Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:42, 4 September 2009

• 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)

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have placed notices on the talk pages of Lawrence Solomon, User:Raul654, User:William M. Connolley, and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you include me? I feel unloved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a conflict of interest on that page. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cos no-one loves yah, bebe :-). In the unlikely event of anyone thinking that GR is an uninterested party in all this, be aware of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and the tedious cabal nonsense; GR's request here is yet more water-muddying. The current dispute is over the inclusion of the word "environmentalist" or not; it is not at all clear how inclusion, or exclusion, of this word can be to the detriment of the subject. Since in 2008-09-26 I have precisely one edit to this page; GR's allegations of intent to disrupt are absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the page are readily available in the article history. They speak for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So are Raul's. Why don't they speak for themselves. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, why don't GoRight's own edits speak for themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Raul's and my own edits also speak for themselves on our respective levels of involvement and whether our edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, or not. I'll trust the uninvolved here to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight trusts the "community" when that community involves himself and a whole lot of Scibaby sockpuppets which he can use to falsely claim consensus. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count, zero Scibaby socks have contributed here. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

← I guess I see a few issues here:

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

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

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

I'm curious about your charge that your fellow editors "have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt" the Solomon article. How do you know they have the "desire" to disrupt? Have they said so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Their edits to the main space page combined with their commentary on the talk page. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So your view is that a preference for objective third-party references rather than op-eds and self-published sources constitutes a desire to disrupt? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that their respective edits and comments indicate that they intend to obstruct the introduction of appropriately sourced material into the article which could be considered positive towards the subject of the BLP, and in that sense they are being disruptive. That they freely undertook these actions speaks to the issue of their desire. That they were publicly chastised by Solomon speaks to their motive, and therefore to the need for a page ban to prevent further disruption of the article. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's concerns seem to be quite legitimate. Raul, WMC and a couple of others seem to be very involved and opinionated on the subject matter involved yet they haven using their admin tools in relation to the subject. This seems very improper, not to mention the problems with the apparent POV pushing that's going on. If they want to work and collaborate on the article I think that's fine, but using their admin tools to advance a position is totally unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3 questions (simply because i've been mentioned as an involved party by GoRight - otherwise i will try to stay out of the dramah..):

• How exactly have admin tools been used to advance a position?
• And what exactly is improper in the discussions?
• What POV pushing has been going on?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, for starters, protecting the page when he has an interest in the dispute? Thatcher 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Arguable, as argued above (not by me). However, do you think CoM might perhaps be a bit more careful about flinging around plurals? Unless I (or someone else?) is supposed to have used admin tools here? And, just to be clear, the "POV pushing" that we're arguing about is whether LS gets to be called an env or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it if some editors try to throw the kitchen sink into every dispute. In my view, Raul654 is so partisan on the issue of climate change that he should not use his admin or checkuser tools in this area. This is a general position and people are free to disagree. In this specific case, protecting an article where two of the editors involved in the dispute were yourself and GoRight (given Raul's participation in your Arbitration case and his repeated calls for banning GoRight) was not appropriate. And this is not the first such incident. Thatcher 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What position was Raul advancing? I'm rather confused here, we have a plethora of scibaby sockpuppets here, which seems to be the main reason for the protection (and btw. for Raul's participation both in 2008 and in 2009). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be advancing the position that Solomon is not an environmentalist, something that he personally fought for last year. (This is, by the way, a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority. I can call myself an environmentalist because I recycle my pop cans and use a water filter instead of bottled water. What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists.) Thatcher 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm? You seem to have misunderstood the discussion.. I am not opposing an inclusion of the description that Solomon is an environmentalist, in fact i have yet to see anyone do so. What is asked for is a reliable source, that isn't an opinion article or a self-published whatever, (ie. something that is reliable for BLP info without the "X describes Y as ...") to establish this particular factoid. I was of the impression (apparently mistaken) that if asked, we must document/reference information? Or have i for some reason completely misread WP:V? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I would like to throw my own 2 cents into this discussion concisely, give my full support to GoRight's motion, and then withdraw.

1. COI concerns: the case is stronger against William Connolley than it is against KDP because not only has Solomon written against Connolley but Connolley has responded in kind against Solomon, and has argued in a page still available in his blog (here), that Solomon is essentially a fraud, and not an environmentalist. KDP claims not to be offended by Solomon's writings against him, and I am inclined to believe him. Still, conflicts of interest are not, in normal situations, resolved by asking the potentially conflicted individual about how they feel. :)
2. Concerning Solomon & environmentalist: we have a large amount of source material giving S and an environmentalist. Twice, I have take sources to the RS/N and the verdict was that KDP's & WMC's reasoning against the material was invalid (in the first case it was slightly more complicated than I present here, but my summary is accurate). On the instance of the Financial Post biography, KDP & WMC continue to insist that it is a WP:SPS, apparently in outright contradiction of the WP policies. It seems to me, therefore, that the two editors are ignoring both consensus against their position, and the rules.
3. Concerning the page protection, that's just bizarre; there was no edit warring occurring as far as I know (I certainly wasn't editing the page).
4. Finally, I may not have helped the situation as I must admit that my frustration over the many days I've spent in this argument has erupted into my comments on the page; sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight (again)

Previously discussed:

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

First, GoRight's diffs to claim my "involvement" are ancient. I have not edited this article in almost a year. His claims of involvement are completely without merit. Using his ridiculous interpretation of "involvement", admins would be prohibited from taking administrative actions on any article they have ever edited. This is not an accident - GoRight frequently claims involvement by the admins most familiar with his misbehavior in order to avoid being sanctioned for that misbehavior. (Abd proposed something along these lines in the on-going arbitration case, and it was rejected almost unanimously by the community as a transparent attempt to disqualify those most suited to deal with his disruption)

Second, as the one adding the material, the onus is on GoRight to provide sources to back up his claim. The sources he cites have repeatedly been debunked on the talk page as op-eds or self-published sources. Thus, he is in violation of WP:BLP.

Third, the current edit war is yet another instance of GoRight proxy editing for banned user Scibaby. GoRight's edits: ; Scibaby's edits: . This is the 6th or 7th incident of GoRight acting as a proxy for banned users in as many months, and the 3rd or 4th in the last few weeks. (He does it for Scibaby quite a lot, and recently has taken to doing it for Abd)

Fourth, related to the above, when I protected the page, I gave two reasons -- edit warring and sockpuppetry. GoRight conviently omitted the latter from his description.

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

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

Raul leaves out, of course, that I have been working in good faith on the talk page to resolve this issue and that I am NOT the only editor asserting this material so any claims of my meat puppeting are absurd, unless he wants to level the charge against ALL of those asserting this material as well which, as you will note, he has not. He is being selective for an obvious purpose given his history of seeking sanctions against me and being rebuffed each time. His previous attempt at this meat puppet accusation was investigated and rejected, .

My previous pledge of adopting WP:1RR served its purpose between when it was made and now. I hereby rescind that pledge moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, when did you make the 1RR pledge? Was it recent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See this. He made the promise on August 7 of last year. As soon as the discussion was over, he promptly ignored the promise, and participated in the many of his revert wars 12 days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to rescind the pledge *before* breaking it rather than *after*? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. The part being left out here is that the pledge was to make a good faith effort, not to be 100% perfect. I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. - your editing record disagrees. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, exceptions ... not the rule. But please DO read Raul's WP:ATTACKPAGE and then read my edits in context to judge for yourself Raul's veracity in such matters. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Misplaced Pages instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --TS 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of this issue below. Please voice your opinions there. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, "sabotage" is a pretty serious charge. I'm sure you have links supporting this, right? ATren (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Tony, but I sure do. And note that that page only covers the September 2008-April 2009 period. If I updated it for his behavior since April, it would be about 5 times longer. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(note, I have added my signature to my earlier edit, above). Raul, that evidence was presented in the RfC you started on GoRight, right? If he wasn't banned then, what new information do you have to justify a ban now? As I recall, when I looked at that evidence many months ago, I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. I gave up looking after that. ATren (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not. As the first sentence says, everything there is stuff he did after the RFC and the community ban discussion last August. I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. - that's because you have a history of defending his misbehavior. Your incredulity is hardly convincing counter evidence. Raul654 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find concerning is that GoRight has been on Misplaced Pages for very nearly 2 years, as made around 3500 edits, but only 12% of them in article space. Moreover, as far as I can figure out from the edit counter, he has not made one single edit that is not either connected with global warming or global warming and fringe science conflict resolution - invariably pushing the fringe side. This does not look like somebody who is interested in the project except as a vehicle to push his own POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Already addressed in previous discussions. I am a self-acknowledged single purpose account which does not disqualify me from participating on the project. My purpose here is to address what I perceive as being a systemic bias on the global warming pages and to move those articles which are affected into a more WP:NPOV position. I believe that this is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I also seek to remove bias from the BLP's of the global warming skeptics in support of not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP as well (with this discussion being an example of a WP:NPOV concern rather than a WP:BLP one). --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the issue of proxy editing/meatpuppetry was presented in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby and the people who reviewed Raul's argument there did not agree with his conclusion that GoRight had violated the BAN policy. As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. At that point the question is not whether they are replacing edits by banned users, but whether or not the content of the edits themselves is problematic. That may be the case in other edits by GoRight, but I don't think the proxying/meatpuppetry claim has merit. Nathan 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. - almost, but not quite. It says you can restore edits if you take responsibility for them, and they are verifiable, and you "have independent reasons for making them" (--Misplaced Pages:Banning policy). If you make an edit because a banned user did it first, you are not making them independently, and you do not qualify for that exception. Your action is simply proxy editing. This totally demolishes claims that GoRight's edits were OK. And, in the Scibaby discussion above, not a single person other than myself ever addressed this issue. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess since we're quoting policy, it is important that we be accurate. The text of the policy as of this moment reads: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and also Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. So not "make them independently" - have independent reasons (i.e. don't put them back based only on who made them). I think that we did discuss the meaning of the BAN policy and the MEAT policy, and we came to a conclusion at odds with your own. Nathan 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Note that my comment here was in reply to this version of Raul's comments directly above; he modified his comment before my reply was posted, and I didn't notice the change).

Your position is absurd. When was the last time someone reverted with the edit summary that they were restoring an edit because person X made it? Has that ever happened? Because you are saying that is the only condition under which someone would be guilty of proxy editing. Otherwise, they could always claim to have independent reasons for making the edits. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, and not unreasonable - it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior; the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. Nathan 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Should we consider deleting "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban" from the policy? That's the bit that appears to be the sticking point. You and others are arguing that it's generally OK to reinstate such edits, so perhaps policy doesn't reflect current practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, - no, it's not. The plain meaning of "have independent reasons for making them" means you are making it independent of the person who made it originally. If your reason for doing it is because someone else did it first (which can be inferred easily from editing behavior and does not have to be explicitly stated), then you are not independent.

and not unreasonable - I stand by my above comment. Under you interpretation of the policy, the only way someone can ever be guilty of proxy editing is if they post an edit summary saying they were restoring an edit because person X made it first.

it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. - this is absolutely, 100% wrong. If you see that a banned editor makes an edit that you happen to agree with, you are *not* permitted to restore it. Being banned means just that -- not permitted to participate on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, we send a signal to every banned user that it's OK to flaunt a ban, because someone might agree with you and edit war in your favor.

This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior - this is irrelevant. Of course if someone does other bad things in addition to proxy editing, they can be blocked. The issue at question is whether restoring edits by banned user is permitted. And the plain reading of the policy shows that it is not.

the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. - Absolutely not. The purpose is to discourage banned users from coming back and violating their bans in the hopes that someone will side with them -- which is exactly what is happening here. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of my restoring ANY edit my independent reason for making the change is that I believe that it improves the encyclopedia, and as I have stated many times I take full responsibility for the content that I restore. If the content I have restored is a problem then block or ban me based on that, not based on the actions of someone else and over whom I have no control. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it improves the encyclopedia - thank you for proving my point, that under Nathan's interpretation of the proxying policy, it's basically impossible to violate because no matter how damaging the proxy edits are, the person will always claim to be doing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I have made perfectly clear, I accept full responsibility for the content I add to the encyclopedia. If that content is damaging then block or ban me for that, if not then your argument is moot. --GoRight (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I previously suggested that you drop this theory. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, every uninvolved user shares "Nathan's interpretation." The community does not think that the policy means what you claim it does. Because policy is derived from community norms (rather than vice versa), it flatly does not mean what you claim. Instead, focus on how GoRight's editing is bad; trying to catch him in an absurd technicality tends to turn people off (as you can see above). Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry" from WP:BAN, as it appears no longer to reflect community consensus and to be producing needless confusion. By obviating disputes over this wording we should have one less source of conflict. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes a little too far. I think we all agree that editors must take full responsibility for the content of such reinstated edits. I've revised it. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you added "Users should generally refrain from knowingly reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of their ban" in light of yours and others' comments here, which state that editors are free to reinstate edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content of those edits. I think it's important for the policy to be clear. It has caused too much conflict and misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I re-added that because editors do in fact tend to avoid restoring these edits. I think it's a best practice. But at the same time, I don't think restoring comments should be sanctionable as long as they take full responsibility for the edits—its' sanctionable if they're personal attacks, DE, and so forth. Probably needs more work; should ask folks on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban

Previously discussed:

Proposal: GoRight is banned from global warming-related articles and talk pages.

Support

• Long overdue. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Far overdue. The proxy editing alone should have been grounds for a longish block. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are you alleging that GoRight, an account since October 2007, was editing the article at the direction of Scibaby, and not from their own interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules? If you are, then you need to provide evidence. If not, or are unable to provide such evidence, then I think you should retract the above statement and apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is ridiculous. Raul has been pursuing GoRight for over a year now. His latest was a completely unfounded "Scibaby meatpuppet" accusation that was quickly closed. This continued pursuit of GoRight by Raul must stop. Just because GoRight doesn't agree with Raul, doesn't give Raul the right to repeatedly try to chase him off. ATren (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have a registered account? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. ATren (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Any question of a ban should be directed toward Raul654 and his persistent targeting of GoRight, and his use of sysop flags within articles where his adversary opinions well known. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think encouraging a tendentious editor's paranoia is a good idea there. Note also who, exactly, brought the complaint here and the ludicrous rationales offered for it. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am not scibaby sure what you scibaby mean by scibaby rationales - that scibaby WMC and RaulSCIBABY do not have well scibaby known opinions on certain scibaby issues. You may scibaby have noted that they scibaby have not really responded to scibaby the allegations that scibaby they are using sysop scibaby flags within articles that scibaby they have some scibaby investment in. There scibaby seems to be scibaby a meme that they scibaby keep uttering in an scibaby diversionary tactic - although I scibaby can't bring it to scibaby mind at present. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) not scibaby

Good for you that you find that funny. I've blocked about 2-3 Scibaby socks per day for the last 3 days, and an CU had to verify those identifications. I can very much use this time for other things, both on and off Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Hmmm, interesting. So you are of the opinion that scibaby doesn't exist? Or that the edit-war in question didn't have scibaby sockpuppets involved? Were the (4 in the current edit-war) editors then blocked for spurious reasons? (btw. not by Raul, but by various admins and confirmed by User:Nishkid64) Wouldn't that be an extreme abuse of WP, and in such a case require that you took it up immediately? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will spell it out; the question is whether or not Raul654 and WMC used admin tools in an area where they are known to have strong opinions and to have had concerns raised previously, in violation of WP:Admin. To bring up the meme of scibaby as a smokescreen is not remotely funny - it is obtuse, wearisome and irritating. It also avoids answering the question; is using the flags appropriate in areas where the admin is deemed to have an interest and has already had concerns raised? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. But now you are ignoring that scibaby was involved in this particular instance. Btw. i am unaware of WMC using any tools here? Was he? There are btw. to my knowledge two CU's who are on the scibaby edits - one of these seem to be Raul, and the only instances where he's been involved in the article has been in connection with scibaby, so what is specifically wrong about the use of tools here? (did he advance a position on the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The other CU working the Scibaby stuff is User:Nishkid64. He has occasionally edited global warming related articles, and his edits generally reflect the prevailing scientific view of the subject. Should we find a different CU to work this? In looking at the current list of checkusers there are perhaps only two who are completely and utterly detached from the topic and personalities involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring, but considering it irrelevant to the matter as complained of. Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users ("Proxying") GoRights inclusion of the disputed term and the sources that were also being used by scibaby socks are allowed by policy provided that he was prepared to take ownership of the edit and sources. From his known viewpoint there should be no reason to doubt GoRight would not find these sources and thus the descriptive phrase appropriate. Therefore Scibaby is irrelevant to whether GoRight should have used the term, but is regarding who protected the page and in which version. I would note that the accusation of proxying by GoRight (disregarding the rejection of previous claims that GoRight is a Scibaby meatpuppet) has not been withdrawn by various parties, including Raul654 who only dropped it to try and make the article ban find consensus faster. To me, this appears to be a concerted effort to have GoRight removed because of his point of view - and the constant mention of Scibaby is being used to smear GoRight by association. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems excessive given the evidence presented Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I would support Raul being restricted from taking administrative actions on the same, broadly interpreted. Viridae 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed Keepscases ban - for turning a community ban discussion into RFA style. Everyone's been here long enough to know that's now how it works, nor should it change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• GoRight is a partisan and can be a problem. I would probably support a 1RR restriction due to occasional edit warring in the past. But if we really want to stop abusive partisan involvement, Raul654 should stop using his tools in this area. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, if "involved" admins are not supposed to deal with abusive socks on the articles they watch, may I suggest that you volunteer and watch all the GW articles yourself, and promptly deal with abusive edits? Don't worry, after a day or two you will be "involved" as well, and can pass on the baton, and after 18 months we will be through "uninvolved" admins and the socks can have their playing field. Or, maybe, we can all agree that dealing with obvious abusive socks is not inappropriate use of admin tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Can we also agree that checkusering everyone who disagrees with you is not "dealing with obvious abusive socks" and is in fact an abuse of the tool?

  It's possible for admins to protect pages and block socks without becoming a partisan in an edit war. Raul has never been able to do this. Other admins have been much better at showing restraint, and that the area would get along fine without Raul's administrative participation. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  We can also agree that 2+2=4, or that the moon circles the Earth. Is there any but a rhethotrical reason to suppose that any Checkuser "checkusers everyone who disagrees with them"? I've by now blocked about 10 Scibabies myself, and reported probably the same number. IIRC, all have been confirmed by CU. If I can recognize them, so can the Checkusers, and checkusering a user for which a reasonable suspicion of socking exists is not abusive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are non-rhetorical reasons to suppose that every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered. Expect to hear more on this soon. Thatcher 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you either put up or shut up? And, given that we have somewhere around 500 identified Scibaby socks, "nearly" every new editor on the GW articles is a Scibaby sock... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of making personal attacks, you might consider whether might actually know what I'm talking about. This is not the time or place to go into detail, but Luke might not actually be talking out of his ass. Thatcher 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but either you have something to say or you don't. Making unsupported insinuations is not acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you chastising yourself? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have I been unclear? I find it deplorable is someone in a privileged situation says "I might know something about X, but I'm not telling". Either keep it confidential, or spill the beans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were unclear, but now you have clarified things enormously. I was under the mistaken impression you might have a valid question or concern; now I see you are merely incredibly rude and pushy, or else obtuse. No one has even remotely taken the attitude you suggest; however, you have managed to be very insulting. I suggest you moderate your tone. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. CHL said Raul was "checkusering everyone who disagrees with (him)" and Thatcher implied that there was evidence that this is so. If Raul (or anyone else) is indeed abusing CU, then the community needs to know and action should be taken. But I have to agree with Stephan that making such intimations without disclosing the evidence for them is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part of Thatcher's statement? "Expect to hear more on this soon." --GoRight (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only "expect to hear more" but also, and I'm guessing here, if there is a sock army whose modus operandi includes disagreement with a certain editor, or making a particular point, that would be a flag to check, would it not???? And giving any more details than that would be violating beans. This demand to know all the hairy details is inappropriate, given the nature of CU; we choose CUs carefully because they will know things everyone shouldn't. If there is concern, state it - but try to restrain yourself from making demands because you cannot bear not knowing what is, by its very nature, private and protected information. Otherwise we'd all have CU; surely you see the sense in that? And I reiterate; Thatcher has indicated more information will be forthcoming in the future. I suggest we AGF a little and show some patience. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the issues in the current RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley has been the effect of consistent factions, involved over a spread of articles, on community bans or other discussions, particular over issues of administrative recusal, as started this. In considering a discussion like this, it should be noticed that many editors voicing opinions does not equal "the community" if that sample is heavily biased. WP:BAN requires a "consensus of uninvolved editors," and the difficulty of judging involvement does not negate its importance of. What's remarkable here is that more apparently neutral editors are being attracted, such that what might have been merely ambigious, and thus arguably sustaining the factional position when it is over an admin action, is actually snowing against the faction. I support an RfC on Raul654 for long-term abuse of tools and behavior unbecoming of an administrator and damaging to the project, including the original manufacture of the Scibaby affair through use of tools to block an editor with whom the Raul654 was edit warring, and many, many other examples; GoRight could be a certifier; the more editors who participate who don't have a POV agenda the better. For some history on Raul654 and William M. Connolley v. GoRight, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight, filed by Raul654 and WMC, and the evidence page I compiled for that, User:Abd/GoRight; this was my first encounter with the faction, and my POV on global warming is opposite to that of GoRight, near as I can tell. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on GoRight seems excessive. Perhaps a 1RR restriction per CHL? ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Other

I oppose any ban of GR for proxying. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, in the interest of reaching consensus I've removed that part of the proposal. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who is making this proposal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul. There's a history tab up top, ya know. Tan | 39 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So an editor complained that Raul is involved in the article dispute and shouldn't have been the one to protect it, and now Raul is proposing that the same editor be banned? Jeesh. This seems to me to epitomize bad judgment and a lack of restraint. Why not step back and let cooler heads and uninvolved parties assess the situation and help resolve it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot support this proposal, as I don't see adequate evidence for it. I do see adequate evidence for banning Raul from using his administrative and functionary tools from anything to do with the political dispute over global warming, and I really don't believe we have a single global warming article that is not contaminated by that political dispute. Raul has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he lacks the self control to avoid inappropriate behavior in this topic area, so I conclude that we need to impose some external controls. GRBerry 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with GRBerry... Raul's many positive contributions notwithstanding, he has a blindspot in this area. support a ban as GRBerry outlines. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd support both a advance function restriction on Raul, and a community 1RR on GoRight as above—both restrictions in the topic of global warming. I suspect it would lead to less AN issues from both camps. I think this discussion has run out of momentum though. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 12 months after the last restriction was imposed for comments and problems concerning the same area of conflict, merely 1RR? Might as well let the momentum die altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      What for you mean "same area of conflict"? My editing restriction is related to William M. Connolley (not to be confused with User:William M. Connolley). I have not once done anything to violate my current restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      The comments and problems came about from the wide area of conflict relating to you, GoRight. For the purpose of imposing simple sanctions, I split the area into narrower areas (which came in the form of proposals). The restriction imposed on you (proposal 3) attempted to address the most serious of the issues at the time, and the narrowest area. 1 year later, apparently it is the (narrower) area covered in proposal 2 that is in need of attention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to the current edit warriors

The next person who adds or removes other people's postings in this section will be blocked. Enough, already. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's refactoring of the discussion turned it into a soup that was entirely unreadable. Most salient of which, LessHeard vanU's oppose read as a support for the ban. –xeno 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I revert any more of Tony's totally inappropriate removal of material, I'm getting blocked? I don't think so. Tan | 39 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we close the whole damn thing? This is going nowhere and has broken down into mutual recriminations between the usual suspects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can get behind. Tan | 39 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That also works for me. Tanthalas, I'm not going to take sides on this, despite the antipathy I hold for Tony.. it looks like squabbling kids throwing mud at each other. I'm not going to take sides, both of you stop. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an inappropriate removal of material, once. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me an edit warrior or compare me to a kid throwing mud. Tan | 39 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Boris, this debate has little to nothing to do with the original issue. Anyone like to think about the amount of article space editing that could be accomplished in the amount of time that gets spent here? (And I didn't even invent the "please stop the flame-war" flame.) Awickert (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid turning this discussion into a vote. This isn't new policy and since most of the people using this page should be aware that voting is harmful to consensus there really shouldn't be any surprise about the edits I made. --TS 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have no problem with you SAYING that, Tony. I do have a problem with you unilaterally removing many posters comments because you disagree with them. Just like I disagreed with Tan for restoring without even a request on Tony's page. It doesn't do rational discussion any good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Is the page going to stay protected until Sept. 10? I don't know if the dispute over whether he's an environmentalist will sprout up again, but I've proposed a resolution I think is reasonable on the talk page. I'm hoping it can be worked out amicably. I've also noted some other edits that I think would be helpful in improving the article that I don't think will be especially controversial. If anyone violates 3RR or edit wars there are appropriate venues to address that and certainly there is attention on the article now. And I would think this discussion serves as warning to all involved to obey the speed limit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It will stay protected until an admin is satisfied the edit war won't continue if unprotected at which point they should unprotect. –xeno 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into whether there was edit warring or not, but one of the issues raised in this discussion was whether the protection was appropriate and helpful. I think with the close supervision that is in place now it would be good to see if we can edit the article collaboratively. I don't think any changes to the environmentalist bit should be made until some agreement is reached. But there are plenty of other areas that can be worked on. I should note that I'm totally new to the article so my hands are clean. :) I'm just a good faith editor looking into the issues raised in this report and trying to help work out differences so we can improve our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not the protection was appropriate, I think the article could use some cooldown time still while the point of contention is worked out. Perhaps Raul would like to self revert without prejudice to himself and another admin can reprotect if edit warring continues. –xeno 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By "self revert" do you mean unprotect? Raul hasn't edited the article in almost a year, so there's nothing to revert in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. –xeno 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the Lawrence Solomon article history, and I don't see anyone violating the 3rr rule, or any vandalism, or violations of BLP. I would say that the full protection was unnecessary, and should be removed. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one mentionned 3RR. But there was clearly edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, Cla, from the 23 to the 27 of August there are several edits that are only about inserting or removing "enviromentalist":

• 14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
• 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
• 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 02:07, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf)
• 02:18, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith
• 02:21, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf)
• 02:36, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith
• 03:06, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Stopange),
• 03:29, 25 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• 05:10, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Do You Tweet?)
• 06:52, 25 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz,
• 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0
• 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 21:40, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby range 173.116.44.213
• 00:36, 26 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0
• 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley
• 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight
• 23:20, 26 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz
• 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight
• 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• 03:14, 27 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (A Prose Narrative)
• 04:44, 27 August 2009, remove, Splette
• 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection

Several auto-confirmed editors edit-warring among each other, even if 3RR was not technically breached, and two socks three socks from the same sockmaster in the middle. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A Prose Narrative is scibaby as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of highlighting the fact that Scibaby interjected here? Does this not illustrate User:LessHeard vanU's point from above? I think that Enric's chosen highlighting is completely backwards. As the banned user in all of this, Scibaby's edits should be in normal font and all of the NON-banned users should be highlighted. Let us focus on what the NON-banned users are saying and downplay that the banned users are saying, or is that NOT what we are supposed to be doing with the comments of banned users? Enric has just accomplished the exact opposite. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, that the protection reason wasn't just "edit-warring", but "Edit warring; sockpuppetry" both are clearly evident. Or do you suppose that we should completely ignore the reasons for protection - and simply close our eyes on the fact that scibaby was responsible for 20% of the above edits? Why?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I fail to see how that matters. The simple facts are: (a) even if you completely ignore the Scibaby edits there is STILL edit warring, (b) Raul had himself edit warred over the exact same content, and (c) Raul used his administrative tools while in a content dispute. This Scibaby discussion is a distraction from those pertinent facts, and including it doesn't alter them in the slightest. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

173.116.44.213 is from a Scibaby range. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding reversed. There you have, a bunch of autoconfirmed editors edit-warring, now explain how semi protection would have avoided that. And please notice that Raul reverted that content for the last time in September 2008, 11 months ago . --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of evidence Enric Naval compiled. How you present evidence can depend on what you are trying to prove with it, if you have an axe to grind. Enric, I suspect, wants to prove that the protection was reasonable, and isn't a lot of sock activity a reason for protection? Actually, no. Semiprotection, at most. The sock activity here is largely moot. If we take out the socks and a single revert for each sock edit, following Enric's list, we get:

This is a classic "Constantly Affiliated Block" ("Cab") sequence. The editors removing have been revert warring on global warming articles for years, supported by administrators, always the same administrators, in what I've seen. (KDP isn't listed in the faction described in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but is a very frequent editor on the Cab side in global warming articles and in some other places. Stephan Schulz, WMC, SBHB, and Raul654 are, of course, listed.) The issue is not whether there was or was not edit warring, there was such, as the above shows clearly. Rather, the issue is whether or not Raul654, highly involved historically and always intervening on the side of the Cab editors, never the reverse, should have been the one to spontaneously protect. It creates an appearance that perhaps he protected the article into his preferred version? Historically, when an independent admin has protected one of the GW articles, WMC has unprotected, even if he had been part of the tag team edit warring, if it was the Wrong Version.

In the above sequence, the struggle is over "environmentalist." Is Solomon an "environmentalist"? There is RS saying that he is, and no RS saying that he is not. Hence the arguments over relative reliability of sources are red herrings. (RS can be biased, by the way, claims of bias in a reliable source are likewise red herrings.) Solomon is an unusual writer: an environmentalist who is a global warming skeptic. And the GW Cab doesn't like this, it's obvious, and KDP makes personal charges against Solomon on the article Talk page as arguments that he couldn't be an environmentalist, since he "supports damaging the environment."

So they act to keep "environmentalist" out or de-emphasize it. However, Solomon has apparently earned the sobriquet with his past work, and his most recent article was indeed written from an environmentalist -- or "conservationist" -- perspective. The editors will work it out, I'm sure, if allowed, but GW articles probably need discretionary sanctions even more than Cold fusion, with involved admins strictly hands-off those tools. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just add two letters to your cute little acronym? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses to 3 items:

1. It was above noted that those socks were autoconfirmed. If that is indeed the case, full protection is fine. If not, the semi is the way to go. Also, edits should be allowed by admin proxy after discussion on the talk.
2. The only reason that I can see to describe factions is to destroy chances of collaboration by disqualifying others opinions. This is useless and damaging and 100% WP:ABF. Please strike it.
3. Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in.

Awickert (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in." - But this is precisely what makes you ideal for the task at hand. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Ah, the sweet sound of agreement. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I note in Raul's ban proposal against me above that two users, User:Viridae and User:GRBerry, have expressed general support for some type of restriction on Raul's use of administrative tools on global warming pages, broadly construed. Is there any additional community support for such a sanction or something of a similar nature? --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Life seems fairly confusing at the moment. I think it would be best to finish off your original proposal first (which I think looks like being rejected - or is this new start intended as a recognition of the original failure?) before we start a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to let things settle down, then approach this more formally. Thatcher 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of this as just a continuation of the discussion from above (I thought that was what the section heading moving forward was intended to be). Two user's had expressed support and I merely summarized it here to query if more support existed, or not. If so then it should be pursued, if not then the matter can be dropped. That was my only intent, but I'll just let things unfold at this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of elephants around here. Pity we're not allowed to mention them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher had promised us some news "soon", somewhere above. Before this thread drops off the face of the AN noticeboard is there anything to report? --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There were some distinctly unpleasant allegations that need to be substantiated or withdrawn; "soon" has now passed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs

Upon further reflection, a proposal of this nature would deserve either a full presentation or none at all. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Chillum's question

I returned to this section today to answer Chillum's question, but find that Cirt has now made it into an archived discussion.

Cirt's previous identity was smee

At the time of his RfA ], acknowledgement of this former identity was supressed, allegedly on the grounds that he was at risk of real-world harrassment. I and others found this explanation implausible, and felt it was merely to sheild this information from voters in the RfA.

However, Cirt's supporters held this line very strongly, and I was myself threatened by Jehochman for attempting to discuss the matter later here ].

Apparently the obstacle is now moot, as Cirt seems prepared to acknowledge the identity: ]

Here are some wikidashboard links that give some flavour of the editing patterns. You can decide for yourself whether smee is the disruptive one, or the editors Cirt was seeking to ban.

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

A number of users and admins expressed reservations about whether Cirt's apparent "reform" was genuine, or was a tactic in a long-term strategy to promote the POV-pushing agenda evidenced earlier. Perhaps in the light of recent activity, is is time to review that question?

I strongly request that this whole matter is examined by some non-involved impartial administrator DaveApter (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links show nothing more than volume of editing. I don't see any indication of abusive behavior there. Chillum 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not giving adequate detail. I guess the most direct evidence of disruption is the fact that he was blocked no less than seven times in the space of eight months for edit warring:

Three here: ] And another four here under yet another different username: ]

And a random selection of his edits over a two week period in May 2006: ] shows 500 edits with over 400 of them on topics related to Landmark Education or Werner Erhard, all pushing a particular Point of View. And this is someone who accuses me of being a disruptive SPA and seeks to have me topic banned for making a fraction of that number over a four year period? What's going on here? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave. As an uninvolved administrator, my advice is to let this drop. It's been gone over again and again with the same result. I see no convincing evidence of long-term foul play here. Blocks given out that long ago have no real relevance today, as they're preventative measures, not punitive. I move that we close this post, as it's been gone over more than enough and the community has already reached a firm decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - did you actually read the collapsed post above? We are not talking about "blocks that long ago", but a proposal a couple of days ago to topic ban me and about 16 other accounts. I was merely defending myself (see the collapsed thread), and then answering the questions that other admins had asked for me to substantiate the comments. I request that Cirt withdraw the unjustified personal attack on myself and others, and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious and legitimate ongoing abuse incident regarding these pages. I have reviewed independently and while I feel that your account (DaveApter) is being used appropriately and with any potential COI disclosed, many of the others are not. Cirt is not wrong in bringing this up for uninvolved administrator attention, though he's taken the specific sanction proposal down.

I'm sorry if you feel that you were singled out inappropriately. I believe your inclusion in the list was a mistake, but the concerns and existence of the list were not mistakes. There is an issue. We will probably have to have uninvolved admins take some corrective action in the not too distant future. Cirt was not acting improperly to bring the issue up. I don't see your inclusion as a personal attack; a mistake, but not an attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I too have been singled out inappropriately. Thank you DaveApter for sending me a note or I would not have known. I rarely contribute to Landmark Education articles anymore, or any others for that matter, because of my frustration level with the negative POV that Cirt (formerly smee/smeeglova) and Pedant17 have been pushing on the Landmark related pages for years. It has mostly turned me off to the whole notion of wikipedia. I don't find this on an of the other topics I have contributed to. Sometimes I think they are SPA's of each other. I don't know for sure but I would be that their individual (and certainly combined) edits to Landmark related pages are greater in number than all of the accused editors combined. Mvemkr (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Today DaveApter posted notices to every one of the accounts which was named in the request which was withdrawn five days ago, without informing them that it had been withdrawn by the proposer. Perhaps someone ought to follow up and clarify that there is no outstanding accusation or proposal. Durova 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well please excuse me if I am out of line. If it is indeed the case that "there is no outstanding accusation or proposal", then it would be as well if the proposer would make that clear rather than leaving it ambiguous as it is at present. Certainly Georgewilliamherbert's statement two paragraphs above seems at odds with this interpretation. In any case, it seem to me to be outrageous that this entry was made in the first place without informing the accused of it so that they had an opportunity to defend themselves. Similarly, it would surely be civil to inform them if the accusations were being withdrawn. DaveApter (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The avoidance of confusion was why I attempted to add DaveApter's comments to the already-collapsed thread when he renewed discussion on August 30. It is very odd that he would wish to renew discussion upon a proposal which was already closed by the proposer; in such instances other editors might reexamine the proposal and find merit in the concerns. Without comment on the merit (or lack thereof) on either side, may we close this thread by mutual agreement since there has been no new incident or additional evidence? Durova 20:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New codification of incivility

Since managing incivility is an important role of admins, I'm advising here that the way in which the various aspects of incivility are codified in the policy on civility has been completely re-organised. Each aspect is now identified by number.

This re-organisation may be of assistance to admins when it comes to citing the policy when dealing with possible instances of incivility. In addition, five key factors that admins might take into account in judging whether an editor has been uncivil are listed in the lead.

The discussion that led to these changes—which included two arbitrators (Carcharoth and Casliber)—is here; that section sets out the old and the replacement text in clearly marked boxes. Tony (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So now we can say "Sir! Your comment violates the civility policy, section 1 criteria a!" An interesting approach, I'm curious to see how it will work out. Nathan 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for having a whack at it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good; per Gwen Gale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope there will be feedback—from admins in particular—so that if necessary the wording can be refined over the next ?month or so. Tony (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since enforcement is completely random, what's the point beyond a virtual paper shuffling exercise? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noticing how the civility policy has crept and covers judgmental edit summaries, with a definition that is so broad as to require a great deal of groupthink doubleplus good language modification before committing anything to an edit summary; and the spectacularly broad ill-considered accusations of impropriety which can cover just about anything anyone chooses it to cover. No wonder ANI of late has been brimming with people screaming that others have been incivil to them by, er, disagreeing on an AfD or not dancing on the head of a pin in an edit summary. Well done to all involved! (Unless sarcasm is now incivil, in which case I withdraw the sarcasm and replace it with irony). With such broad definitions, no wonder its enforcement is so completely random. How could it be otherwise? ➲ REDVERS 10:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, and whilst the revision is undoubtedly well-intentioned (like all these things) it does head in a general direction where WP:BUREAUCRACY starts to become an issue - except that these things are surely impossible to codify effectively enough for them to be well-implemented bureaucratically, creating inevitable unevenness in application which may well be more taken advantage of by bad faith editors than good faith ones. Two other thoughts. 1) Some of the specific points seem more to fall under, say, WP:GAME than "civility". When did misleading others (including deliberately giving false information) become "uncivil"? Or misquoting others or quoting out of context? Surely that's like saying a drive-by shooting is dangerous driving. 2) Defining civility too precisely just invites wikilawyering and the needless, tactical taking of offence to suit a particular purpose. It encourages wikidrama, rather than collaboration. Or to put it another way, it encourages "OMG that wasn't entirely nice! Something must be done!" instead of "Hey, that wasn't cool, but that's OK, we're none of us perfect and maybe you didn't mean it that way or come from a different cultural background or were just a bit pissed off, never mind, let's move on." In sum, I think a listing as is provided in that section is quite dangerous (although the whole policy suffers from the issue I make in point 2), and it should be made clear that these kinds of behaviours may be taken into consideration by admins dealing with allegedly uncivil behaviour (when acting qua admins!), but aren't a listing of Things To Take Offence At (WP:BEANS?). Rd232 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cognition

This user has had an unblock request up for several days. He has agreed to terms offered by Hersfold, one of which includes having a WP:MENTOR. But no one has volunteered to be a mentor; Hersfold specifically declined. I believe the mentor ought to be an admin, since this is not a typical WP:ADOPTion situation. I also am getting the feeling that no one is actually willing to mentor him. So, any takers? Mangojuice 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and has been extremely troublesome on those articles, as well as on articles about individuals, including BLPs, who have criticized LaRouche, or whom LaRouche has criticized. I'd therefore like to make sure that, if he's unblocked, he'll be topic-banned from LaRouche-related articles and talk pages, and also from making LaRouche-related edits to other pages. He kind of agreed to this on his talk page, but it was a little ambiguous. SlimVirgin 06:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that situation a bit before deciding I didn't want to touch it. Here's the problem. Anyone who could mentor Cognition and stop him from putting a LaRouche spin into articles would have to be aware of a huge number of obscure details surrounding LaRouche and his politics. Anyone with that knowledge would either have to be another LaRouche follower -- which would of course be a disastrous conflict of interest -- or a well-versed foe of LaRouche, in which case they would not want to have anything to do with Cognition. This is presumably why nobody will mentor him. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are editors familiar with LaRouche who could watch his edits and report to a mentor if he breaches the agreement. Not that I'm arguing in favour of Cognition being unblocked, because I don't think he should be. His edits were so far from Misplaced Pages's standards, and his ideas so extreme (e.g. the Queen is a "dope-pusher" ) that I see no possibility of his becoming a regular editor. But at least if he were kept away from LaRouche's favourite topics, it would limit the potential for damage. SlimVirgin 07:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over his edits, I'm not convinced an unblock is wise but I'm willing to give him a chance. He should certainly be indefinitely topic banned from the Larouche Movement topic broadly defined (i.e. any article that has anything remotely to do with Lyndon LaRouche) - I'm not sure he'll be willing to participate under that topic ban but the ball's not really in his court on this. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just to note, I'll take him under my wing if the topic ban is put in place. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he could be asked a few basic questions, such as, "Do you still believe the Queen is a dope-pusher?" If he says "yes" or some version thereof, then he can stay blocked. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If he agrees to stay away from Larouche Movement articles (broadly defined to mean anything that discusses the movement or LaRouche himself) I'd be happy to mentor him. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Meh, not really a valid question. The wikipedia community could care less whether a given user believes, for example, that Obama was born in Africa, as long as that belief doesn't effect their editing. (no, that isn't my belief, just FYI) Cognition's beliefs have obviously influenced his editing, so a more valid question would be "do you agree to edit under a ban from all LaRouche-related topics, including discussions and talk pages?" The real question of course is whether he would contribute anything positive to the encyclopedia if he were allowed to edit under such a topic ban. If all evidence points to Cognition being unable to avoid such topics, or unable to contribute positively in unrelated areas, there is no point in unblocking him. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be an excellent question to ask, and would likely be a show-stopper, as he's probably a single-purpose account. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him if he's willing to accept the broad, indefinite Lyndon LaRouche topic ban. If so, I'll unblock him under Ryan's mentorship, otherwise I think we can decline the unblock. Mangojuice 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the perfect occasion for a link, possibly two links. Primarily WP:EARTH, secondarily WP:TURNIP. Durova 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please nobody unblock him until he's responded to my question about alternate accounts, and I've had a chance to respond in kind. Since it is one of the conditions of his unblocking, I want to see what he's been up to during his block if anything. Hersfold 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Cognition_requesting_unblock   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not unblock Cognition without confirmation from a checkuser. Hersfold 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a great idea. Larouchian viewpoints impact almost every single issue that one can think of. Moreover, there's a general problem here: NPOV in order to work at all relies on some form of consensus reality. We might disagree on some of the details of that reality, or might disagree on the values and implications of that reality but at the end of the day, there is some general consensus. Given Cognition's remarks

Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA - needs discussion as to implementation

Could an uninvolved admin please review the below and determine the result?

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA

If the result is "proposal carried", how shall it be announced, implemented, and enforced? –xeno 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is broad community support for the idea of community input being required before mass article creation. But it's also just as clear that there isn't a consensus for how such a requirement would be implemented or enforced. Many seem to think WP:BAG is the way to go; at least one person pointed out that this is already a function the BAG performs and no proposal is necessary. I think many of the participants want another method. The question of how to make sure editors are aware of the rule has barely been addressed. And one comment brought up a strong point about enforcement which hasn't really been discussed: do we punish mass-creation without consultation by deleting the articles? What if they are borderline or appropriate ones? Does blocking really address the problem? No, it comes too late. So I think a new discussion is needed on these points. Mangojuice 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of closing it. I've called "carried"; because the objections were in a clear minority and split on what was objectionable— but this does not preclude further discussion on the implementation details. — Coren  17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think BAG is a good fit for this without creating Yet Another Committee. The other points though, I am certainly looking for input on. –xeno 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than mass deletion, what would correct the bot-like inappropriate addition of thousands of low-quality stubs? Debating each one at AFD does not seem feasible. The removal should not take orders of magnitude more editor and admin time than the robocreation did. Edison (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my principal objection. Hopefully something gets hammered out in implementation that won't result in a policy which is easily gamed and/or unpalatable for the members of the community who didn't participate in the discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when the article clearly serves better as a redlink - i.e. it has no more information than the list and redirecting to the list would be inappropriate because it would create dozens of links-to-self... –xeno 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

admin Nightscream

I think it's time for Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to lose his administrative priveleges. I first got to know about Nightscream back in February when I was reviewing his block of User:Asgardian. The resulting community discussion took place here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184#Block of User:Asgardian. This is after he was substantially criticized for a previous block of Asgardian in late 2008; see User talk:Nightscream#Your block of Asgardian and User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. See also User talk:Nightscream#Black Bolt & Living Laser and User talk:Nightscream#Non-constructive conduct. I haven't seen that Nightscream continues to abuse his blocking capability but he has certainly abused his protection tool since then. He semi-protected Towelie for 1 year, after being heavily involved in editing there. (He also had fully protected it indefinitely but reversed himself). Note User talk:Nightscream#RE: Towelie for a discussion that took place prior to that protection. He semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) for 1 year also after being involved in editing there. In both of these cases, the protection was designed to stop contributions that Nightscream didn't like -- ones I too don't like and think should have been removed, but I will not classify additions to a "cultural reference" section as vandalism. And he has protected Red Hulk twice; today it was full protection. This is one of the articles where Nightscream is deeply involved in a dispute with Asgardian. Asgardian is a troublesome editor. He's stubborn, and he has edit warred in the past. Still, it seems that no amount of warning Nightscream to avoid using administrative tools in situations he is involved in has any effect.

I may be interested in taking this to WP:ARBCOM but first I thought I would see what the broader admin community thinks. Mangojuice 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the RFA? Has this been to WP:RFC/U yet? –xeno 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nightscream and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2 are the two RfAs I see. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Have not taken it to RFCU; I can do that if people feel it would be helpful. The (successful) RFA is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2; there was a previous self-nom when Nightscream was very new. Mangojuice 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, over-reliance on tools that don't seem to be working today! RFCU is usually a necessary step in the DR process. –xeno 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405#User:Angry Christian 2, Nightscream wrote "I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)". Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he needs to avoid conflicts with all of his administrative tools, including protection... –xeno 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a number of the links given in the original post show I have discussed various issues with Nightscream in an attempt to help resolve any problems. From what I've seen it seems like their frustration at the speed things have moved has resulted in them making use of admin tools in disputes they are engaged in. Clearly where if there is an obvious problem it is easy to move fast and hard on it but in some of the issues I've been helping them deal with a slower more cautious approach has been needed and (esepcially as some of this has been going on for years without a proper resolution) I understand it can be frustrating. It is worth noting that, in the cases I've been involved in, Nightscream's actions are usually the next best move it is just that they shouldn't be the one making it. I know mangojuice has been offering to check things over for Nightscream and advise where they can but they also appear to not have had the time for this recently and it might be the solution is for a few other admins (outside of the fields he edits in) to act in a similar capacity. Of course, Nightscream will have to also learn to be more patient as other people aren't as active as they are. (Emperor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand where Nightscream or Emperor gets the idea that I have offered to check things over for him. I have no particular objection, but in the AN discussion I linked to it was my advice, and the advice of several others, that he should post a request on a general noticeboard like this one or WP:ANI for review by whoever happens to read it. Mangojuice 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Xeno, that we should see an RFC/U, and if there is support to be found there, an ArbCom case. Nightscream may have been warned about certain things, but was it in an official capacity? If an admin is going to lose his tools, I'd like to see him first reviewed through fair and due process, as with User:A Man In Black. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Nightscream's defense, please note User_talk:J_Greb#Looking_for_input, wherein Asgardian's long history of provocation is being discussed; this is clearly an ongoing matter for him and Nightscream, and he has a long, long history of this sort of behavior against numerous other users. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my memory of our discussion this past February is wrong--if so, I'm sorry--but thought I remembered Mangojuice telling me to contact him if Asgardian's behavior becomes an issue again.

In any event, this is what transpired: On numerous occasions, User:Asgardian has attempted to completely remove all references to comic book titles, issue numbers and dates from the bodies of articles, leaving them only in the ref tags. Typically, I and/or others opined that some occasional use of them is fine, as on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Back in February, I started a discussion the Comics Project Page in which I related Asgardian's claim that he and others had devised a format for such articles, and that this lack of issues and dates anywhere except in the ref tags was a part of it. The others there said that this was not true, and when I proposed the matter to them, three editors: Emperor, BOZ and J Greb, agreed that some use of such info is good, and that they should not be entirely removed. One person, Peregrine Fisher, said Asgardian's version read more smoothly. I tried to continue that discussion, but no one responded. Nonetheless, we had a consensus of four people, I thought.

On August 28, I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page, because he was again removing that information from the Red Hulk article. He did not respond to my message, and continued to revert the article.

On August 30, I started a discussion on Talk:Red Hulk on four points on which Asgardian and I were in dispute. I contacted over 20 people to invite them to it (adhering to WP:CANVAS), but only three showed up, not counting Asgardian. All four of us agreed on three of the four points, one of which was again, the issue of issue numbers and dates. These were myself, Emperor, ThuranX and Peregrine Fisher, who now stated that he was also okay with some dates and issue numbers. This was four (or six if you count the discussion on the Project Page in February). On the fourth point, I was essentially outvoted, and I'm fine with that. I was hoping to wait it out until more people showed up, but ThuranX and Asgardian began editing the article again on August 31 (perhaps they thought the discussion ran its course), but in doing so, Asgardian again removed issue numbers and dates from the article. He continued to do this even though discussion on the Talk Page continued, a behavior for which he had previously been blocked. He again provided his position, which was that he didn't want a "laundry list" or "minefield" of issues numbers and dates that was impossible to read. I tried to point out to him that no one was advocating this, but merely an occasional mention of such things for important issues, as everyone in that discussion had stated, and that it did not have to be an all-or-nothing question. He did not respond to this point, but he continued to revert the article, and made statements regarding his work on other articles that the others found profoundly disturbing. They are discussing what actions to take against Asgardian on JGreb's Talk Page, with JGreb suggesting a "long block" for him.

I'm not privy to the matter of those other articles, but because he continued to revert Red Hulk during a discussion, I decided to protect the article from everyone but admins for (IIRC) a week. This was not to push a particular version. It was only a one-week protection intended to hold off until the discussion could be resolved, since, as everyone knows, edit warring during a discussion is against policy, and is what his last unreversed block was for, IIRC. I normally would've preferred not to do this myself, but since Mangojuice had not responded on my Talk Page I felt I had no options. I also did not know that merely protecting a page pending resolution to a dispute in which the admin is involved is considered to be as inappropriate, as blocking an editor is. Only after this, however, did I discover that Mangojuice did respond, but on his Talk Page, and to say that he was not active enough to intervene.

Despite this, Mangojuice has apparently found himself active enough to opine two things: That information has not been presented that Asgardian has misbehaved (despite my furnishing him with all the aforementioned information), and that my protecting the page was an inappropriate misuse of admin tools for which I should be de-sysoped, both of which I find to be assertions of breathtaking inanity. Regarding Asgardian, his recent behavior is just the latest in a long history of policy violations for which he has had four unreversed blocks imposed on him. Mangojuice is aware of this, and I certainly illustrated his recent misbehavior.

As for my page protection, I apologize for breaching a guideline that I was not aware of, but doing so is not the deliberate misuse that Mangojuice tries to portray it. Just as Misplaced Pages is a constant work in progress, so too is learning about all the various permutations of all the guidelines and policies, even for experienced editors like me. Now I know that even protection is considered inappropriate in these matters, so from now on, I'll make more frequent use of these Noticeboards. Taking away admin privileges for such a harmless Good Faith error is drastic, and unnecessary.

Complicating Mangojuice's bizarre viewpoint is that in illustrating his position on my Talk Page, he made a number of other accusations that he conflated with this matter, including some false statements in violation of WP:AGF, and even cited a comment by another editor, ThuranX that Thuran made in a completely unrelated matter. I have responded to each of these accusations in greater detail on Mangojuice's Talk Page. If anyone would like to question me further on this matter, please feel free to do so. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some direction at WP:UNINVOLVED. The community is still grappling with the idea of involvement, but hopefully one day a comprehensive guideline will be written (or a quick course written for NAS). Perhaps with this greater understanding, we can mark this matter resolved? –xeno 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will make sure to read over that policy more carefully. Thanks to everyone here, and you especially, xeno. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Denaldin Hamzagic

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football; please continue the conversation there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I create an article on footballer Denaldin Hamzagic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjecnobordo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the consensus of the community that Mr Hamzagic does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. See the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denaldin Hamzagic. You may also wish to familiarise yourself with the inclusion criterion for athletes at WP:Athlete and the general notability criterion at WP:Notability. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Mr. Hamzagic has recently signed with FK Sarajevo (a professional club) and has already played for the team in the UEFA Europa League. Would probably pass WP:ATHLETE now. As a football manager would say: "The boy done good". Fribbler (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, might well pass WP:Athlete although the deleted article was about a Denaldin Hamzagic who had been living in the USA since 1999 and was with New England Revolution in the Major League Soccer so I'm uncertain whether this is the same chap. This conversation would probably be best over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football; I'll move it across. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaelen S.

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I been helping this User out. Can someone review User:Gaelen S. rollback rights. I'm finding the user reverting good faith edits.

Reverts such as these, All in one day. The user received there rollback rights on September 1, 2009 and they only have 240 Article edits. I don’t think there ready for rollback rights. Don’t get me wrong, They revert Vandalism. Its just that I don’t think they know what there doing. Yes, I know we all make mistakes. I just want someone to check it out. That's all. --David - (Misplaced Pages Vandal Fighter). 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too noticed a revert to a good edit (not just good faith) to one of my watched pages, so I informed Gaelen, and Acalamari (talk · contribs) (who granted the request). While we seemed to agree that no further action was necessary, I find the number of diffs you have brought up a bit worrying. Thanks for expressing your concerns. As a courtesy, you should consider informing the user when you bring up their edits on a noticeboard (I have now done this). Regards, decltype (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Decltype. I forgot to do that.--David - (Misplaced Pages Vandal Fighter). 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for bringing this up, as it seems to become serious. However, this is what WP:ANI is for; don't worry about it for now, though. Second, reverting good faith edits is just as bad, if not worse, than edit warring. Driving off a potential user cannot be treated lightly. That said, I really think we should give the user another chance. If (s)he makes more mistakes(?), then removal of rollback is in order, followed by a block if the behavior is continual. Hopefully, it won't come to that. Cheers, I' 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that I have been a topic of conversation. I was just wondering what specifically I am doing wrong. Somebody just took my rollback permissions and I am wondering what specifically is the problem. If anybody could give me some insight I would be very appreciative Gaelen 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed you rollback because of misuse despite warnings, and failure to respond to those. Edits such as this one or that one do not qualify as vandalism and may not be rollbacked, read WP:RBK more carefully. You may revert them manually and explain why you do so, based on policies like WP:V and the like for example, but not revert without explanation. Revert edits manually or use Twinkle for the time being, if you do it well, you'll be granted the rights again. Make also sure to comply with WP:SIG by linking your userpage and/or talkpage in your signature, as requested several times. Cenarium (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A side point - your signature should conform to WP:SIG and include a link either to your user page or user talk page.

I think the big problem here is that you are using rollback in cases that are not clear vandalism. David has given some examples above. What I take to be the general rule is that you should not revert w/o an edit summary (that is, an edit summary that's different from the standard boilerplate one) unless the edit was indisputably vandalism. (Huggle does have an "Advanced" option for customizing edit summaries, which I use to revert good-faith WP:NOT/WP:MOS violations or more complex vandalism cases, etc.) Heck, despite the edit summary of the edit I reverted, two different admins have declared this a bad revert, which is why I'm taking a break from HG right now. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my big question is whether or not you can rollback someone's edit if it looks suspicious and does not provide a source at which you can check it at? My other question is whether or not you think my rollback rights should be repealed over this? I understand if you think they should be, but I just want everyone to know my reasoning for those edits. the WP:RBK does not really specify on the subject. Gaelen S. 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says blatantly unproductive edits, so if it just looks suspicious, it shouldn't be rollbacked, but if reverted, manually reverted with an edit summary. Rollback rights are removed when misused despite warnings, sometimes even without warnings, the guideline says that too. If you revert well in the coming days, you'll have them back, it's no big deal. And again, please modify your signature in your preferences, so as to comply with wp:SIG, by providing a link to your userpage and/or usertalkpage, reset it if it's broken somehow. Cenarium (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again!) Well, at the very, very least, you have to explain that in the edit summary. That's the whole point. Since rollback's edit summaries are normally automatic (I think there's a script somewhere out there that allows you to customize it), you can't use rollback for those. And BTW, you really need to change the signature. There has to be a link. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) yes. WP:RBK is specific - rollback is only for edits that are "clearly unproductive"; "suspicious" is not remotely "clearly" anything. 2) yes, because you've been using rollback quite a bit with a mistaken idea of when it's applicable. That doesn't mean you're an evil person who should be whipped through the streets of Edinburgh (so don't be that discouraged by this whole affair), just that it'd be wise if you were a tad more contemplative when undoing edits that might well be in bad faith, but might well not be. We probably all should, really. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

someone else's picture via email

Hi. I want to put a picture of a person inside her own article and i've got a photo of her trough email. how can i get it a license in Commons?Bbadree (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: Requesting copyright permission and Misplaced Pages:Example requests for permission should help you get the required permission from the original copyright owner. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Something smells fishy

Just thought I'd put it out there, I'm highly suspicious of this 'new' editor Mamasasa (talk · contribs) and his sudden interest in Bambifan sockpuppets.

"He will frequently self-identify his own socks and appears to take serious offense if any badly editing account is misidentified as him and will quickly make a new sock to point out the error. He has even been known to tag his own socks as vandals." - from Long term abuse - Bambifan

-- œ 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser bagged a couple of socks, so thanks for reporting. J.delanoy_adds 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed User

Hi. Can an admin please make me a "confirmed user", so that I can upload a couple of fair use pix (that can be uploaded to wp, but not wiki commons)? This is time sensitive, as it relates to a band that is up for an 2009 MTV Video Music Awards in a few days. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Make sure you're aware of our fair-use image policies - happy editing. ~ mazca 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure needed for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

It's not quite 30 days, but the RFC hasn't been edited for about a week. Could someone look into closing this?

A thorough closing statement would be worthwhile. Thanks, –xeno 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, if that's ok Fritzpoll (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Take your time. –xeno 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move warring at Break, Break, Break

I have been working on a set of Tennyson poems with Shoemaker's Holiday and Juliancolton. After finishing, I moved them to mainspace. Break, Break, Break, now at Break, Break, Break (poem), was to be moved to Break, Break, Break. It was moved there with the aid of jdelanoy using admin ability to move over a redirect after I asked him at IRC. An IRC user that has a long history of not liking me and causing problems, User:Jeni, decided that she would move the page to Break, Break, Break (poem) and put text on Break, Break, Break so it would not be moved back.

As per MoS, disambiguation pages are not necessary in cases where there is a primary use. The Tennyson poem is one of his most heavily anthologized short poems, whereas the only other use Break, Break, Break (movie) is a very obscure silent film. There is no question as to which is the primary use, and there is no one that bothered to dispute the primary usage. When confronted with her actions on IRC, she responded " <Jeni> if you link something in an IRC channel, what do you seriously expect?"

I would ask the following:

• 1. That an admin uses the tools to move the page Break, Break, Break (poem) back to its primary usage Break, Break, Break, and
• 2. That Jeni is blocked for outright disruption as she is intent on causing problems in relationship to this set of articles, as verified by her comments above on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel I even need to respond to this tbh. Not sure why you don't expect people to click links when you spam them on IRC. Jeni 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "clinking a link" and purposefully move warring out of spite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, if you don't feel the need to respond, why respond at all? Ottava, have you tried WP:RM? They might be able to help you over there. Might take a little longer than you would like (maybe 30mins to an hour depending on who is working RM) but it will get done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It wont satisfy the problem with a user purposeful moving things to be disruptive and spiteful. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I honestly can't see what your issue is, and why you feel its necessary for an ANI thread? Given your disruptive history I'm guessing you are just trying to cause trouble. And for what its worth, what goes on off wiki, has nothing to do with on wiki, as Peter Damian found out to his detriment. Jeni 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is really a matter for WP:RM as I'm unconvinced there were malicious motives behind Jeni's actions. But since we're here, could you provide some evidence that the Tennyson poem is the primary use? Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of google hits, 1056 book hits, and the poem is by one of the most famous poets in the English language. There are many, many more hits from databases like Jstor and the rest. Just about every major biography and critical work on Tennyson discusses the poem. Break, Break, Break (movie) has no claims to notability, is a 1914 short silent film, and probably worth deleting at AfD. There is really no comparison. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Right then, go to WP:RM with that and make the request. That's some very convincing evidence, but so far no one else in this thread has jumped up and said "dammit, you're right, it's obviously the primary subject"; I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't is because of my ignorance of both subjects. With that in mind I'd assume that Jeni saw the two articless and, since neither seemed obviously to be the primary use, created a disambiguation page rather than maliciously set out to cause disruption. Nev1 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There have only been two responses, so I wouldn't expect anyone to think that right now is enough to determine if anyone would be "jumping up". But yeah, from the normal crowd of Brits, they all instantly agreed. As I pointed out, Jeni override what jdelanoy did merely because she saw me ask an admin to move over a redirect in a chat and because she has a history of not liking me. If anything, she would have had to ask for some sort of consensus before undoing the action of an admin and acting in such a manner as she did. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a third response: when someone moves a page with edit summary not primary usage, then converts the redirect to a disambiguation page, I do not expect to see it described as "page move warring", "outright disruption", "intent on causing problems", "move warring out of spite" and "moving things to be disruptive and spiteful". You are interpreting a prima facie good faith move through the lens of whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC. Don't do that. Leave that crap on IRC. Deal with it over there. How do problems like this get dealt with on IRC? I don't know, call her a poo-head or something. But don't bring it here. Hesperian 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, did you even read the first entry? Jeni is someone who has attacked me constantly in chat. She made it clear that she was doing it simply because I linked it in chat. I already copied and pasted it. The move over the redirect was made by a well respected admin, jdelanoy. It was her obligation to start consensus before undoing his admin action. Your response is completely incivil and inappropriate. Not only does it show that you were unwilling to actually read the above, but that you were unwilling to actually respond to the fact that she is edit warring actions originally created by an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

jdelanoy is an administrator, not a god. And the only thing "incivil" in the above is my characterisation of whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC as "whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC". Hesperian 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Can I suggest you cool it and take a break from this thread? You are starting to turn very offensive and are making a fool of yourself. I'm not sure what your issue is with me, I'm not about to start pasting here logs from IRC, its irrelevant. You seem to think people are not permitted to click links give in IRC discussions, I do it all the time, everyone does it. If you don't like that fact, simply don't post the link, do it in a private discussion. The way you are acting I should be calling for you to be banned! Jeni 02:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My dear, the only one with a problem here is you. Your actions had an instant response by most people in the chat saying that your actions were 100% stupid. They all know that you did it to troll. By the time people like Ironholds comes back around tomorrow he will make it clear like he did earlier that you have to be nigh insane to think that the silent movie is even close to the notability of the poem, let alone that you, of all people with your motives, should have edit warred against jdelanoy, a highly respected admin, simply to spite me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check your definition of edit war, please :) Jeni 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EW#WHATIS first sentence: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." That is 100% what you did. You undid jdelanoy's actions without -any- respect for consensus, discussion, or anything else, and you made it clear that you did it because it involved me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone who didn't feel the need to respond, Jeni, you sure are responding alot. Jeni, you aren't making things any better...might be time for you to find some other part of Misplaced Pages to post on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well points keep getting raised now that I do feel the need to respond to. I am going to go to bed now anyway and let Ottava keep digging! Jeni 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Should't this be on AN/I? hmm the leads in the film where fairly significant in their day so a legitimate case for the disambigation page can be made but I don't know enough about the area to really comment.©Geni 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See above. And I felt like putting it at AN because it is the same difference with slightly less drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I listed it at RM, but I am disgusted that I had to list a page that someone clearly moved in a disruptive pattern and a page that was originally put there by an admin. Not only was there no obvious claim that this was -not- the primary usage, but there was no query at all. The above user, Jeni, should be blocked for clear disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22break+break+break%22&fp=3aa7f458acaa2672 seems to be rather conclusive about whether there is a primary topic here or not. J.delanoy_adds 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards