that as a problem indeed. -- fayssal - wiki up 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. Well, one of our guidelines is WP:COI, and I suppose Koavf is breaking that by his constant revert wars to his own preferred version (please correct me if I've completely misinterpreted that guideline). If he's causing even an arbitrator heartache, I suppose a ban would be needed, unfortunately. -- how do you turn this on 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's WP:OWN, but still a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:COI issue at all, not even WP:OWN. His userpage has the answer:
• a) I think that Misplaced Pages is one of the few Internet communities worth joining, and the anarchistic approach to editing is its strongest feature.
• b) I particularly try to represent the interests of truth. -- fayssal - wiki up 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um. A consistent troublemaker, but looking at it in more detail the last block was in May, which is a while ago. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse 19 blocks negates ANY amount of good work. ⇒SWATJester 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Inexcusable behaviour and thus ban, trumps any 'good work' seen. Time between recent block and last block only highlights the sustained disruption. Caulde 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - Koavf also has 110K+ edits, so that's basically one block per ~5,500 edits. Looking through his contributions, he has a pretty varied interests. The latest block was for edit warring on Morocco - I would assume most of his blocks and problems were for edit warring on Moroccan or Western Saharan topics? If that's the case wouldn't it make sense to try a strict topic ban on all Moroccan/Western Saharan articles (interprated broadly), perhaps even with 1RR per week restriction to go with it? I'm not familiar with this editor, but looking through his contribs shows that he's also doing a lot of good editing, and I would like to explore the alternatives for the ban. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you're saying, but making a lot of edits doesn't excuse a user from poor conduct. I mean, User:Bearcat has 200K edits, but no blocks. Wizardman 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I simply wanted to note the number because it shows Koavf has done a lot in addition to the stuff that lead to the previous ban. What it also means is that there is little chance of doing a comprehensive review of his contributions... However, my impression is that his behaviour outside Morocco/Western Sahara is – as far as edit warring is concerned – within the community norms. There are some blocks outside his hot topics, but not that many. The past history has shown that he is either unwilling or unable to moderate his behaviour, so the solution is either a full ban or a topic ban. At the moment, I would favour trying topic ban and seeing where that leads. – Sadalmelik ☎ 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favour of a partial ban on Morocco-related articles. Everyme 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments A few things that may (or may not?) be informative: In the past (at least), the user uses tools to "help" with page moves from WP:RM and WP:CFD. This is part of why the seemingly high edit count. We've had quite a few issues with the user's past use of the tools. (Including using the tools to edit war to "enforce" a "decision" (which may or may not be "appropriate"), followed by less-than-civil comments to the users in question.) I'm roughly neutral to the ban - quantity of blocks don't sway me as much as the quality of blocks - and he may indeed deserve a new lengthy block for continually getting blocked for 3RR. And based on past experience all tool usage should probably be revoked. - jc37 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. This really saddens me, because I've worked with the editor in the past in encouraging him to use WP:CFD rather than performing unilateral category renames, and I think since then he's become a net asset to CFD. (All of the blocks are relatively unrelated to his good work there, though.) But 19 blocks is just too many for the community to tolerate, especially when the blocks seem to be for the same problems repeating over and over again. Good Ol’factory 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question isn't the problem limited to Morocco and Western Sahara-related articles? I'm concerned about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Topic bans are a solution for productive editors who have one hot button; why aren't we entertaining this instead? Durova 02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, user may have made some positive contributions, but these are outweighed by the constant edit warring. At this point, I think the user is more trouble than they're worth. Lankiveil 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
• Oppose ban - I would like to see a topic ban tried first, along the lines Durova suggests. And remove all his tool access (purge his monobook etc). fish&karate 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• By the looks of things this bloke is an incorrigible edit-warrior, due to the whole Western Sahara independence POV thingy. In which case I would simply suggest a topic-ban from this set of articles. A full siteban may not be needed. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban on the set of articles that he usually gets in trouble with. I'm very hesitant to ban any editor with that amount of good edits because he is very passionate about certain subjects. However, his disruption to those certain subjects should be ended. --Banime (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban. Clearly Koavf has a lot to contribute to the project but just can't be relied on in this single area. -- Earle Martin 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know him outside of CFD. Yes, we had problems with him in the past, but as GO has said above, he appears to have taken positive steps since then. I would strongly like to see a topic ban tried first, but if consensus is for a full ban, well, 19 blocks does say something. --Kbdank71 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban It's good to see that this guy is overall highly helpful and has contributed more than almost anyone else, but 19 blocks...unless it could be established that some or all of the blocks were unwarranted (which I can't imagine, given that this guy's case has already gone through ArbCom), this is just too many. Note, especially, that he was on parole, getting blocked several times but for never more than a week: if someone commits an offense while on parole, they get in worse trouble than they would have been if they'd not been on parole. I'm sorry (no offense intended toward anyone who thinks otherwise), but I think there's no good reason to permit such a dedicated edit warrior to continue at a website where edit warring is prohibited. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Having been familiar with a very large mess he created in the past, and the fact that he has been blocked so many times now, there comes a point where enough is enough. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. For the record, I have been blocked (by my count) 20 times, making me even more disruptive that Koavf, so I suppose by this logic someone should be opening a similar discussion about me. No, this is not the way we deal with dedicated and constructive contributors, regardless of any disputes they may be involved in. Everyking (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific Sanctions - proposals

Should the above community ban proposal fail, I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption in this area:

1) Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.

2) Koavf is limited to one revert per week per page. This includes page moves.

3) Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Koavf/Community_sanction.

4) Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.

5) Koavf is prohibited from editing articles relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed, but may edit talk pages provided that he is civil in his interactions.

NOTE: Sanction 1 and 5 are alternatives so only one of them can pass - if sanction 1 passes, it will override sanction 5, or if sanction 1 fails, sanction 5 will override it. Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Support All - prefer sanction 5 over 1", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #4 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support All - prefer 1 over 5 as it is tendentious editing. Passionate in the area he was editing in; I don't want to see him acting on that passion in other areas if we're allowing him beyond that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't like clause 5, I'd prefer to see a total topic ban, if not a site ban, which is my first choice. MBisanz 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, tweaked it once more as they're individual sanctions, so although 5 may not pass, the rest can if the community supports. (I personally don't see any benefit in 5 so I only supported 1 2 3 and 4.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support proposal 1 if reworded to read Morocco and Western Sahara-related articles, broadly construed. The rest is overkill. This discussion has already made it clear that he's inches from outright sitebanning. Hands off the hot button and we're glad to have you around. Durova 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the total topic ban. Perhaps they can be useful in areas where they are unlikely to edit war. Having steps before a site ban is a good idea, and I support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2-4. I feel sanction 5 is not broad enough, and may lead to disruptive behaviour in talk pages, but should sanction 1 fail, it's acceptable, too. As far as 2 & 3 are concerned, I have not seen enough evidence to justify them, and I still lack time do comprehensive research myself. I think they would generate more heat than prevent. – Sadalmelik ☎ 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Either he's community banned or not. If not, then, unless talk page disrution is subseqently determined, he should be able to edit talk pages, so I oppose #1, but I support #5. #4 should be presumed in any case involving a topic ban, and as such should automatically be part of #1 and #5. So since I support #5, I support #4. I don't like the subjectivity of #3 - a topic ban should require at least a couple admins agreeing - so I oppose #3. Based on other blocks and situations, I also Support #2. Also, based on past history, he should be strongly and seriously reminded that inappropriate usage of "extra tools" (such as AWB, and Hotcat) may result in their removal. (I thought about suggestion "tool removal" as #6, but while that was a concern in the past, I'm not certain (so far) that it's now to the point of tool removal (yet). That said, new evidence may suggest differently.) - jc37 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1-4, with the caveat that odds are if he violates any restrictions here, I'll just indefinitely block him. (20th time now?). ⇒SWATJester 08:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1,3,4. Oppose 2. Prefer 1 over 5 but if necessary 5 is okay. I don't think clause 2 is required if clause 3 passes, which would cover most disruptions immediately. His probation would taper off his tendencies I believe, and if not the topic ban would definitely. --Banime (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1,3,4. Oppose 2, 5. With 3 in effect, there is no reason for 2. Restriction 5 does not make sense, because talk page disruption can be more problematic than article disruption. The editor could sidetrack or stonewall discussions politely. No, let's not open that option to them. Item 4 is necessary because it will provide a basis for indefinite blocking if he uses another account (presumably to evade sanctions). Jehochman 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3, 4. 5 is ok if 1 doesn't pass. --Kbdank71 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1-4 I see no point in 5 unless we were to change 1 to a topic ban; also, I agree with Jehochman about the seriousness of talk-page disruption. For me the critical thing is that this be probationary. He has been blocked so many times that I am close to feeling he should just be banned. All his constructive edits seem minor and technical, but they are constructive. However, his content edits seem almost always to be disruptive. 1 and 2 address the most recent issue, but 3 gets at the heart of the matter (and 4 is a no-brainer). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - somewhat surprised this is the topic of the discussion given the prior conversation; nevertheless, I'd support 1, 3, 4 and this would be the last straw and then I would switch to supporting a total ban, including but not limited to complete topic bans. Caulde 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2 through 5', with the caveat that at the slightest hint of any future incivility on talk pages or other related pages, sanction 1 is applied in place of 5. Lankiveil 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC).
• Support 1, 3, 4. 2 would prevent Koavf from making legitimate protective edits to other articles. -- Earle Martin 10:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Suppport 1, 2, 3, 4. #5's okay too though 1's my first choice. Wizardman 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely not 5 as Justin never used talk pages to accept or understand wp:Consensus. In fact, most of his reverts were due to his denial of the existence of any form of consensus whatsoever. On the other hand, I don't agree with 4 since he's never chosen sock puppetry as a tactic but I agree with the rationale. -- fayssal - wiki up 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support all but 5. There is no reason for letting people who don't grasp the concept of consensus try to create it, or destroy efforts to create it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 (I think 4 is a reasonable restriction for virtually all editors and should be applied as a general rule). Ambivalent about 3. Oppose 1 and 5. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

loophole in reliable sources? Journalists should be required to declare their affiliation.

We should consider that journalist must declare their profession. The reason is that a journalist can win a potential edit dispute by simply stating their position elsewhere, other than Misplaced Pages.

For example, journalist X can write in the XYZ Times a fact that he wants inserted into Wikpedia. He then can insert it in Misplaced Pages citing XYZ Times as a reference.

For example, Jessica Yellin was a contributor to a CNN report that quotes Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Theoretically, Yellin could edit Misplaced Pages noting that quote. It could be an obscure quote that other sources don't report. For example, I searched the BBC website and he is not mentioned. Note: I have nothing against Jessica Yellin, just chose the names at random.

When Misplaced Pages was small, this was probably not a problem. With Misplaced Pages being used more and more and more editors are joining, we should anticipate such problem. If we don't and Misplaced Pages gets burned, it could lose credibility.

Proposal: Journalist must identify their profession on their user page. If they use references that they are the author or contributor, they must disclose this in the article talk page or edit summary. Chergles (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have WP:COI. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

COI is a guideline, not a policy. The COI guideline is ok but this proposal should be made a policy. Policies should cover events that could burn Misplaced Pages. The Essjay event is one that burned Misplaced Pages. Let's not make this scenario burn Misplaced Pages. Chergles (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you propose forcing somebody to reveal their identity without violating WP:OUTING? Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least part of the nature of a reliable source is having editing oversight, fact checking, stuff like that. So, if all of the people who are involved with the aforementioned CNN report put something on the air, it's probably okay. Or at least, not something that we need to worry to excess about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My solution has always been simple: it's an honor system. We don't force people to reveal their affiliations, but we don't protect them either. If Editor X acts in a manner that generates an appearance of impropriety and fails to disclose the relationship voluntarily, then there is a small but nontrivial chance it will come back at them in a very big, public, and potentially career-ending way. The choice is up to the individual. Durova 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

COI may be a guideline, but it's one that is followed very closely and only with the very occasional exception. "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Misplaced Pages is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Misplaced Pages for the individuals and groups being promoted." Can you point out where Misplaced Pages is being compromised by the fact that this isn't a bona fide policy? I don't think so. As you stated, you are trying to take a pre-emptive move for an anticipated problem. WP:COI already protects us from this, while being flexible enough to allow interpretation and ambiguity, much like the US Constitution. This is a strength, not a weakness. Tan | 39 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had some concerns about the Jessica Yellin article for a few days now. How can "During her coverage of the 2008 presidential election, Yellin covered key stories on Bill Clinton , Sarah Palin and the US economy." be a career highlight? That would seem to be what she should be doing as part of her job. But my edits were reverted and I didn't feel like edit warring over it. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure: I met a member of the Yellin family 13 years ago but never Jessica. I should have chosen two of the other co-authors.

I am reasonably comfortable with letting this discussion wither. As Durova said, if there is a scandal, it is the journalist who will likely be burned. Misplaced Pages would get smeared for a short time. In the sneaky event that the journalist cheats and edits using their own sources, then the journalist will be sneaky enough to not disclose the self reference. This is the weakness of WP. To change WP to a non-anonymous format is as likely as --- (name an unlikely event...Yankees win the 2008 World Series, Queen abdicates citing Misplaced Pages addiction, etc.)

Issue closed (not really resolved)? Chergles (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue, because reputable papers have some form of editing and peer review. ffm 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a potential form of abuse. There are known facts that are difficult to find online. However, a reporter can write about it and create a reliable source. I know of court documents that show certain facts as well as findings of fact. If I were I reporter, I could write a story about it and transform a little known fact buried in a deposition into a reliable source. So reporters do have an advantage in being able to create reliable sources. In the US, federal court documents are searchable under the Pacer system but listing a search is not permitted as a citation.

Again, I am willing to let this section become inactive (a defacto "resolved") even though the issue really hasn't been resolved. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Court transcripts are primary sources and are not accepted as reliable sources, since it's just the word of a witness, and not vetted for reliability. Corvus cornix_talk 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable sources as to what was said in court, let's be clear about that. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if a CNN journalist were to make something up, and it were published by CNN without adequate fact-checking, then there would be a problem with CNN. Their reputation for fact checking and accuracy would surely suffer as a result. I don't see that Misplaced Pages has a problem, and I certainly don't think that our policies need to change. 71.65.197.158 (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask you a question. Do you honestly, really believe that an actual journalist with a professional reputation to maintain and an honest-to-God real job that brings him a paycheck, upon which he depends to pay his mortgage, make his car payments, put his kids through college, would crank out a dubious story that has no journalistic merit, just so he could use it as a source on Misplaced Pages? Pardon me while I try to pull myself off the floor after the laughing fit I'm about to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are safer options for non journalists. Sneak something onto the AP wire (doable if you know what you are doing). Get a paper published in a journal which is posible for non profesionals in some areas. Specialist hobbyist magazines may be professionaly or semi-proffesionaly reviewed but their articles may come from non-professionals some of whom may be wikipedia editors. Professional journalists are not the group I would be most worried about. It isn't generaly a problem though.Geni 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As an evil pawn-of-the-rich/pinko commie scum journalist type person, though one who has only infrequently had his articles picked up by what might be considered a reliable source, I'd suggest that any pro who would publish an article and then run over here to justify its use as a reference is not a professional at all. Hopefully, whoever Guy suggests did it (below) is in a new profession, such as dog poop scooper, because they're the reason that people look at me funny when I tell them what profession I'm in. A responsible journalist would never pull something like that, far as I'm concerned. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

@Steven: Yes, and this has in fact happened. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When? --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One I remember is user:THF as was. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If a user is truly anonymous, we'd have no way to check or know this, so there would unfortunately be no real reason to worry about it. Like Guy mentioned, though, if someone is "out" about who they are, I'd be surprised if it wasn't totally inappropriate for them to be working on or with sources related to them. His example of User:THF, and then there were Chip Berlet and Dennis King who also edit WP. If they choose to go under their own name, they shouldn't be adding stuff tied to them or involving themselves. rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TLDR, but I felt it necessary to add that we can't force anyone to do much of anything as a practical matter. We also don't do that because of the pseudonymous nature of Misplaced Pages.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless they decide to edit under their own name (at which point under COI they should stay away from that stuff) it's all moot. For all you know, I'm Anderson Cooper. rootology (C)(T) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I love your show!--Tznkai (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (AKA Wolf Blitzer)

• We'd need to be a little wary of discussing individual users here, but if someone is open about who they are then we at least know who we are dealing with. The problem in at least one case was that the individual concerned was, if I recall, using his own column as a way of asserting his own opinion as fact. There is a big difference between someone who is, say, a journalist specialising in investigating cults, editing articles on cults using the knowledge they have gained in the course of their work, and being open about who they are; and someone who writes op-ed, and tries to cite their own publications as a way of boosting the significance of their own opinion on something. In general I'd rather know who people are and help them to stay within the bounds the community considers acceptable per WP:COI, self-citing and so on. Most people who are published in reputable sources, are reasonable people. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Severe Checkuser Backlog

Just want to bring it to everyone's attention that Checkuser is in a severe backlog. The oldest request is from the 10th of September (almost 3 full weeks old). Admin help would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a handful of admins have checkuser rights though , it's not a standard tool. Equendil Talk 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed (why aren't there more?), I am just bringing it to everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There aren't more because being granted CheckUser demands a lengthy istory as an active admin without ever attracting a coterie of grudge-bearers howling for your blood and your sysop bit, which takes a special kind of person. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so Joe Q. Editor couldn't be a checkuser? OK, kills that idea :) I just told Alison that if they ever needed extra checkusers, I would be glad to sign up to help. Ooops! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And a good technical knowledge of IP addresses et al. Viridae 08:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And be over 18. And have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation. And be trusted with IP data by the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And be interested in doing a boring job that attracts nothing but crap, including real life crap, and from all sides (those who are socking, those who are found not to be socking and those who accuse others of socking). I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do that job, frankly. More power to the elbows of those who do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be several new eager checkusers soon (see WP:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008), fighting with each other for the chance of using those  Confirmed and  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust templates. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Myself and User:YellowMonkey spent a bunch of hours over there tonight, and cleared a lot of the backlog. Yes, the job is sucky and thankless. Vandals will hate you and wreak havoc on your userpage. And that's the good stuff :) I'll do some more in the morning - it's 3am here now - Alison 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Alison and Yellowmonkey are saintly people doing a thankless job on a pay scale even Wal-Mart would be ashamed of. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Let's give them a 20% raise! Protonk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of workload? YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 06:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Checkuser is magic pixie dust. I'm sure of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I represent the Lollipop Guild, and we thank Misplaced Pages's checkusers for the invaluable job they do, and do well. (How they keep their cool is beyond me.) Ed Fitzgerald 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this backlog is for Severe Checkusers only. You want the backlog for cuddly fluffy Checkusers, which is over there ---> Guy (Help!) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OH "backlog" -- I thought you said "back lot"!.

Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Continous vandalism and edit warring from 41.245.*.* dynamic IP address, not sure how to progress

• 41.245.131.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.183.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.177.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.128.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• And many more...

This IP is one half of one of the longest running and bizarre edit wars on wikipedia, namely the removal/re-insertion of a section on Talk:Dave Meltzer that is in regards to stoppin an edit war on Talk:Dave Meltzer. This has can be traced back over a year. I wish I was kidding.

The problem has now become that while the edit war was an amusing oddity (I had tried to stop it with sprotects among others but as soon as it wears off the article goes right on back to edit warring) the IP address has taken up to performing large amounts of vandalism on other articles. This is becoming a significant annoyance to myself as the IP is a 2-3 day total dynamic thus making any and all blocks useless against it for any significant reason.

I have reached the end of my rope in trying to figure out how to proceed, and a previous conversation with User:Alison lead to us having no clearer picture than when we started as to what to do, so I was hoping that someone here had an idea? –– Lid 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a great example of the selective blocking - where we could indefinitely block this range from editing these few pages (#Ability to block users from specific pages/namespaces likely coming). Any idea if that's ever happening? Otherwise, looks like long-term semi-protection or long-term range-blocking would be in order. Since you've talked to Alison, I imagine she's checkuser'ed and found an unacceptable amount of collateral damage from the range-block idea, so I guess long-term sprotect it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That would fix the talk pages war, but the real issue is the wide and varied vandalism the IP has decided to start doing. –– Lid 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A rangeblock is probably out of the question as all of these IPs fall within the class A network owned by Telkom SA. Also given the wide variety of interests by this vandal, I am not sure how well selective page blocking will work. Until then, WP:RBI is probably our best bet. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for DYK Mailing List

May I please bring your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_Couple_of_Suggestions...

Many thanks,

BG7even 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the link you gave us didn't lead to the specific section you were trying to point to, so I fixed it. I don't think this specifically needs administrators' attention (at least to me it doesn't), but thanks for the note anyway. -- RyRy (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much relisting?

I notice there's been quite a high recent tendency to relist AFDs multiple times. My own understanding (although I can't find this codified) is that relisting is really only for use if an AFD has only one or two participants or three or four participants who disagree; anything more than that should be closed as No consensus (defaulting to keep). Relisting over and above that is fattening up the daily AFDs and (for me at least) increasing the risk that I will double-!vote due to seeing the same AFD two or three times. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is that big a deal, but instead of discussing it here we should probably set out some sort of unified discussion and guideline on relisting somewhere. WP:RELIST doesn't really say much. I suggest further discussion take place at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll open a discussion at WT:DPR. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations backlogged

There's more entries than you can poke a stick at, some going back 20 days. Have at it. MER-C 10:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were to be brave enough and have the mop and bucket in your grasp, you wouldn't need to bother with such requests. Not everyone on here is a machine like you, give them some more time. 211.30.12.197 (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Working at WP:SCV requires neither bravery nor a mop and bucket. I am not an administrator, yet I just removed seven items from the list that, variously, were false positives, had been fixed or simply needed a history merge. --Iamunknown 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in Private Eye

Thought people may be interested in the following snippet from this fortnight's Private Eye...I've tracked down some of the diffs referred to. _Gb 11:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Idly sabotaging the user-generated online encyclopaedia Misplaced Pages following the UEFA cup draw back in August, a user of the b3ta web forum going by the name of "godspants" made a few amendments to the entry for Cypriot team Omonia Nicosia.

He (or she) noted that they were sponsored by Natasha Kaplinsky, that their former players included Jean Claude Van Damme and Richard Clayderman, and claimed that "A small but loyal group of fans are lovingly called "The Zany Ones" - they like to wear hats made from discarded shoes and have a song about a little potato". As you do.

Writing up his pre-match report on Omonia's match against Manchester City for the Daily Mirror on 18 September, sports hack David Anderson decided to do some in-depth research. Thus it was that Mirror readers were informed that City manager "Mark Hughes will not tolerate any slip-ups against the Cypriot side, whose fans are known as "The Zany Ones" and wear hats made from shoes".

Brilliantly, by the rules of Misplaced Pages - which relies on "verifiability - whether readers are able to check that material added has already been published by a reliable, third-party source" such as "mainstream newspapers" - this is now officially true."

In started a discussion about this over at WT:V Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Was picked up over a week ago no?Geni 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was, can't remember the exact thread name though. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in b3ta newsletter 346 on the 19th September. Not sure if it got other coverage. Also the latest newsletter is quite cunningly challenging people to create something notable titled "Main Page". the wub "?!" 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that was my old idea! (item two in the blue box) If someone has a front page dab on Misplaced Pages for their magazine or book (or band, or website, or TV show) called Main Page, they would get so much free publicity. fish&karate 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL question

The article on the Spanish wikipedia on the song 409 seems to have been copied, word for word, from the English wikipedia. Is this allowed? I thought that there had to be some attribution to the original writers (of which I am one) under GFDL.

Even if you can't read Spanish, you should be able to tell that these articles are almost identical, save a transcription error or two:
original Spanish verison:
English version at the time the Spanish version was written:

Since then I have done a small amount of work on the Spanish page (just clarifying things and fixing errors; my Spanish is not good), and rearranged the English version quite a bit, but you can still see similarities:

Current English version: 409 (song)
Current Spanish version: 409 (canción)

So... What is the deal here? Thanks for any help/answers that can be provided. MookieZ (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• IF we can find someone who speaks spanish they can log onto the spanish wikipedia and just ask for a history merge. That should fix the issus up. If we can't find that, a note on the talk page of the article with a pointer to the english wikipedia version might help. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just drop es:Plantilla:Traducido de on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. Does this mean that my babelfish-fueled translation of Episodios nacionales (which I took from es:Episodios nacionales) needs a history merge from the Spanish WP? I know of at least three other articles on similar topics which have the same issue. Spanish Realist literature, Doña Perfecta, and Fortunata y Jacinta are all pulled from the Spanish language Misplaced Pages. My boyfriend created the latter two (on en.wp), and did extensive copy-editing to the first, which is why I am aware of the issue. I have the tools to do a history merge, but I have no idea how to do it, especially trans-wiki merges. Horologium (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a straight history merge, but you may want to use something like {{SPATRAref}}. Titoxd 19:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, hist-merges are not used for translations. They can be used if a page is created on one project that actually belongs on another, in which case it should have been transwiki'd and then the original one deleted. For GFDL purposes, a translated article need only mention what article it was copied from in what language, either on the article itself, or the talk page, or the first edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we're good on the three we created; the first edit summary for each contains a link to the es.wp article. Spanish Realist literature doesn't, but I'll note it on the talk page. Horologium (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More generally, there's a {{translated page}} template, to add to the talk page, or {{translated}} for mainspace. Both point to the foreign language article and refer the reader there for the history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the proper templates. I have used the talk page template on Spanish Realist literature; it's a much better fit than the generic notice template I had used earlier. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is almost word for word from the English one. Looks translated with Google or some tool that allows for rapid subpar translation. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

College professor requesting multiple accounts

Someone claiming to be a college professor has posted to helpdesk about hitting the account creation limit. I've pointed them to the accounts-enwiki e-mail address, the request an account page, and Misplaced Pages:School and university projects for starters. Can someone follow up as they may possibly need account creator rights, and may need someone admin follow up and monitoring of the project. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, here's Misplaced Pages:Helpdesk#Can't get multiple college students signed on to do a project on Misplaced Pages! and diff. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on accounts-enwiki-l, so I'll keep an eye on the names that get created, if they end up there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity loves projects like this. Maybe we want to point him their way. MBisanz 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen take-down, redux. Article affected?

List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States was blanked on September 21st, here, with the Nielsen DMCA take-down request cited as cause. It's lingering at WP:CP. A couple of days ago I asked about the matter at User:FT2's talk page (I was under the impression that DMCA take-downs were oversighted), but I was told that any ol' admin could delete this one by User:Swatjester. (See User_talk:FT2#Oversight_committee_matter). What I don't know is if this was an article affected by that takedown notice that was overlooked, or if this one is okay. Anybody know? --Moonriddengirl 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jredmond was one of the people that discussed the original complaint, and has been helpful in figuring out what happened. My gut feeling is that the numbers are probably a problem, the specific market names may be a problem, but the information contained in the table is not; you should certainly talk to Jredmond. (You might want to look into making it sortable too.) --NE2 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll talk to him. As far sortability, I'll leave that to editors of the article. I just want it off the CP list. :D --Moonriddengirl 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention is quite backlogged at the moment. If any administrator could spare some time and sees this message, help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block vs. infinite block

What is the difference between an indefinite block and an infinite block? Just wondering.

Indefinite block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJustlikeyou&year=&month=-1

Infinite block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlfjkadl%3Bfjadlfkj&year=&month=-1

--68.93.135.252 (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest...a "d". An "Indefinite" Block and an "Infinite" Block are essentially the same thing, just the way the admin wishes to say it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 3, 2008 @ 06:23

(ec): Technically it's the same, afaik, it's just two different ways the standard dropdown menu has for calling it. I guess most admins are hardly aware of the difference. One could use it to make a useful distinction, of course: an "infinite" block would be one that you really intend should remain in place forever; an "indefinite" block would be one that you intend to see lifted at some time, possibly quite soon, you just don't know when. But I don't think this distinction is routinely observed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines indefinite in three non-mathematical ways:

• (1) Without limit; forever, or until further notice; not definite.
• (2) Vague or unclear.
• (3) Undecided or uncertain.

Wiktionary defines infinite in two non-mathematical ways

• (1) Boundless, endless, without end or limits, uncountable, innumerable.
• (3) (figuratively) Very large.

I suspect the developers were thinking of the "forever, or until further notice" or "not definite" senses of the word 'indefinite' when coming up with terminology for the pick-list for the block screen, though the ultimate history might originate with when blocking was first used (2001? 2002?) and the terminology developed at that point. I'm not even sure that infinite (in the "without end or limits" sense) wasn't added later by a pedant... Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no technical difference - either way the user is blocked and remains blocked until and unless they're unblocked. But there is an important difference in meaning - infinte is definitely infinite, whereas indefinite means that the period of blocking hasn't really been decided and the user is blocked "until further notice" (implying they could well be unblocked again at some stage). It's like deleting a file on your computer - you can put it in your recycle bin where it's deleted indefinitely, and can still be restored - or you can delete it permanently (infinitely), which means you can't get it back. So "infinite" blocks should be very rare indeed. Hope that helps, Waggers (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The two terms are synonymous in a Misplaced Pages context. As it happens, the block function on Meta refers to "infinite" blocks, rather than indefinite. So far as linguistic semantics are concerned, "indefinite" implies the possibility of unblock at some time in the future pending a change of circumstance, while "infinite" implies that the block will never be changed. In this way, I suppose "indefinite" is more accurate, as many blocks that would otherwise be known as "infinite" have been reversed. From a technical standpoint, "infinite" is referred as a length of time in the block drop-down menu, below "1 year". Therefore, in this way, an "infinite" block is technically a block that has a time limit of "infinite" appended (as opposed to "1 year", "2 weeks", etc.). On the other hand, the "indefinite" is placed atop the list of time blocks, so, in that way, "indefinite" has no time-limit appended. At the end of the day, they are evidently equal; while "infinite" is timed and "indefinite" is not, the two are equal because an infinite period never terminates anyway. —Anonymous Dissident 09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of infinite may hint at less likelihood the block would ever be lifted (say, as with a grawp vandal user account) but as noted above, they're technically the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as far as the software is concerned, the two blocks are the same, as many have noted. Blocking me, though, Iridescent was careful to note that her block was "indefinite," not "infinite." I.e., she considered, I'd interpret her comment, that the project was protected by a block, but that she was not making any decision about how long it would be, and she backed that up by immediately noting that she would not mind any admin unblocking. An "infinite" block signifies that the admin intends it to be permanent, i.e., expects no reversal and is not consenting to unblock. Admins can change their minds, the community can reverse, or, indeed, any admin can reverse, but reversing an infinite block without discussion would definitely be wheel-warring.

From the point of view of the one blocked, though, an indef block like that of Iridescent, can create a problem: it creates a need for process to unblock. Maybe that's good, but if an offense is of a fairly minor nature, not something which has been ongoing (as reflected, presumably, in prior short blocks) it might be better to set a maximum block duration, while consenting to unblock as Iridescent did. "Indef block" tends to be read, later, as being severe, block policy doesn't recommend such blocks, particularly for users with no block history. I know one long-time user who was blocked, successively, indef, three times until he was considered banned. He was never, in the known history (about three years), given a short block, and the offenses were such that each one of them, if it had resulted in a block at all, would probably have been a 24-hour block.

When a user is indef blocked, it may encourage them to create sock puppets and IP accounts, leading to even more disruption. In my view, a fair amount of administrative attention is going to dealing with disruption or block evasion or even vandalism resulting from too-severe blocks. On the other hand, some accounts practically get away with murder, sometimes for a long time, before blocks even begin. My own opinion is that we should block easily and more reliably, but for short periods, with very gradual escalation if needed. Before indef blocking, we should try to find a way to negotiate with the user, to include them in the process. Too often, blocked users believe that they have been abused, unfairly treated; this, then, justifies their block evasion, disruption, or even vandalism. From what I've seen reviewing blocks, the blocks are often justified in some sense; but seem to get converted into some kind of punishment of the user for their "bad behavior," whereas our goal should always be to channel editor energy into improvement of the project. I believe we can do more in this respect. The goal should not be to exclude the "POV pushers," it is to include them in our process, to convince them that our process is fair and balanced, and to make sure that this is really the case. Most of them, in my opinion and experience, can be converted into genuine supporters of NPOV, once they realize that true NPOV does give their views the best opportunity to be fairly heard. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

Oh for transcludable sections. From Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

• pokerplayersalliance.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Cactusframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A large number of links to this site, a poker players' advocacy organisation deeply opposed to control of online poker, have been added to politician biographies. In each case it appears that the text is similar: a couple of sentences sourced to the group's website stating that a group member has blogged or spoken out against the politician. No independent sources are cited, only the negative content about the politician at the site of the organisation originating the negative comment. Example:

* Poker rights blogger Rich Muny, a board member of the one-million member Poker Players Alliance, rated $BLPSUBJECT "F-" on support for poker rights.<ref>http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights TheEngineer's Blog: Congress and Internet Poker Rights, July 10, 2008]</ref>

As this is a WP:BLP issue and the user has repeatedly reinserted the links and text, I have temporarily blacklisted. We now need to decide whether the site should stay blacklisted. It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls, and does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than itself. The idea of including, in political biographies, a pressure group's assessment of the politician's status as a supporter of poker "rights" seems to me to be unsupportable.

The above boilerplate text, or minor variations, all ratings F or F-, accounted for over 40 external links to the group and virtually all the internal links as well. This seems to me to be a pretty straightforward case of using Misplaced Pages for advocacy.

I am removing these "ratings" paragraphs per WP:BLP and have warned the user concerned, but more eyes would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the right thing to do. The opinion of some poker blogger is not really needed on political biographies, and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Considering the only edits Cactusframe has made to Misplaced Pages is to push this advocacy, if he carries on, block him - nobody will miss him. fish&karate 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate unilateral action, and calling it an "emergency" is silly, since the editor in question has only edited one article in the past ten days. This is a problem with a USER, not the organization. It is even a problem with the subdomain of the main domain, block that if need be. The misguided action needs to be corrected. The orgnaization is solicited and interviewed by major media for its opinions. It has done no wrong, and certainly no spam. The USER has, and the user is spamming a distinct subdomain. A warning, or any other action should be taken against the user or the subdomain, not the organizations website. 2005 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it more clear, there was exactly one article (besides the one about the organization itself) that linked to the main pokerplayersalliance.org domain. There is zero issue or spamming involving the main domain. The "theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org" subdomain is where all the BIO links pointed at, and since it is a blog anyway, blocking that would be a no-brainer at this point. So, there is no reason to block the main domain, and the solution to this issue is very simple and should be non controversial: warn the user and lock the subdomain, not the main domain. 2005 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that one article's link was superfluous, it was a list and the link should have been an internal one (I fixed that). Two pages used as sources in the article about the group, are whitelisted; I did that this morning. There is no suggestion that the site is a valid source in any other article, so this seems to me to be the minimum admin action to control a policy violation: no users blocked, no articles protected, no article edits disabled (I can edit and save the article on the group without problems), no valid content prevented because the site is not a reliable source. As an aside, every single administrator action is unilateral, with the possible exception of implementing ArbCom bans. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"There is no suggestion that the site is a valid source in any other article," Huh? It obviously could be a valid source in numerous articles. You seem to just want to be stubborn here. Some dude with a blog subdomain did some spamming. That is the problem. There has been zero spamming of the main domain. None. Spam blocking it is plain weird. Instead of digging your heels in, just change the block to the subdomain. 2005 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Really. I'm just trying to work out which part of WP:RS it would satisfy, but I'm having some difficulty, epsecially since at least some of the content there violates copyright. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mom. They make what could be plausibly called fair use and link to the original article. Now it's obvious that if they file a lawsuit against somebody that a page on their site that says they filed a lawsuit and has the entire PDF there could be linked to. They can be linked to in the same way as the Republican Party, or any PAC with an agenda. They have a point of view but they can be linked to for stuff like "John Doe is on the board of the Poker Players Alliance.", etc etc etc. Now just switch the spam blovck to the subdomain. You know that solves everythng. 2005 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. To devote so much space of about a living person by adding the opinion of a source that fails WP:RS is a serious violation. To top it off, the account adding its sole edits gave the groups ratings on biographies of politicians. We66er (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well now. The root domain has now been removed form the blacklist, at which point user:2005 immediately re-added it as a source about the organisation in online poker. Problem: if we allow advocacy organisations to insert claims about themselves in related articles, sourced from their own sites, then we have a nightmare of POV, undue weight and potential WP:OR violation. As I said when I removed it, self-sourced material is a problem. 2005 described it as an absurd edit and of course reverted as soon as he was able. Me, I think advocacy organisations should not be discussed in such articles without reliable independent sources, even if people who are really passionate about the subject might disagree. Noting in passing that I have less than no interest at all in online poker, I will leave this for now, but ask someone else to counsel 2005 on the appropriate use of sources and self-sourced material, and also the appropriateness of describing other users' edits as "absurd" when the issue is one permitting of legitimate differences. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Edson da Silva & Édson José da Silva

Hi folks. I've raised this at the BLP noticeboard, but nobody there seems to be looking at it at this point in time. A user claiming to be Édson José da Silva is repeatedly blanking that article, and also randomly vandalised/blanked another related one. Since I'm not sure whether this user has good intentions, and have been labelled unfriendly toward page blankers by one editor, I need an administrator (or, indeed, anyone) to take a look at this user and see if there's possibly anything to his claim. I don't really understand the whole BLP "my article is on Misplaced Pages, maybe I should blank it" thing, and whether to revert a possibly legit blanking or not. Some other rollbackers have just reverted it and warned the user, but I'm just being a bit careful - if anyone could take a look at the article/user, I'd appreciate it. SMC (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient with this guy, but he's really pushing it. He just made a legal threat. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's resorting to blanking random pages, as well as the whole of this noticeboard and BLP/N too. Amongst all the blankings, he's yet to tell us what's specifically wrong with the article. And he's still bent on legal action. MER-C 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see those user talk comments that he's made before I gave my level 4 warning. It looks like it's been blanked like everything else, though... SMC (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I blocked him infinitely for making legal threats. I'm sorry to have to dump this on someone else to deal with the fallout, but I have not gone to sleep at all tonight and I have to be at college in 2 hours. I really have to get a little rest (or some Red Bull). I made the block because Possum should not have to put up with this, he's just a kid. Again, I'm really sorry to be dumping this off, but I don't think I had any other choice. J.delanoy_adds 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him what he's objecting to. Remember that if this is the subject, he doesn't know wikiprotocol, and may simply be annoyed that we are in his face. Does he have a legitimate complaint? Has this article had crap on it? Take a look at WP:DOLT before jumping on him.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last diff before the user started blanking it looks fairly innocuous, although I suppose there might be something on those Portugese external links that might be a bit nasty. Speaking of which, it strikes me as a bit odd that the English version of the page was getting blanked while the Portugese one was apparently left alone. Lankiveil 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

According to the user, this was the "true article", as compared to the "untrue" current article. MER-C 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only vandalism that has ever occurred to his article is his own blanking. He was asked here to give details via BLP noticeboard (where he went ahead and blanked my original post), as well as here again, encouraging him to tell us what was so wrong with the article. Aside from "I want my article removed" (1, 2,3 etc) he never told us just why he didn't want it there, or what was wrong with it. SMC (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the contribution history of this account and my strong suspicion is that it is NOT the subject, but merely a troll. This is not the behaviour of a subject. I think we need to be careful that we don't leave a wikitrail that implies the subject was involved in this - that could be libellous itself. (Of course, I could be wrong with my hunch)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He seemed to know an awful lot about how to cause disruption and the like, more than I'd expect an outsider to know. Given the fact that there is nothing objectionable in the article as far as I can see, his inability to articulate his problems with the article despite being able to make a perfectly coherent legal threat, and the contents of the "true" article, I'd say it's probably just someone having a little joke. Lankiveil 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Agreed. He does not seem to be the one in the article. The article is fine, the Portugese version in pt.wp says basically the same, and the external links are just pointing to profiles of the player in the online trade rags and the CBF (Brasilian Football (soccer) Federation). I do speak Portuguese and see nothing there that could cause problems. He seems to be impersonating the subject and I agree with the block. -- Alexf 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Freakishmedia

We might have a user name problem here and concerns regarding some of the images being uploaded as free images (put in the info box of an article too) which seem to be owned by some Freakishmedia.com .— Realist 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-username}}. Haven't looked at the images. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

this issue has continued on an article talk page. Could an admin please complete this thread. Cheers. — Realist 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock Sceptre

(heheh, who thought I'd randomly done it without consensus from the title... :P)

On IRC Sceptre requested a reconsideration of his block, currently set at three months (to expire Dec 9) per this discussion. Sceptre would be restricted to editing only in work spaces directly related to article improvement and maintenance; He would not be allowed here at AN or any of the other boards. Unblock would be made with the understanding of all parties that violation of -space restrictions (without compelling reason)/gross incivility/puppetry, etc. would be grounds for quickly reinstating the block and considering indefinite. On a personal suggestion would recommend if accepted this parole remain until the end of the original block, to give Sceptre plenty of time to show he's clean and whatnot. Keep it low drama, hopefully. Discuss. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of low drama, I have changed the heading to accurately reflect the content, I hope. Jehochman 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why has he gone from accepting the 3 month block (per his own transcluded comments at the top of the linked page) to wanting it, essentially, rescinded entirely? No judgement at all, just curious as to why he can't/won't wait it out? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He's concerned about some of the low-traffic articles he edited going to hell (IP vandalism not reverted, et al.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if he lets us know his concerns, then there are other editors in good standing who will watch the articles for him. I for one, would be happy to watchlist them and monitor the concerns he has. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I like Will and I think he has done a lot of good in the past, but I think he needs the break. He just needs to get enough distance to stop caring , at least temporarily. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Fritzpoll, after multiple E/C) It would not be rescinded entirely; he's specifically blocked from noticeboards, which are the area in which there was an issue with his editing. I'm undecided on the issue, but he does have a track record of significant article contribution. If he stays away from Wikidrama, I think it would be a net positive for all concerned. Horologium (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just think there's been a lot of discussion on this issue, and a consensus was reached. This matter won't be an issue once the block expires, and Sceptre returns refreshed. Another significant point is that the community must feel that its opinion, once expressed after a reasoned debate (and this one certainly seems to have been) and accepted by Sceptre, is taken into consideration and not continually re-considered. I like Sceptre, but I think the block has to stand Fritzpoll (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason the block was three months instead of one. If he cares enough to reform himself, he'll care enough to wait. Wizardman 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Sceptre ordeal goes on and on...I think the full duration of the block should be carried out; not only will it give him time to calm down, as JzG said, but it will also let other editors who became inflamed against him do this also. He's a fantastic editor, but a bit prone to being more of a zealot than anyone is comfortable with. A break will do him well. FusionMix 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand what you guys mean, blocks are per policy not meant for "cool down" or giving users "time to calm down". They are only for preventing disruption. If we put Sceptre on parole and he proves he won't go on rants at AN like he promises, then the wiki benefits and we're only blocking for personal reasons, not per policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The three month block was a substitute for an indefinite block for sockpuppetry and harrassment, and followed reasoned debate with many good arguments presented. The policy is indeed that blocks are for prevention, but this block is preventative in the sense that "cooling down" will prevent, in the community's opinion (by the earlier consensus, or my reading of it) future occurrences. SO in a way, it *is* a cool down block, but it is also a preventative block. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that just because members of the community don't understand the blocking policy means we have to continue along that path... I can't vouch for their original intentions, but it seems clear to be now its punitive rather than preventative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, nor can I vouch for them. I think my point was that this line of argument is on a very blurry line where punitive and preventative are indistinguishable. Consider someone who *isn't* Sceptre: they violate policy on several occasions, and are accordingly blocked for a lengthy period. If we follow the above to its logical conclusion, then we shouldn't block for increasing lengths of time (as we do in practice) because we can simply prevent the action by blocking for a short period of time, so our block on the hypothetical user could arguably be considered punitive rather than preventative. That seems to be the line you've followed, and I think it is discordant with current practice. In Sceptre's specific case, I think the block was well-debated and that we don't need to go into it again, with all the accompanying friction that generates - just let it ride out. Misplaced Pages will still be here in December. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Know your audience. I think most of us understand the policy perfectly well, and were prepared to accept the very unusual reduction from permanent bannination to a 3-month block for some pretty egregious violations, because we understand that Sceptre has a long history of doing good things. If he had voluntarily taken a break then there would be no controversy, the problem was that he could not keep away. I don't think most people will be comfortable letting him back before we have seen that he has broken the cycle of obsession with Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in the business of deciding whether someone is obsessed with Misplaced Pages... as per the block, we indefinite block people because it is clear (or should be clear) that they have no intention of ever contributing positively to the wiki; SPA accounts and whatnot. It's different for constructive users. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

David, we indefinitely block people for egregious sockpuppetry and block evasion. In Will's case we took the very unusual step of reducing the normal indefinite block to 3 months. His best course of action is to forget Misplaced Pages exists until December 9. From my personal experience, I would say that a lengthy "cold turkey" Wikibreak is the only kind that works; if you keep checking back and your edit finger keeps itching, you're not having a break and not breaking the cycle. Without a decently long break he will not cure burnout, he will come straight back in and escalate right back to where he was before, taking stuff too personally. Rather than imposing restrictions and having his detractors constantly snapping at his heels about them, it is much better, in my view, for Will to simply accept that he needs a break, and take one. Remember, his past refusal to accept this, and block evasion, is part of what got him here in the first place. Will is a good person whose good side has been eroded by the toxic side of Misplaced Pages's disputes, the only way I know to fix that is to stay away for an appreciable period, to the point where you no longer itch for your fix. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More important issue: article quality

It's a separate point, but could Sceptre (who I believe is watching this thread) post a list on his talkpage of the articles that he's worried about. The articles need to be maintained, and vandalism reverted, and I can do this right now without an unblock discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is protected. spryde | talk 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - didn't notice that. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's protected at his own request because he was being trolled; he could easily request that it be unprotected. Thatcher 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or even that it be semi-protected; all the trolling prior to protection was from either IPs or accounts that would have been stopped by semi-protection. GRBerry 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocking Sceptre on the condition that he stay away from drama sounds reasonable. Blocks are not intended as a punishment, which Sceptre's is. The belief that making him wait will "prevent, in the community's opinion (by the earlier consensus, or my reading of it) future occurrences" is erroneous; however, Sceptre's desire to prevent future occurrences will. Matthew (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support an unblock in conjunction with a ban from community noticeboards (with an exception for threads discussing Sceptre). I think this will prevent disruption, while allowing Sceptre to contribute positively, to Misplaced Pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • He's apologized for his trolling and sockpuppetry (not for what he percieves as disparate treatment with Kurt, but considering the whole point of unblocking him with these conditions is that he stays away from dramafests...) I just don't see what we lose. He other is a good user and keeps his nose out of trouble and works on articles, or he lapses into his old ways and someone can easily revert him and reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it up to Sceptre to behave, reblocks are cheap. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If Sceptre stays away from community noticeboards, stays away from Kurt, and stays away from drama elsewhere such as on talk pages (note the additional requirements) then unblocking might not be unreasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with unblocking Sceptre based on a clear agreement that, if followed by him, prevents the problems that led to his block, and if not followed by him, makes reblock, possibly extended, practically automatic and easy. As an agreement based on his voluntary acceptance of it, this is superior to simple imposition of sanctions. The key with disruptive editors, particularly with ones who are also positive contributors, is to gain their voluntary compliance with community behavioral norms. I see no value to the project in preventing Sceptre's positive contributions. The same is true for certain other disruptive editors, such as User:Fredrick day. If he'd agree to avoid the problem behaviors, I'd certainly support giving him a chance to show that he is capable of self-restraint. Self-restraint is far superior to imposed sanctions, it's efficient and more effective, for a user who is able to comply. Nobody likes to be forced to be cooperative. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Sceptre is a featured content contributor whose problems occurred in Misplaced Pages namespace. If he comes back early there's a tradeoff: he gets the opportunity to improve articles (which is what he does best), but he's still getting trolled badly enough that his user space is protected at his request. With an early return he can expect more trolling--and if he doesn't handle it better than he did before then there's a danger he may get reblocked for a longer time. Still I'm not much for paternalism: he wants to take that risk and it's within the realm of reasonable options (he's a featured content contributor after all). So I'll support the proposal. Durova 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - In the few times I ran into Sceptre's work in the mainspace, I was very impressed by it. If he wants to write more, I say let him. J.delanoy_adds 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• In principle I support the notion of an unblock, but it should be made very clear that a violation of this trust will not be tolerated, and that the block will be reinstated without hesitation should the problem behavior return. Shereth 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support unblocking Sceptre on December 9, as he agreed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to believe that the problematic behaviour will have changed. His most recent comments that I am aware of (there may be other ones more recent) don't instill confidence. Per Will Beback, "I support unblocking Sceptre on December 9, as he agreed." ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to unblock, but also agree to their being some sort of parole on project space. We are possibly losing good articles with his absence, and I will assume he will behave this time. -- how do you turn this on 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That is the basis of the entire thread- he wont be allowed in areas which encourage disruptive tendencies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Will Beback. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the specifics of this case, I am in principle opposed to shortening blocks (occasional exception for indef blocks). In my opinion, the ability of blocks to deter negative behavior before it occurs is greatly diminished when people know that with a few promises and apologies, they can return to editing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoah. If someone makes 5 reverts, is blocked for violating 3RR, and posts an unblock request saying "Sorry, I will not edit war any more", what's the point in making them wait out the remainder of the block? Don't we want them to "return to editing"? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Assuming that the blcok was an appropriate length for a 1 time 3rr violation (24 hours, say), then the point is that actions have consequences. Creating a consequence free environment on Misplaced Pages isn't a good thing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • "Consequences" means punishment, rather than preventing disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It prevents disruption by acting as a deterrent. In my opinion the whole prevention vs. punishment paradigm is a false division. Blocks should not be solely punitive. But just because it is punitive does not mean that it is not also preventative. Take a look at any blocking structure remedy where we have incrementally increasing block lengths - what do you think the point of that is? Obviously, it's somewhat punitive, but it's primary goal is preventing disruption through deterrence. A goal that is compeltely undermined if the blocking is shortened every time the editor makes apology noises. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm firmly opposed to making anyone make false apologies to get round blocks but we settled on 3 months for good reasons and I'm not really seeing any indications that Sceptre has attained any distance or greater understanding that would make an earlier unblock tenable. I have strong opinions but I know myself well enough to know I'm not being fair to Sceptre because of my personal opinion of them so please weigh this approopriately. But I do think my point is relevant to the discussion. Spartaz 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• December 9th sounds good to me. Remember, Sceptre has been on Misplaced Pages an extremely long period of time, none of his recent behavior can be attributed to "newness". Also, to the question of watching articles; if Sceptre cares about the articles he'll give David a list of them and David will put it on a page so we can all check recent changes on a regular basis. This "unblock me so I can protect articles" argument doesn't fly with me. MBisanz 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think December 9th is fine. November 9th might be fine, too, but we aren't there yet. This would have been different without the attempts to evade the block, honestly. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Leave at 3 months - and he should consider himself lucky at that. As for fixing articles, he can point out vandalism at IRC or on his talk page (some may consider the latter to be an improper talk page use but it doesn't offend me...) IMHO, wanting to be let off so early is another symptom of his chief issue here - taking things way too seriously. This was supposed to be time for him to detach a little and take some time to reflect and cool off - not to sit staring at his watchlist, gnashing his teeth and begging to be let back in. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Can't agree to unblock someone to protect articles as being a good idea. The only reason the block wasn't indef, considering the sockpuppet issues, is that he was a long-standing editor that some people feel is a net asset to WP. The entire length should be served out and if there are articles in trouble, he can email or post the list on his talk page and it will be dealt with by people who haven't engaged in disruption, sockpuppetry, and 3RR. -- Logical Premise 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock (now, not December). We're building an encyclopedia here, and Sceptre can help. It does us no good to apply a punitive block to someone in hopes that they will not volunteer their time to help us develop articles for three months, thereby learning some kind of lesson. Surely, if Sceptre is capable of learning lessons, what he has been through already is sufficient. Using sockpuppets to pester Kurt Weber was a poor course of action, but it is almost meaningless when set against the utility of having a good and devoted editor working on articles. We need to get our priorities straight. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• A complete project space ban worked for Kurt, and I think a complete project space ban could also work for Will. Giggy (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support a return to article editing for Sceptre, with a ban against all non-article work. He should be allowed to edit article, article talk pages, and user talk pages solely to discuss matters related to article content. We can revisit the rest of it at a later date after an extended period of good behavior. As many have noted, a reblock is cheap and easy, the first time he confronts another user he can be reblocked for 3 months with the knowledge that he blew his second chance. But we stand to lose nothing by unblocking him, if he only works on article content. And since a reblock is so easy, I see no reason to keep him blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. He engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, which is normally an indef offense, was given a 3 month block instead, and now wants it lifted? No. Let him wait, he won't learn hislesson by unblocking him just because he requests it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Erik the Red. Jtrainor (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support article editing unblock. I have worked with Sceptre at WP:LOST since approximately July 2007 and we made it our goal to create and get a (featured topic) set of fourteen articles to good or featured status between February and June of this year and we were successful. I have also met him at other parts of WP:TV and at WP:FAC and WP:RFA and was added to his list-of-people-to-contact-if-he-is-unavailable list. Through my interactions with him, I have found that Will is an excellent content editor and possesses other traits and skills ideal for a Misplaced Pages contributor. Since he was blocked, he e-mailed me asking to check changes to his articles and I have all of his featured/FAC content on my watchlist. If he sticks to encyclopedia writing and directly associated project/talk namespaces, e.g. FAC, for the time being, I think that we will even see him climb the WP:WBFAN/2008 ladder. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until December 9. We usually block indef for this sort of thing, and this wasn't some newbie who didn't realise what they were doing. However, if consensus should be to unblock, he should be namespace-barred from project pages. Black Kite 10:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support an article editing unblock, agree mostly with comment by thedemonhog (talk · contribs), and Durova (talk · contribs) makes some good points. The short of it is that Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) is right - if past troublesome behavior resurfaces, could always reblock. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock with clear agreement from Sceptre. We should send a positive message: "You are a valuable contributor," at the same time as we protect the project from the problems. Voluntary restrictions, i.e., accepted by an editor in a free negotiation, are always superior in the long run to purely imposed sanctions, except when editors are truly unable or unwilling to restrain themselves and honor their own promises even when the rules are crystal clear. I've seen no evidence of that in this case. For this reason, unblock now, under a clear agreement -- which should be explicit, and explicitly accepted by Sceptre, not just some vague conclusion from this long discussion -- is much better than waiting for the block to expire. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• If he wants to create content, we should allow him to do such. If he, in turn, throws it back in our face, then he should have some kind of penalty. Perhaps unblock now with it known that he could be blocked for, say, 4 or 5 months if he causes any problems during the 3 month period that he would have been blocked during? I don't know. I like content. I hate fighting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I am for the FULL unconditional unblock of User:Spectre because he is quite helpful guy. On the contrary, i support a project ban on Kurt Weber for being a complete asshat. --creaɯy! 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not helpful, and I suggest you withdraw it. Black Kite 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not helpful at all. Doesn't mean it doesn't have a point. Kurt is quite a bit more ... ah, hard to get along with than Spectre? Some people are going to recommend an unblock simply for the biased sort of reason as listed above "I like Spectre". Is that proper? -- Logical Premise 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reasons given for blocking or unblocking can be analysed by their worth; nevertheless, Cream is entitled to the first half of his comment, but not the second. Black Kite 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Cream, please reconsider the ending of that comment. Durova 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed: Cream, there's a trade-off between speaking frankly and being prudent. "Asshat" probably doesn't quite respect that. Anthøny ✉ 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Logical Premise. The only reason the block wasn't indef was because of his work in the mainspace. The entire length should be served out. GlassCobra 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry

Myself and User:Boodlesthecat are subject to 1RR restriction. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he is now at 3 reverts there), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"). Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You should probably bring this up on WP:ANI rather than here where it may get more attention. I haven't had time to look at the issue in detail but if your comment above is accurate then he's way out of bounds. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reposted there, per your advice.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

sockfarm to block anyone?

Check this, this, and this out. Thingg 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This one needs to go to Misplaced Pages:RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked those three editors btw, but this is essentially whack-a-mole. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I sprotected Berlin Wall for a week too. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Special Boat Service‎ image

An User:86.164.45.198 has removed the image form the info box (but not the actual image) initially without explanation but then posted what seed to be the patent details on my talk page after I reverted. I have pointed them at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright and mentioned Fair Use (rational on image) but in one of his comment on may talk page the editor seemed to imply they owned the copyright, which unless they are a representative of The Crown this is unlikely. Mentioning here more as a head-up then as a problem. --Nate1481 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I encountered this user at User talk:212223sassbs; more than one of us implored him to discuss, and I pointed him to the fair use guidelines, but he refuses to do anything but copy-paste that legalese bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what is going on with that article as well, so here is some more info: Since 30 September the image on that page has been removed 15 times by an IP editor and User:212223sassbs (who has since been blocked) who kept replacing the image with the text "Intellectual property crime" and this text. He also left this message on the articles talk page. After that user was blocked another IP suddenly appeared and continued removing that image. It seems to be an ongoing issue and i'm unsure how to proceed. Is this a case of RBI or is there more to it? Erebus Morgaine (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User contacted unblock-en-l with the same complaint after the first block. Was told to explain on article talk what the ownership issue was with the image. Hasn't appeared to listen to that request.

Use normal discretion - block if they're disruptive. But PLEASE tell them on their talk page if you do, to contact info-en@wikimedia.org if they have a genuine trademark registration issue or copyright violation issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The message that was left on the talk page appears to be from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/design/d-find/d-find-number, search for 3017175, if that sheds any light on this. The actual image of the registered design will not be available from the UK IP Office site until after 6 am or so UK time (the site is not 24/7). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we at least semiprotect the article to stop the repeated disruption? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP is heavily backlogged

Please help. Enigma 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can non-admins assist in this somehow? -- how do you turn this on 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a quick glance, several of these have been addressed but need to be archived; perhaps a non-admin can do that. I will try to do some work on this over the weekend. One of the challenges with this page is that there is often the clamour for technical evidence of socking (whether or not it is really needed), and that places an excessive burden on our few checkusers. Risker (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins wouldn't be able to help in situations where users may need blocking. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, well I'll assist by archiving, and commenting on cases. -- how do you turn this on 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just archived a bunch. Thanks for helping out, by the way. Just a note: add comments to the comments section, not too conclusions. That's usually reserved for whomever is closing the case. Enigma 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, got it down from 77 to 67. That's just cleanup, though. Many, many cases need an administrator to review them. Enigma 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Down to 55. WP:SSP almost always has a backlog, though - even if we get it down to 0 (as has happened in the past) it'll get back up to 20 or 30 outstanding cases within a week. _Gb 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some tonight. OhanaUnited 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously new cases are constantly being added. We need administrators who will keep an eye on it and close cases. That'll prevent it from getting backlogged. It's always been backlogged for months because we don't have administrators committed to SSP. Ongoing problem. Enigma 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that propsal of FT2's a while back? Caulde 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Which proposal might that be? -- how do you turn this on 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which proposal but wasn't there a proposal to merge WP:RFCU and WP:SSP at one point? How did that come out? ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that's the proposal I was about to bring up as well. I edit-conflicted with you. Enigma 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably support such a proposal. Surely most sockpuppet cases would require checkuser intervention anyway? -- how do you turn this on 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar: Indeed, the proposal is still pending the final details being "ironed out." Ultimately, we are awaiting FT2's having spare time to undertake the merger; I suppose that's all that is holding this up at the moment. The merger thread (note: now historical, what with consensus-building discussion having concluded in support of the proposal) is located at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal; a "sandbox" for the new centralised system is located at Misplaced Pages:SSP2. Anthøny ✉ 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why RFCU gets more traffic and attention because SSP is a murky guessing game. Sometimes things look like they are together but they're not. And other times things look like they are not together but actually they are. OhanaUnited 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and others are almost done with the proposal to merge SSP and RFCU. I've had SSP to zero a few times but it doesn't last long. Long wordy statements only slow things down, be short and to the point when filing cases. 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France

Just appeared on Sports Guy on ESPN.com:

"If Mike Shanahan was Napoleon, then this is his Waterloo." Great point. Can we make sure someone gets that on Napoleon's Misplaced Pages page? Just stick it right after the section about the 100 Days. Thanks.

A heads up more than anything. Thats a high traffic page.--CastAStone/ 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Unlikely. There are likely thousands of cultural references made to Napoleon, and if we noted each and every one, including insignificant throw away comments like this, the article would degenerate into an unreadable list of people compared to Napoleon and places compared to Waterloo, and it would ultimately decrease the quality of the article by swamping it with lots of information that really has little to do about Napoleon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He's saying there's likely to be Colbert-like vandalism attempts to insert that fact in. SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind. Carry on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you know? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I warned that user. Also, it should be noted that the page is already indefinately semiprotected. Thus, under current autoconfirmed rules, it is likely to receieve much problems, except by old sleeper accounts, and they will then only expose themselves... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information at Talk:John Lewis (pastor)

• Talk:John Lewis (pastor) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not entirely sure how this is usually handled, but that the revision usually should be deleted by an admin so that the personal information is no longer viewable in the history. An IP revealed the phone number, email and physical address of the article's subject about a half hour ago. I had reverted it and then put a note on the talk page. Thanks, Boccobrock•T 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this should really be emailed to be oversighted. -- how do you turn this on 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminbots up at BRFA

Just as a quick heads up, there are currently 2 BRFAs up for adminbots:

• Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 11
• Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Ilmari Karonen's adminbot

Xclamation point 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CarloscomB

Hello, CarloscomB (talk · contribs) has been changing heading levels across a very large number of astronomy articles from == to === and subsequent ones (adding an equal sign). This has been noted on his talk page, and he has not responded on why he doesn't like standard layout of all other articles on Misplaced Pages. I think someone should look into this. (Thjis has already been noted at WT:ASTRO) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest warning them if they continue to do so without reacting to those messages. Changing stuff to mess up the layout without explanation or willingness to talk about it may be a sign of vandalism. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe CarloscomB is a vandal in the traditional sense: he seems in general to be making good faith edits but does not seem to understand various features of the articles he edits (in particular, putting values in infoboxes to far too much precision, displaying a lack of understanding about what the infobox fields actually mean, etc). Given the state of the articles this user creates, I suspect we are dealing with someone who, despite being an extremely prolific editor, is not someone for whom English is a first language, nor are they particularly strong at it. Icalanise (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I Am Rich merge suggestion close requested

A DRV request lead to a 23 September 2008 relisting of I Am Rich merge suggestion. To give this matter some finality and the participants an ability to move forward, would a kind admin please close the discussion with a conclusion and with top and bottom archival templates. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

MfDs transcluded into AfD logs

There presently are 26 MfD pages transcluded into the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log. I plan to fix this by adding the MfD pages into the MfD archives and remove the transclusion from the AfD log. Last time I monkeyed with the deletion archives, there was an objection. If there are no objections, I would like to proceed with the clean up. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IP editor redirecting talk page to indefinitely blocked account

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who made a series of abusive statements about other editors on Talk:Barack Obama (see ), insists on redirecting his/her talk page to that of an indefinitely blocked account they created. This seems to have started about a month ago when Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) moved and redirected the IP's talk page to a new account the IP editor created several hours before. I noticed this during routine article patrol of Talk:Barack Obama as I was about to put an article probation notice (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation on the IP editor due to ongoing abusive comments. When I looked into it the whole thing seemed fishy. The IP is an accused (and likely) sockpuppet of a banned user (see ), and Frogger3140's edit history is odd, to say the least. It did not make sense to me for an IP to direct to a blocked user account so I restored it, together with the various prior warnings - and that's when the IP started reverting the redirect and page blank. Do IP users "own" their pages the way account-holders do, in the sense that they can make their page say anything they want? Does that extend to redirecting their talk page somewhere else? I don't want to continue revert-warring this editor over the matter, though it seems likely they'll eventually be blocked or banned for other aspects of their editing. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have not notified the IP editor - I don't want to leave the notice on the wrong account, and leaving it on the IP talk page would involve reverting the redirect.Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Review of unblock request...

...at User talk:Patrick Bernier - could someone who knows about these things review the unblock request and, if necessary, action it? I would do it, but to me squid is something that you eat, and not a type of proxy, so I'm probably not the best person to judge whether the request is reasonable or not..._Gb 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments removed from talk:Hungary even if they are not against the rules

I'd like an admin to take a look at this, comments are removed from talk:Hungary only because people over there don't agree with the POV of the posters. I started a discussion about the case talk:Hungary/Stop_removing_discussions_from_talk_page and I've been accused for soapboxing and other things and I have been told that my comment and the whole thread will be removed too.

If I'm in the wrong for trying to stop people from removing comments from the talk page and if I'm told so by an admin I will stop, but to me this looks like a clear case of censorship, see for example FWIW, I don't even know if the facts enumerated in that post are true and indeed they are not sourced, but removing comments from talk pages because they are unsourced and because you don't like the POV seems wrong to me. (again if an admin tells me is OK, I will accept that without further comment). man with one red shoe (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards