Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:08, 1 October 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

AFD closing

Are admins allowed to close AFDs based own purely on their own personal opinion and completely ignore the AFD discussion? Because that seems to have happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter. Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators doesn't seem to have been followed at all.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That AFD close is within policy... virtually every vote was for keeping the article, and MoP closed it as such. In addition, I see you have a history of bad-faith nominations... Until It Sleeps 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to close AFDs based on strengths of arguments, not head/vote count.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no other reasonable option than to close that as keep. To close it as "delete" would have gone directly against consensus. –Juliancolton |  17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus because they didn't dispute the nomination, and if nobody disputes it then it should be deleted. If you don't believe me read it yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

4. When in doubt, don't delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean ignore the rest of the guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Going by numbers, there was unanimous consensus to keep, and I can see no real reason to discount any votes in particular for failure to comply with AfD voting guidelines. –Juliancolton |  17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments as I've already said twice above, none of the votes had anything to do with the nomination statement or were policy/guideline based.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what? Votes do not have to directly address the nomination statement, they just need to provide sufficient rationales to explain their reasoning. –Juliancolton |  17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The close was valid. Period. If you have a problem with an AFD close, go to WP:DRV first, not here. J.delanoy_adds 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So the admin judged that WP:ILIKEIT + WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS > failure of both general & web notability guidelines? I'm not taking it to DRV because the admin isn't responding.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this marked as resolved? The closing admin is not responding so I can't take it to DRV yet.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Em, if you're really that concerned just go ahead and do it. MoP will get to it when he comes online.  GARDEN  17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. He can't take it to DRV because: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Misplaced Pages during the debate."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Apologies then.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Might be worth noting that arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and as such not gospel.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It also might be worth mentioning that WP:PUFF seems to work very well to stop articles being deleted as shown here,--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also an essay. The close was correct, let us move onward and upward. Thanks,  GARDEN  22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh. Don't take this to DRV. In order to have the deletion decision overturned you would have to argue why ignoring unanimity in responses would have been a better way to read consensus. I don't suspect there is enough grist for the mill here. I would endorse this if it came to DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• As a point of order, there have been occasions where articles have been deleted where only the nominator said to delete and everyone who responded said "keep", as this AFD shows, and it was unanimously endorsed at DRV too. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Protonk, AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• So we're supposed to simply ignore consensus at a whim and do what the nominator wants? –Juliancolton |  20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I guess it's just luck if you get an admin who doesn't follow the guidelines closing the AFD. Any admins who would close this as keep, please express why, but also don't comment before reading everything that has already been said here. This is only here and not DRV because the admin won't respond and that makes me question their actions, or lack of.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Otter, the next time you assume bad faith from an editor who hasn't been on in two days, I'm blocking you for disruption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What is questioning ability got to do with assuming bad faith?--Otterathome (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What does not being here have to do with ability? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Admins are expected to respond to their actions when challenged about them. If they are not on long enough to give responses, then they probably shouldn't be an admin.--Otterathome (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • His very last diff before signing off was a response to your question. It's not his problem that you didn't like the answer you got. Please demonstrate that you are capable of working within community norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't understand why we bother having guidelines if they can all just be ignored because of personal beliefs.--Otterathome (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Please stop assuming bad faith. The world does not hate you no matter how harsh you make it sound. Please, just move on, nothing is going to change here.  GARDEN  20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Also note that arguments to avoid is explicitly not a guideline.  GARDEN  20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                • WP:WEB, WP:N and WP:DGFA are, which have all been ignored by the closing admin, which in turn has shown that the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy has not been followed.--Otterathome (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • The fact is the community did not agree these were viable reasons to delete the article and thus the article was not deleted. What is the problem here?  GARDEN  20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • 5 users who vote keep on every one of my web-video related nominations is not 'the community', it's a group that was originally built by off-site canvassing.--Otterathome (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• <- Oh come on. Please, all of these conspiracy theories are getting dull. Please, drop the ABF and move on.  GARDEN  20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you looked in to it you would see it's true. All but one of my afds have been exclusively edited by the same users, so it's impossible for them not to be deleted if admins do a head count every time.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a particular group of users is out to sabotage your AfD nominations. That said, you seem rather focused on this "head count" bit. Yes, you're correct; consensus does not rely on numbers. But there comes a time when you can't just say "All of these people are wrong" and delete an article against unanimous consensus. –Juliancolton |  20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to compile a report to prove that my AFDs have only been participated in by the same users? It's like trying to knock down a church and the only people who get a voice are the Christians that go there, so knocking it down becomes an impossibility.--Otterathome (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No need. It's well-known that AfD is largely run by a group of regulars, but again, I don't see any evidence that they're singling out your nominations. –Juliancolton |  21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will tomorrow, see Mathieas (talk · contribs · count), they already tried stopping me nominating anymore via an ANI thread that went on for a over a week, but nothing ever happened because I did nothing wrong except nominate articles they care about for deletion. If deletion policy/guidelines were followed for this particular afd it would've definately been deleted anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading that AfD was quite depressing, several editors asserted notability without providing sources and others merely attacked the motivations of the nominator. A complete lack of policy and source-based discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for not being available sooner, Otterathome. I've been fairly occupied with university, and, unfortunately, Misplaced Pages does not get priority over real-life studies. I apologize if my close seems opinion-based to you; it isn't. Rather, I used my discretion; a calculated decision based on how I perceived the situation and how I felt it should be dealt with. I apologize if I didn't act in a way which would appease you. If you'd like to open up a DR, please feel free to do so.

That being said, I'm not all for a topic ban. I don't think this would do anything but harm. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Moved From Ban Discussion: As a user who has been involved in a number of interactions with Otterathome, I would implore those making the decision below to not wait to see if he "continues to fail to 'get it'." I believe that time has already come. He has already received a number of warnings on his talk page (and I believe on the ANI) to stop this behavior, and yet it continues. He is incredibly rude to other users, calling them "sheep" or calling their posts "useless" or "long rants." He continuously disrupts the wiki by repeatedly renominating articles for deletion when he does not get the outcome he desires. For instance, within a two month span, he nominated LG15: The Last for deletion, then demanded a merge on the talk page, then renominated it for deletion, then brought it to deletion review. A similar thing happened with Jackson Davis (minus the merge discussion). The issue has been raised at WQA and ANI (and I believe there is a new thread at WQA for further violations of civility). Both were closed without any resolution. He has been warned, the behavior has been discussed, and yet it continues. I do not know what the right action to take here is exactly; all I care about is that the behavior is dealt with effectively. I am sure that you all are more familiar with what measures would work in this circumstance. I just hope that you will take them. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We just got the following edit from Otter, directed at MuZemike: "Please don't close anymore AFDs if you don't understand different types of sources and WP:N." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Community topic ban proposal - Otterathome deletion discussions

Since Otter is bent on demonstrating that he cannot participate constructively in deletion debates, I would like to propose the following remedies for community discussion.

1. Otterathome is barred for one year from renominating for deletion articles that have previously survived a deletion discussion.
2. Otterathome is not barred from opening deletion discussions.
3. Otterathome is barred for one year from responding to anyone else's comments in a properly-opened deletion discussion anywhere besides the discussion's talk page.
4. Otterathome is barred for one year from challenging anyone's qualifications to opine in a deletion discussion. If it's that blatant, someone else will take care of it.

Note that per Misplaced Pages:Community ban, only uninvolved editors should be involved in reaching consensus here, so the rest of us need to sit on our hands. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that per Misplaced Pages:Community ban is if a has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, so do that first before proposing this.-Otterathome (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike it out, it just succeeds in looking ugly.  GARDEN  21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You just proved my point for me, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Otter, please do not edit other people's statements, even if you disagree with them. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way forward here. It's complicated, and people have to remember it.. how about just blocking him liberally if he continues to fail to "get it"? Yes, he's being quite unreasonable, but I'm not sure this kind of conduct problem would limit itself to only one area. Friday (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking would be easier, yes, but I don't think it would be better. Apart from his inability to back away from the horse, he's doing pretty good work, and I don't want to stop that: that's why I made explicit that I don't think he should be banned from opening discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with any kind of ban, that AfD discussion was deeply problematic. Otterathome requested sources and cited policy, the voters (because that's all they were) utterly failed to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tim... I think Otter has every right to take this to DRV if he can show that the administrator didn't take into account the actual issues and instead went by counting heads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Otterbreak

I have listed facts and data at User:Otterathome/Deletion_discussions. So any uninvolved editors don't have to do much research of their own.--Otterathome (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be nice, if it were accurate. I did not vote all keep -- I prodded one article you tagged for notability, and it was deleted when the prod expired. Also, you call User:Backslash Forwardslash a "sock admin". I'd suggest backing that up or changing it post-haste.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1st keep, 2nd keep. Sock admin comment (User:Pastor_Theo) fixed.--Otterathome (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the involved editors, I will briefly chime in to say that the table doesn't show a full picture of what has gone on here. I won't expand on that unless requested, because I'm an involved editor (and even accused at one point of being part of Lonelygirl15 by Otter!!) The reason the Tubefilter AFDs discussion is getting some flack now is because at that point everyone who commented was just sick of dealing with this crap.--Milowent (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't included the Articles for deletion/Becki Kregoski. An article that had all deletion votes, with 2 deletion votes from editors who have taken part in other deletion discussion with you Otterathome. Also in your deletion discussion page you missed out that i took part in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last deletion discussion --KindredPhantom (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So because some articles were written about things I took part in on the LG15Today blog some time ago, I was a user "canvassed" from that site? Interesting conclusion... --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've stayed out of a lot of these discussions because I was the one otter accused of stalking (oddly, looking at his table he seems to spend a good deal of time tracking what I do online); however, I'd just like to make a few points, which again were left out of his table. First, he has a history of trying to undermine the legitimacy of anyone who opposes his view. (I know I'm supposed to link some diffs here, but, honestly, if one is so uninterested as to not go and look at the pages in question, I doubt they will look at 30 diffs.) Second, he consistently feels the need to comment on and discredit every vote that goes against him in the afd discussions. (Again, just go look). Third, he has one at least two occasions nominated an article for afd for improper reasons. (The Mesh Flinders article was nominated right after a post on an off wiki blog talked about the Jackson Davis article being saved and someone remarked that it was odd the Mesh Flinders article hadn't been nominated. The Vincent Caso article was nominated with an accusation of stalking against me.) Fourth, he has targeted a certain area (web series) repeatedly. When an article is voted keep, he takes it to DRV, when it passes he then renominates it. Both the Jackson Davis article and the LG15: The Last article were renominated within a few weeks of the previous nomination. The reason the Tubefilter afd discussion is less erudite then the standard Wiki discussion is that by that point his pattern was well-known to those who were paying attention and, honestly, probably a little fed up. In that particular discussion I made what I still believe is a sound argument for keeping, the said argument to which otter quickly chimed in with a dismissive and rather uncivil reply, which had become par for the course.

Honestly, I do not expect the administrators to do anything about his behavior; however, I do ask that those administrators who do comment in the below discussion not to simply dismiss those with whom otter has picked a fight, for that is what he has done through his actions, his attitude, and his comments, as a bunch of unhappy fans. Thank you to those who took the time to read this post. Mathieas (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the only thing that list qualifies for is "libelous". It violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NEWBIES and Misplaced Pages:IP edits are not anonymous#Second-class treatment for IP editors. It also makes false assertions about at least my origins, and is all around a whole bunch of spin and false implications.
If this didn't exist already, I'd file an ANI over that.
I'll leave it to the administration to deal with it for the moment, but rest assured, if this list is considered acceptable, I will register, solely for the purpose of keeping an up-to-date Otter-policy-violation list, to counter his bullshit. Before, he was annoying. Now, it's enough.
How many people does a single editor have to attack on Misplaced Pages a day until the administration finally realizes there's a behavioral problem?

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.18 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

Well I've read everything here and firstly I would like to tell everyone to get some WP:TROUT. My comments/observations are as follows:

1. Otter appears to be slightly obsessed with getting things deleted.
2. Otter actually had a very strong argument on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter matter. None of the "Keeps" that I read gave any valid argument which contradicted the AFD nom.
3. Otter can be seriously annoying at times. (This is my *opinion* and I'm not going to defend it or debate it). But being annoying is not the same as being a WP:DICK. Being a dick is likely to get you blocked (for disruption or NPA or whatever). Being annoying is completely legal.
4. A community ban seems unjustifiable. If Otter's conduct is really so bad then we should be discussing a user conduct block, not a subject area ban. And if his conduct isn't so bad (which is my feeling at the moment) then maybe asking him nicely to ease up a little is a place to start.
5. If all that fails, then just grin and bear it. A lot of the time Otter actually makes a good point. Granted he could learn a lot about diplomacy (particularly in how useful it is in getting people to agree with you), but he has to actually *want* to be guided on that subject before anyone can offer advice. And despite being undiplomatic and occasionally abrasive, he IS still a good editor. Manning (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved Editor Reply

At what point does multiple violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and the meeting of two, if not three, characteristics under Misplaced Pages:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors stop being annoying and start being disruptive? I'm just wondering if there's some sort of rule or maybe it's time to consider Otter disruptive? --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone (apart from people involved people listed Here) mind if I re-nominate Tubefilter for deletion? Last time only fans of this content, and the author took part, so it was very problematic.--Otterathome (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to say who gets to opine here, Otter. Open another AfD on Tubefilter without going to DRV first, and I block for disruption. DRV is the appropriate venue here, as you very well know, and given comments in this thread, you have an excellent chance of your opinion prevailing there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted neutral input, and blocking somebody your in dispute with would directly violate the admin policy (WP:UNINVOLVED). If you continue your threats against me whilst still being involved in a dispute, it is unlikely you will remain as an administrator for much longer. I already noted this at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan yet you continue to do so.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, are you going to waste time arguing with me, or are you going to take the correct next step and open the DRV? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As Sarek says, the correct action here is DRV, and you are quite likely to win the argument there. However a relist at AFD would certainly merit a block for showing complete disregard for Misplaced Pages procedure. You clearly know your policies and guidelines, so you are no doubt familiar with the one that say "Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages just to make a point". Go to DRV and the matter will clear itself up quietly and without drama. Manning (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not going to DRV because the articles sources have changed considerably since the AFD started, and that is a common argument I've already seen in deletion discussions and is likely to pop-up again at a DRV. As the closing admin is not responding, I have been unable to discuss it with them, which is a requirement for listing it at DRV. Plus, if it goes through another AFD it gives the editors a greater oppurtunity to prove if the article is notable enough to pass our notability guidelines. So the likely result is that the DRV will turn in to another AFD.--Otterathome (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But I am responding. I've stated that I'm fine with a DR repeatedly (even though you don't even need my consent; it's your choice), so I'm not sure where the bottleneck is here.

Also, I'm not sure what merit a discussion between us would bring here; I thought that deletion was unwarranted (per consensus and discretion, not counting heads; just throwing that in), while you clearly disagree. I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't wish to, so if you'd like the decision reviewed, feel free to go ahead.

As an unrelated note, please focus on the issue at hand here. There's no need to coach Sarek on what he can or can't do and make veiled threats about removing his sysop rights. That just introduces unnecessary animosity into this. There's no need for any hard feelings to come of this; we're all friends, regardless of our feelings on a web streaming service. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one making block threats.--Otterathome (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Tubefilter per request, though I expect it be relisted at AFD again anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for official unblock

As the community may be aware, I am currently the subject of a limited unblock so that I can participate in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, due to it being alleged that I was stalked and harrassed onwiki by this group of editors. The reason for my indef block by Good Ol'Factory is the perception that I issued a legal threat, and he agreed to my limited unblock so that I could participate in the Arbcom. And hence I have been busy presenting evidence. A proposed decision was raised at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia in which 2 Arbs supported, 1 opposed, and 6 abstained - 2 of which stated their belief I should be able to edit more freely than suggested at the proposed decision, and FayssalF noted that once the perceived legal threat is retracted this will free me up. At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Russavia Thatcher has also posted something regarding my indef block, which Arb User:Coren has stated "My own position is simply that, at this time, I would prefer to not judge the appropriateness of the sanctions that were placed in the past."

At User_talk:Russavia#Alleged_legal_threats_issued_by_myself_and_unblock_request I have made it clear that there was no legal threat, and in case it was still construed as there being one, I have completely retracted it such. Inline with Misplaced Pages:NLT#Conclusion_of_legal_threat, I am hereby requesting that I be officially unblocked.

Please note, that I am unblocked now, but am limited to only participating in the Arb case. At the time of that conditional unblocking, WP:NLT had not been fully dealt with. I also understand that I will be under the topic ban as handed down by User:Sandstein which restricts me from editing anything at all to do with, or which even mentions Russia or Russian people, in any article across Misplaced Pages, not matter what the subject, etc, etc. However, I am willing to restrict myself from editing EE topics in general, defined as ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact nations, so that AN needn't see itself as being in conflict with any decision from the Arbcom.

I am also thinking that any unblock would require blocking me again, and then unblocking to make the unconditional unblock in its place, so that there is no confusion.

Cheers, --Russavia 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details on this to comment one way or another, but the "full unblock" doesn't strictly need notation. If you want notation, a 1 second block in your block log will suffice.--Tznkai (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The above wording as given by Russavia (talk · contribs) seems like a reasonable proposal. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tznkai, a 1 second block would suffice, just so there is no confusion, as there is a possibility of it somewhere along the line. --Russavia 05:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with unblocking since the legal threat has been retracted. In any case, I've notified Good Ol'factory of this thread so that they can say what they think. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than mild concern that Russavia is acting beyond the scope of his conditional unblock by posting here I would also be inclined to unblock now the legal threat is retracted (and I am going to IAR re the posting here.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that Russavia conveniently skips linking to the block message he got and the actual discussion, which eventually led to aforementioned block, both tell a lot more than this humble unblock request. For me it seems that this legal threat was only the tip of a iceberg, shouldn't his request for unblocking address also the the other concerns, not only the legal threat part? Põhja Konn (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

@Põhja Konn (talk · contribs) - Yes, I agree with you that Russavia should address these other issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Pohja Konn is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Possible_sockpuppet_of_the_team_members as a possible sock/meat puppet of User:Digwuren who is an involved party in this case. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has also noticed some similarities. As to any "other issues", not related to WP:NLT, I will be addressing them at Arbcom as part of evidence. --Russavia 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a valid point here. The block message noted issues of incivility, wikilawyering, and disruption, in addition to the legal threat issues. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline the official unblock. Russavia, I would advise you to simply focus on the ArbCom case, and abide by the current terms of your unblock. You have a pretty full plate right now, and it is in your interest to keep a low profile. Given that your block log is a pretty clear illustration of someone who can't keep a low profile, I see no incentive to grant your request at this time. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking it over and in view of the incomplete response to the block message as noted above, I'd have to agree with the decline by Hiberniantears (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the reasons for the block (actually called an "indefinite ban" by Good Olfactory) go quite a bit beyond the legal threat that has now been retracted. Any unban request should satisfactorily address all reasons for the ban, and be made after the current arbitration case is decided. Since Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) performed the conditional unblock, I'm notifying him of this thread.  Sandstein  21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock: The matter now seems resolved, I am also concerned that Sandstein is here speaking in authoritative tones. Bearing in mind, his implication in the Eastern European Mailing List case, it would probably be wise if he too kept a low profile until he has been exonerated. Giano (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exonerated from what? I haven't delved deeply into the EE case evidence recently, but from what I've seen the absolute limit of the accusations "against" Sandstein are that others attempted to, and may have had some success with, snowing him as to their accusations against Russavia. Nothing in that implicates Sandstein himself in any way, and its disingenuous to suggest that he needs to be "exonerated". Nathan 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've highlighted other recent disruption of this sort by Giano at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Workshop#Request to arbitrators by Sandstein and would appreciate appropriate enforcement action in regard to it.  Sandstein  22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer to wait with such an unban until after the Arbcom case is over, but I would be sympathetic towards granting it. Even Russavia's opponents acknowledge that he has the potential of being a constructive contributor, and has been one in the past. Whatever disruptive conduct there has been on his part during the last months, we now know for a fact that it happened after months of intense, organised harassment, a situation of tension that would naturally bring bad behaviour to the fore. Once this situation will hopefully have been resolved, I tend to think that Russavia may deserve a chance to show he can edit peacefully if left in peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Sandstein's comments must be dismissed from this debate. It is clear to everyone that Russavia was harassed beyond undurance from the EU Mailing list, so is it fair and just that one who was supported and encouraged by the members of that list (ie Sandstein) is allowed to pass comment in such arrogant and authoriatative tones? If Russavia is to remain blocked (as many here seem to want) - then it is only fair that Sandstein loses his tools for at least the duration of the case while this matter is fully investigated. Who knows what sort of person is still supporting and encouraging Sandstein in his actions and comments? Giano (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per Fut Perf; "Russavia may deserve a chance to show he can edit peacefully if left in peace" for the reasons stated above. Therefore, I don't mind an unblock that is a bit less restrictive in this case - it would hopefully act to reduce tension, rather than increase it. The unblock should probably only allow him to edit in other areas that are uncontroversial or unlikely to lead to controversy, but that is obviously a judgement call he'll need to make in any edit he makes outside of the case. Effectively, it would be his responsibility to remember the sentence I've quoted and ensure he does not participate in or escalate further disputes while the current case is ongoing. If he fails in this regard, chances are that he'll be back to the limited unblock, or worse, completely blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This should be handled via the arbitration case, I think, as a motion or request for clarification. The arbitrators already know a lot more about the details of this situation than any of us do and would be much better placed to give guidance. I have no opinion either way myself. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so certain about this – right now the arbitrators seem to be quite busy just looking at what the "other side" was doing on its nefarious mailing list. We know enough about that to say that there was a significant amount of foul play directed against Russavia. But Russavia's own actions are here for all to see, so I don't see why the community shouldn't be able to handle it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion I think Russavia should be unblocked because (1) there is plenty of evidence that he was the target of a persistent campaign of harassment coordinated off-wiki, and (2) Sandstein appears to have been "used" by the mailing list cabal to settle a score with Russavia. Administrators working WP:AE need to be especially careful to make sure their services are not obtained through the presentation of selective or biased evidence from partisans to a dispute. Russavia, can you confirm that you will abide by all Misplaced Pages policies, and steel yourself against any further provocations? "They made me behave badly" is never a good excuse. Jehochman 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have to object to the assumption that I was "used" by anybody in this case. I originally topic-banned Russavia following a report on WP:ANI (not AE) that he had made a threat to "fight to the death" against another editor (). I later extended the scope of his topic ban because of his unwillingness to observe its original limits (). Later, another admin, Good Olfactory (talk · contribs), indefinitely blocked Russavia for his poor conduct in an ensuing ANI debate (). In each case, it was Russavia's own edits, and not the conduct of anybody else (on- or offwiki) that led to the sanctions against him. Should the arbitration case determine that others improperly coordinated their actions offwiki (and the mail archive now circulating on the Internet, which I have only very briefly looked through, does seem to indicate this) I expect and hope that ArbCom will appropriately sanction them for it, but that does not excuse or mitigate Russavia's own conduct for which he was sanctioned. – I also disagree with your warning about "biased evidence": an edit is an edit and has to be judged on its own merits, no matter who provides the diff or why. Selective evidence may be presented, of course, but we must simply observe auditur et altera pars – the accused editor has to have the opportunity to make a statement and to correct any inaccurate impression that the evidence may give.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, as far as I am concerned, I'm fully convinced that you acted responsibly and on the basis of the best of your understanding of the situation; no blame is on you. Still, those very actions by Russavia you cite, the "fight you to the death" edit and the following querulous resistance to the sanctions, are precisely the kinds of things I'd expect from a harassment victim as the result of months-long frustration. And believe me, I know how it feels to be harassed, and how it can affect one's behaviour. That's why I'm saying, once the field is clear again, a fresh chance might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In principle, since our sanctions are preventative and not punitive, I'm always (well, once per editor, in general) open to giving people a new start, but only if they convincingly explain that they understand what the problem with their conduct is and that they won't repeat it. And, frankly, the more of my time an editor wastes through interminable wikilawyering and ADMIN ABUSE DRAMA!!!, to the point of being indef-blocked for it in this case, the more convincing I expect the explanation to be. I agree that we should wait for the result of the case, though; it might indeed lead us to conclude that mitigating circumstances should be considered as well.  Sandstein  20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait until EEML concludes. Until the ArbComm case finishes we shouldn't address Russavia's unban, since it may end up (very unlikely, but still possible) that ArbComm may overturn the ban on him as a result of harassment or some othert remedy exonerating him. -Jeremy 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

'Support formal unblocking: I do not see how unbanning Russavia would harm the project. Surely, he would not disrupt the project in the middle of his ArbCom and if he do disrupt there are many eyes watching him as well as many block buttons that ready to click. On the other hand, he is a prolific editor and his contributions benefit the project. The last I heard is that blockins are not punitive Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the evidence page of the current Arbcom case I've explained why I believe A. Bakharev is a biased admin when it comes to preventing certain users from getting blocked, or getting users unblocked. Grey Fox (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This thread is still ongoing? Russavia, would you be willing to abide by a topic ban for the duration of the EEML case?--Tznkai (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Tznkai, as I stated above, I would agree to a far wider topic ban than what was placed on me by Sandstein. This would cover all EE articles. But I will leave it up to others whether they think that this is a fair thing or not. Also, it should be noted, that Arbcom have basically made it clear than any unblocking of me at the moment is in the hands of the community, and there has been no indication after a request to User:Daniel that this would indeed be addressed by Arbcom, and it does seem that they are busy investigating the email archives at present, meaning that I may remain blocked for some months. --Russavia 10:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (blocking admin). I would not support a lifting of the block. The legal threat was not the only issue, as has been noted, and just because an ArbCom case is underway on related issues does not negative the reasons for the block. I think we should let the ArbCom run its course and it's probable that they will address this issue. As I stated in evidence there, if they do not lift/adjust the block, it would be my expectation that the default situation would apply—that it would still stand. We should also adopt the default position here. Good Ol’factory 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would support a lifting of the block. As has been noted above, there will be many eyes on Russavia. Should he step out of line, the current situation can be reimposed pending the conclusion of the case. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, did Russavia get officially unblocked, or did he "choose" to unblock himself , ? Or wait, lemme guess, the evil cabal tricked him into making those edits. Or, as is more likely, he's just trying to test what he can get away with. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with those edits, it's just that they do illustrate pretty clearly that it's Russavia's own actions that land him into trouble, rather than some nefarious plots. Of course, if he did get unblocked, then nm.radek (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I have blocked Pretty_Green (talk · contribs) as a compromised account. Although there is no solid evidence of this, the account made an obvious vandalism edit after thousands of constructive contributions. Please let me know if this is the correct course of action. –Juliancolton |  22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems proper to me.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked per an email I received which I shall be quoting below (I don't expect that it was meant to be confidential).

Hello

Just to confirm that the account was not compromised; they were just stupid vandal edits. The edit to Talk:Roman Polanski was a misguided attempt to use shock humour; I actually tried to revert it but someone else got there before me. The edit to Turkey (bird) was just plain silly and the sort of thing I admit to doing occaisionaly as an anon, usually from home, as these edits were. I hadn't realised I was logged in.

Anyway, I'd rather like to be unblocked - as you'll note, there are over 2 500 useful edits from this account and it would be a shame to lose my watchlist!

Apologies once more

Pretty Green

I note that on their user talk page, they say "Sorry, those edits were drunk messing around at home but in bad taste; I apologise." I imagine that the user has certainly learned their lesson from this, and that they will not be repeating it, on an account or on an IP. NW (Talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks --Pretty Green (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Software oddity

Not sure whether this is the right board to report it to, but there's an oddity with the new feature showing blocks on a conributions page. If you go to, say, Special:Contributions/212.183.136.192, you see a box "This user is currently blocked". Yet the block is an old one (31 hours in July) and the IP address is visibly not blocked. Mister Collins (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Even odder -- apparently it's browser or user dependent. Mister Collins (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything - maybe it's the cache? Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Mister Collins (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry per the CheckUser results at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci. MuZemike 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

trying to start a page called SJSM

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MFD process check

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs testing

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/flaggedrevs-test-wiki-awaits-you/ --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

user jaimeizquierdo

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Izquierdo, Artist, PAFA'85

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock check

I attempted to issue a rangeblock to 93.142.144.0/20 (4096 ip addresses) after a particularly nasty NPA issue and block evasion by Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've never done a rangeblock before. Can someone double check my work to ensure I did it properly? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean to do 93.142.0.0/20? What's the range you're trying to block? Tan | 39 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to my calculations that will block 93.142.144.* - 93.142.159.* inclusive. I can only see six IP addresses being used anonymously in that range, and three of them are definitely your user, so as rangeblocks go it doesn't look too bad. It's part of a bigger /16 range, so it would be worth checking if a month is too long - if the user gets assigned other IPs in the range. -- zzuuzz 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

93.142.144.0/20 is right. That's what I get from calculating the range. MuZemike 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:WebHamster

There appears to be a substantial edit war at the aforementioned page. I was about to fully protect it for a few days, but being that it is a discussion page (and Hamster may wish to appeal his block), I am not sure if this is the proper course of action. Thoughts are appreciated. –Juliancolton |  16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Since PoD engaged Daed on his (Daed's) talk page, I left a 3RR reminder there. While I don't agree with Webhamster's approach to "collaboration", I do think the option to request unblock, and possibly to state they will "tone it down" should be left open to him if possible. Good catch JC. — Ched :  ?  16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much harm in protecting it. He's not using it for any useful purpose, and we already know he's churlish. I don't see that more useful information is likely to come from that page. Friday (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be protected, but on the same token Daedalus969 should be given a 3RR warning for going over the line on 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect it for 24 hours, warn then block anyone who returns to edit war. That is quite enough of this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Tznkai (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Casliber

See apology. discuss here Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal wants to show last year's selection?

Portal:Christianity has had a scripture selected for this month, but the portal itself to me is showing a red link to last October's selection. Does anybody know what the bleep that's about? John Carter (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's showing me Portal:Christianity/Selected article/October 2009 as it should.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Birgitte SB's soapbox

I am can't even articulate to all of you how disheartened I am by the recent revelations of admins. First Piotrus and then undertow & friends. Yesterday at EE arbcom, I futilely tried to get EE list members to understand the unacceptability of making ANI reports about suspicions of shared accounts while keeping mum about Tymek's account sharing overtures. This I thought would be an obviously clearcut issue any admin who wasn't named Piotrus. Just now I stumbled on the archived ANI report about undertow which I didn't read entirely, but I gather several admins who regularly participate in ANI kept mum about. That blows yesterday's confidence out the door. How many of these admins felt free to promote the "company line" against sockpuppeting editors they weren't friends with I didn't look into. I don't think I want know. I can only imagine that most of them would have condemned Piotrus's gaming of system while gaming it themselves. Of course these admin weren't that bad, I mean at least they weren't nationalists gaming the system, right? Wrong. They are all in the same league as Piotrus, minus the boldness brought on by years of escaping accountability.

Damn effective leaders, pity about the integrity.

But they didn't harm any articles, you say? Go right now and read Piotrus's evidence.

The heart the matter is this. You see a friend caught in a bad rule, you work to fucking change the rule. You do not rig things so your friend is excused and screw the rest of the world. This is the shit that is killing this place. When you get down to the heart of the EE list, the heart of what drives the Battlegrounds, the heart of what makes people insanely dedicate themselves to subverting an encyclopedia it is all it built on when someone decided to compromise their integrity to protect a friend. And you know what the result always is? The friend expects further compromises; others are drawn in; the group becomes bound by guilt; everyday rules start to appear optional to weaker members; an !attack on a group member must be squashed before it all leaks out. It always leaks out. The friend is worse off than they were in the beginning and a whole group of additional people has been compromised with backsplash. And confidence in system falls another notch and somewhere someone loses their mind and is compelled to write a bot to vandalize articles. Well maybe not the last one. But we really can't afford sink much lower here in regards to confidence. If something on Misplaced Pages isn't working for your friends, then tackle the issue and evangelize and poke and prod till it will work for anyone, including your friends, or else resign your adminship and cater to your friends all you like. That is the deal with adminship.--BirgitteSB 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I do hear your concerns, but having been involved to one degree or another on at least a dozen of these situations, I can speak from the experience that if you are the voice in the darkness, you will get beaten senseless and even if you are successful in exposing the corruption, the friends of the person you expose will remember your name and eventually you will have enough enemies that they will drive you off the site. I have never seen someone actually be a reformer and not be destroyed, and I have probably seen a good three dozen people try. I sleep at night by sending the improprieties I know of to arbcom and letting the guilt of inaction rest on their shoulders. MBisanz 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a purely selfish personal stress level, I always like to point at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry where my following the sockpuppet policy to the letter resulted in a 212kb discussion which I became the bad guy and the sockpuppeteer was unblocked by a now-arbcom member within 8 hours. By the third time I put myself through that wringer, I decided I had better things to do with my life than roll a boulder up a hill. MBisanz 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading this makes Wiki sound a lot like a virtual Soviet Union politically. It's sad that there are different rules for different people and cliques of pals can flout the rules and laugh about it but people who have no powerful or vociferous friends are shown the door. The same rules should apply to everyone whether they have lots of powerful pals or not. I guess human nature just is what it is and always will be though. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The choice is not between secretly protecting your friend and being a bad admin or revealing all actions that are out of sync with policy and being a good admin. The choice is between being a consistent admin or not being an admin. Because the desysop is only a matter of time. If you think the sockpuppetry policy is bogus, and you are trying to gather support for reform and pointing out its shortcomings when they apply to situations brought to ANI, I don't expect you to rat out your friend who is out of step with the part of the policy you want to change. But if you block people for sockpuppetry or comment in ANI cases that involve sockpuppetry without mentioning your disagreement with the policy then you better not be keeping mum about someone's sockpuppet. It is not about following the letter of policy regardless of what you think. It about following what you think consistently regardless of who it applies to. Ignore sockpuppets if you like, but ignore all of them and work to make policy match what you believe. And if you don't think the policy is wrong or wrong enough to merit the effort of working to change, then you insist your friend follows the policy. It is really not that hard and if you are truly sending Arbcom private emails while choosing personal inaction, then I am not sure how you are defining a friend. --BirgitteSB 07:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User 85.216.25.203

I'm minded to give 85.216.25.203 (talk · contribs) a 1 or 3 day block. Although this IP editor hasn't vandalised since the uw-van4im was issued, contribution show that they clearly aren't here to make useful contributions. Maybe a short block would show them that vandalism is not tolerated. Just not sure of the Wikiquette in blocking when no vandalism has occurred after a final warning. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards