Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 8 January 2010

• 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

ITN

Would somebody please update Template:In the News with this item (blurb provided) which has consensus and has been updated at WP:ITN/C. I'm willing to notify editors etc, but editing the template requires admin rights. HJMitchell You rang? (archiving timestamp added) Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious

See here. GTD 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:LessHeard vanU here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I'd be tempted to endorse the block until 7107 explains him/herself. Ale_Jrb 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this sub-page recently created or had it been sitting around for awhile? Seems like a fairly normal editing pattern so far. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO on this one. Also, Jimbo seems to call for a block, not specifying indef or any other term. By all means demand an explanation etc, but perhaps do that /before/ jumping to the block? Where was the prevention? Looks punitive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good Lord, nobody but my priest would consider that story "pornographic" and the user never would have been blocked had the story not been about Dear Jimbo. The story (which has been hosted on the Wikia website Uncyclopedia for years) is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan. Absurd overreaction and most certainly not an attack page. --auburnpilot talk 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of 'Dear Jimbo', I'd say it's definitely an attack page, so I disagree with you there. An indef is probably overracting through and unlikely to stand, so I agree with you on that one, I've decided. Ale_Jrb 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of Jimbo is irrelevant, and I doubt you'll be successful in finding a single diff of me making my opinion of him known. But thanks for attempting to make this something it isn't. --auburnpilot talk 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"...is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan" Yes, about Jimbo going on a date with a sexualised child cartoon figure. Creepy GTD 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation both host images and stories of sexualized cartoon figures as "unofficial mascots"? That would seem to be a much more pressing issue. I'm not advocating that we restore the page, only that we act with a little more thought. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And given some of the other drawings created by the person who made the "unofficial mascot", this is a PR disaster waiting to happen GTD 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late about the PR thing. I saw a thread on this while viewing Misplaced Pages Review (along with some of the "artwork" by the cartoon character's creator - 1st time I've ever seen his drawings either, and I wish I hadn't). Makes me a little nervous that he's and admin (and potentially has access to IPs and addresses of underage editors) on the Japanese Misplaced Pages.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have become quite agressive quite quickly - I'm not the one making it into something it isn't. O_o I certainly never stated that you had an opinion of Jimbo, so I have no idea why I would be searching for diffs in that regard. Ale_Jrb 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not an attack, then why was it done? It looks to be designed to at least irritate. Hell, it even irritates me. It's incredibly dumb. I'd find it pretty offensive if it were written about me, moreover it seems to suggest a little more than a date - with a dubious sex-kitten cartoon-child. However you look at it, it's weird. That said, an indefinite block seems excessive. A stern warning would do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unauthorized slashfic about an editor/BLP subject and a childlike character with explicit sexual references – while I am no prude, this is beyond the pale for userspace content. That said, I'm not sure upholding the block of 7107delicious on the sole grounds of hosting the material is fair. The blocked editor is unlikely to be the author given that the material was posted almost two years ago by another (yet unblocked) account. Furthermore, 7107delicious appears to come from a cultural background very different from that of most editors, and is among our younger contributors. They may not have understood how such material might be viewed by the rest of us. For a fuller picture, see this discussion of their alternate accounts, this autoblock, and this ANI thread.  Skomorokh  15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized how sadly askew my point of view was regarding Wikipe-tan as "normal" before the reminders above that she is a Manga-style cartoon character of ambiguous sexual promotion. "Controversial morality" would appear to be suggested by a date with "her", and the BLP/NPA/many issues would apply to absolutely any Misplaced Pages community member if put up in this light. To a certain Misplaced Pages demographic that might not seem 100% strange, but considering the niche reader group it appears to be either emulating and/or mocking? Either direction, I'd consider it attack-based without an explanation given. Even if it were me, knowing full well what the attempt at humor might be perhaps in ever high faith, I'd entirely object. I think I'll watchlist a handful of articles at the Anime and Manga portal apt to see related edits. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c(outdent) As 7107's former mentor (I volunteered to help him) I am not surprised in the slightest that he has been blocked, although the manner of the block is a complete and utter surprise! He has irritated a lot of users, and blundered his way through CHU, ANI and users talk pages, so I expected that he would sooner or later recieve a ban preventing him from taking part in such areas. This fiction page is a completely new turn of events for him, compared with his previous edits.

In case anyone is interested, have a look at the version on the 5th December 2009 of the mentor page before it was deleted, to get a feel of what he was doing, and what I was trying to stop him from doing. I ended the mentorship because it ended up being too much work trying to pick up the pieces from his edits (both on and off the Wiki). Had he stuck to the restrictions, I would gladly have spent all my time trying to help him, but he wouldn't.

A couple of things though - I think it would be fairer to give him a temp block, and give him a chance to explain himself. Also, I seem to recall that he created a second account to use at school, but the name of that account escapes me at the moment. Stephen! 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's only indef because that allows it to be lifted as soon as the matter is cleared up. The content was scurrilous fantasy, of course, but it invoked a real person without their permission and made implications that, even if obviously presented in an unbelievable context, is potentially extremely damaging to Jimbo and everyone associated with him - and that would be me and you, folks. My action after blocking D7107 was to suggest that they contact Jimbo and explain themselves - via me if wanted - to get this matter sorted out. I am not Jimbo's greatest fan, but I am fairly certain that after a little discussion this matter will likely be resolved amicably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from there LHvU, but why does he/she/it need to talk to Jimbo? When there is, for example, a legal threat block that person only has to convince the blocking admin they retracted/never made the threat; they do not have to convince the person who felt threatened. If it is a personal attack, then they don't need to apologise, just convince a reviewing admin. Why must we go 'It is Jimbo!' and suddenly run away from established procedure? It does neither him nor the rest of us any good. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (EC)

If I inferred a real-named person had a sexual attraction for children, I would expect to get blocked. At the very least. What is the debate here? GTD 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly active on the blocking of editors following personal attacks, and I usually consider the sensibilities of the target when making a decision on block length. In this instance I thought it appropriate that the person dealt with Jimbo himself. I would point out also that I have reviewed the subsequent discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, where it is apparent that the content (which I also reviewed) is not D7107's own original work. The question is why they decided to hold it in WP space. If they have a good explanation, why not present it to Jimbo? If he is satisfied, as the effected editor, then there is no need for D7107 to remain blocked. Under the circumstances as I read them, I felt this the most appropriate way in dealing with the issue.

Finally, as an admin I am answerable to the community. If the community feels that I acted too severely in protecting another member then by all means alter or reverse my action - I will not oppose even if I do not approve. I would say that, outside of the "talk to the man" bit, this would be how I would deal with unusual personal attacks; get the views of the attackee before taking further actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the community decides to do with 7107, it should also be applied to his alternative account he created for use at school (User:Das Sicherheit) and his original account that he has retired, but is still available for use (User:RuleOfThe9th). Stephen! 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is it the editor who is blocked, or the account? If the former, then shouldn't the alternative accound also be blocked? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Account only. I was not aware at the time of alternate accounts, and am not now - given this discussion - minded to pursue blocking of other accounts without community consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the users User:StephenBuxton is referring to as having been irritated by 7107; mostly it's covered on 7107's talk page. I didn't see the 'story' but am unsurprised that we're here. Before anyone gets too far down the good-faith unblock road, please review his total history. You'll find an immature and disruptive user and little else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for clarifying that. IMO, the block was reasonable. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. 7107 may be able to convince an admin to unblock him if he demonstrates he has learnt from the block and the actions that led to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Jack Merridew - as the most found editor on the talk page - some weeks back - I am rather concerned that all this has the sense of feeding the troll - regardless of the outcome - he wants the attention - this specific conversation in most parts is conducted in AGF and unfortunately and unwillingly I suspect we are giving the needed attention (give him an opportunity to explain himself? - read the talk page and edit history surely is enough)- if you read the user page history and the talk page history carefully he actually talks about being blocked for his editing - I personally see no point in giving him any further chances - having endured his talk page antics.

I am suggesting an unblocking of this editor is simply providing wikipedia with further excitement in what can i do next to disrupt wikipedia? - it is well beyond AGF now folks - 3 different user names and the edit history is enough surely?

However for those who are concerned I might be biased - please look at the editors specific edit history, and the comments at the talk page - my pedantic ramblings notwithstanding - and actually look at the editors work - rather than get lost in the actual detail here at this noticeboard - it is far too easy to get lost in the arguments here - than the actual edit and talk page history - in question.

I would suggest that if there is a reviewing admin of the block and the circumstances - there are Misplaced Pages Indonesia issues that might surface as well - and possibly at the German project as well. Also for some strange and a not easy to prove reason - there are possible signs that the account is used by more than one person - but it is also possible that the differences in comprehension and writing during the lifetime of the accounts are the work of one individual. SatuSuro 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

7107 has now responded on his talk page about the block, and I have informed him of this thread. Stephen! 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time ploughing through this thread, the user's talk page and the childish (in both senses) story on jimbo's page, I see no reason at this time to unblock. I would suggest that the user is invited to apply for unblock in, say, a year's time, when he might possibly have developed a degree of the maturity which he clearly at present lacks. --Anthony.bradbury 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of procedure only I have blocked the alt accounts. If the main account is unblocked the declared alt should be unblocked. The other is labelled as retired so either way on that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As 7107D has indicated that he is emailing Jimbo, I have dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page about this discussion - depending on what we hear should help us determine the length of the block. Stephen! 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

His own attitude about this on his talk page is surprisingly uncaring. But by all means, just as long as he apologies, he should be un-blocked. It doesn’t matter what you all think about the Block, but what Jimbo himself said about the now deleted attack page.--Misortie (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• What we should consider is what we would do if anybody other than Jimbo Wales was the subject of that page (assuming it's an attack page, on which I can't comment since I don't know of the story and I'm not an admin so can't access the page). Would 7107D be indefd if the subject had been me or you? If the consensus is "yes", then the block should remain and 7107D can appeal it in a reasonable period of time (at least a month). If the answer is "no", the block should be lifted. I've no opinion on the outcome, but I would hate to think that undue consideration is given to the subject of the page and not the behaviour of the editor. HJMitchell You rang? 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Had it been an editor with no constructive edits, then regardless of subject, indef would be appropriate. For editors with constructive edits, then a temp ban would be in order. This user has been high maintenance, and does not seem to have learned from his past mistakes, even though he does contribute to the project. It is when he tries to do things like warning people, or conversing on talk pages that he usually ends up annoying someone. I think Anthony Bradbury made a good suggestion - block for a year, to give him a chance to develop the degree of maturity needed. Stephen! 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• 7107 has {{retired}} — see here. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the third or fourth time I've seen him put that sign up (lost count), but given that he is indefinitely blocked, I think the retirement might be staying up this time. Stephen! 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:PCHS-NJROTC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:PCHS-NJROTC has a history with Misplaced Pages:Abuse response and sockpuppetry investigations. Despite this, they appear to lack the judgment and maturity necessary for such efforts. I request that they are topic banned from abuse reporting, sockuppetry investigations, and ISP tagging of IP editors.

A recent long and somewhat rambling ANI discussion deals with their unilateral addition of User:LBHS Cheerleader to the WP:list of banned users (as well as earlier false assertions in SPI discussions that the user was banned). I have only just discovered that PCHS-NJROTC was told by an admin in April 2008 that the user was not explicitly banned, and PCHS-NJROTC agreed not to add them to WP:List of banned users although they subsequently did so. As PCHS-NJROTC's statement at the end of that discussion shows, they do not acknowledge that their action was wrong. I believe PCHS-NJROTC dissembled throughout the discussion, which raises questions about their suitability for any action in which they may be seen, correctly or incorrectly, as representing Misplaced Pages.

When the possibility that PCHS-NJROTC's account had been compromised (based on some juvenile but offensive edits made about Barack Obama in the sandbox) was discussed on ANI, PCHS-NJROTC went as far as to suggest that it may have been a hacker using "IP spoofing". Admins accepted that perhaps PCHS-NJROTC has left themselves logged on at a public terminal and apparently no one seemed to have looked through their contributions. If they had, they would have seen very similar activity on earlier occasions (as just two of many examples: and ). PCHS-NJROTC was clearly lying about their own involvement.

In the earlier ANI thread about unilateral banning there were concerns raised about PCHS-NJROTC tracking down people on MySpace to question them about their accounts. As I have discovered by looking through PCHS-NJROTC's contribution history, shortly before that discussion, on 4 december 2009, they said:

And sir, don't think that I'm blah with no sense of humor sir yes sir follow Adolf Hitler to hell; I do indeed have a sense of humor and even the same temptation to be immature, but I know how to hold myself back. I could similarily post links to Jessica Selder's real Myspace and ask everyone to bomb her with hate mail and (fake) death threats for the crimes she appears to have committed against Misplaced Pages, but that would be very immature and I doubt that anyone else would be laughing and I'd likely be blocked. I can hold myself back, you need to learn to do the same if you want to get anywhere here at WP.

On the same day, they also stated:

The only time I really go out of my way to dog somebody is if they're a "cheerleader vandal," the type of person who started that thread in the first place, and the reason is because a lot of these cheerleader vandals are following instructions from a chain letter distributed among cheerleaders on Myspace to vandalize Misplaced Pages because apparently "WIKIPEDIA HATES YOU (cheerleaders)."

Aside from their obsession with "cheerleader vandals" PCHS-NJROTC was previously topic banned from Mmbabies-related topics for similar off-wiki activities by admin User:Theresa knott. This talk page discussion may be enlightening. The entirety of this Mmbabies discussion page is simply an embarrassment to the project (which doesn't even take into account the edits that have been removed).

PCHS-NJROTC should have been topic banned from any vandalism-related activities long ago. I attempted to start this discussion on ANI before Xmas, but it was prematurely closed, likely because it came so soon after the other discussion. I am starting it again here now that more admins are back from holidays so that it can get a proper airing. Since PCHS-NJROTC is obviously upset by my diligence with this, I will do my best to stay out of the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• PCHS-NJROTC, would you agree to give up anti-vandalism patrol for a while and go build some articles instead? That would probably be a helpful way to minimize conflict. Your commenting style below seems to reinforce the points that DC has made. A voluntary agreement would be better than a formal restriction. Jehochman 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • For sake of ending the drama in a fashion where everyone comes out happy, I wouldn't be opposed to contributing more to non-vandalism related elements of the encyclopedia. I had already agreed to revert the questioned actions and abandon LBHSC, and even contemplated total retirement. I have tried to be civil here, only getting crazy in rebuttal of half-truths. Going to Jimbo was an effort to avoid all of this. When I see vandals, I feel compelled to revert them, and when I unintentionally discover something blatant, it should be reported. When this all started, it was all about my dealings with User:LBHS Cheerleader. LBHSC is part of my Misplaced Pages past as is Mmbabies, and I'm already making an effort to get into other things here besides anti-vandalism patrol. I've done nothing resembling what DC has mentioned here since the last discussion. I've tried to be reasonable. I can contribute to articles and other non-vandalism related discussions and less vandal fighting. However, I'm not saying that I won't revert any vandalism I see because of this. This is basically the same I had agreed to do before. I will not stay here if anything formal is imposed, so there's no "topic ban" about this, it would have to be a rename and a permaban. I feel this is fair and reasonable. PCHS-NJROTC 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Do not hunt for vandalism, but if you come across any in your normal travels, please revert and leave an appropriate user warning template message.
2. Please avoid administrative-type tasks such as updating pages like Misplaced Pages:List of banned users or closing WP:AN threads. Such actions may be controversial.
3. Should you find a user that needs to be investigated, restricted or blocked, please report the matter to me or any other administrator for follow up. Keep yourself out of any conflicts.

If you do the above, I think you'll find your Misplaced Pages editing more pleasant. Jehochman 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • That's typical behavior for me (except when doing RC patrol); I don't regularly go out of my way to find people to add to the ban list as even lone admins are supposed to get consensus first. Heck, even RC patrol is just one small part of my work here, much less dealing with individual trolls. I do a lot of shared IP tagging, mainly because I find it kind of interesting to look at the contributions to articles from organizations from around the world, both legitimate and malicious, and I don't do it just looking for people to report or revert. A third of my contributions is probably shared tagging. This is my last reply here; I'm letting the waters calm from here on out. PCHS-NJROTC 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, we have had a frank exchange of views. DC, are you willing to leave this matter in the good hands of myself and the other administrators commenting or lurking on this thread? If you see a problem, just drop me or one of them a note. Are you satisfied? Jehochman 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to let you and other admins settle this as you see fit. My personal preference is for something formal, so that there is no argument if this has to be revisited in the future. As I said in the somewhat lengthy message on your talk page, there are good reasons to doubt PCHS-NJROTC's word. If possible, I would like to leave this open until we hear from Theresa Knott, who imposed the original topic ban. I have notified her on her talk page, but she does not seem to have edited since the new year. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We should not keep this open indefinitely. She might be out on a two week vacation. If she wants to follow up, ask her to leave me a note and we can see what, if anything, more needs to be done here. We can always start a new discussion. One started by her or by me would probably be better received since we are uninvolved. Jehochman 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I'm not sure why DC values my reply so much. I think the evidence from that talk page speaks volumes. PCHS-NJROTC behaviour back then was appallingly crap. However that was nearly two years ago, and he was very young at the time. I haven't seen enough of his recent behaviour to judge if he has grown up. I suspect he has a bit. But still has a way to go. Perhaps quite a long way to go. Having said that. DC seems to have handled the latest incident really badly and pissed a whole host of admins off. So what to do? The only reasonable thing that I can think of is to see if this voluntary ban works. (It's only fair) if is does - well great! If it doesn't and there is another incident of poor judgment by PCHS-NJROTC then we seriously discuss a topic ban (with no premature archiving, or anyone trying to cut short the discussion). That's all that I can think of to do. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good, now everyone had their say....now, can we mark this as resolved and never ever speak of it again? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Prompted by the new discussion of WP:Abuse response below, I looked at Misplaced Pages:Abuse_response/Volunteers#Investigators. Can someone, ideally the user themselves, please remove User:PCHS-NJROTC from that list. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly what does this have to do with the current discussion besides trying to keep this going on as long as possible? Either end the discussion or let it be archived. People have spoken, voices have been heard, as you "requested", keeping it going over something that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current discussion or the user in question is borderline stalking and harrassment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If you do not see how this is relevant, you may wish to review the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • But is it really that important? Does it really have to be brought up? Do we have to nitpick over ever aspect of someone's online "life"? You got your "discussion", let's move on. I think you owe that much to everyone. You said if you got the discussion you so wanted, you would let it drop....but you haven't, we are still here, nitpicking over something an admin should ask about, not you. If the admins would have found it necessary to bring up, they would have, remember, they are smrt ("a" left out on purpose). Let's move onto something else, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Neutralhomer, arguing with you isn't worth the time it takes to type my replies - please stop involving yourself in discussions that I start and just let someone else deal with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ya know, being nice to you just ain't worth the hassle. I will be involved in every conversation you start and I will make it my place to. You don't get to decide who you get to post here and not. This is ANI, everyone can post here and everyone can archive articles. So, here is what I am going to do. Since everyone you want has been given a chance to respond, I am going to give you until Noon EST to figure out what the hell you are doing and then I am archiving this mess. You are dragging your feet to keep this open as long as possible. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Various tangents away from the issue at hand

This issue is under scrutiny by User:Jimbo Wales. May I kindly recommend that everyone wait for Jimbo's opinion. Sorry for writing this in such bold letters. PCHS-NJROTC 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, you can't just arbitrarily demand that this be stopped because you say so. Can you show where Jimbo is looking at this? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not demanding that this stop, I just made a recommendation if you read my comment. It's at his talk page now. Before you comment, understand that this is rehash of something that's been going on and on and on, and DC is violating consensus. PCHS-NJROTC 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the members of WP:ArbCom User:Shell Kinney and User:SirFozzie are part of that consenus to end the drama. PCHS-NJROTC 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to the consensus that DC is violating, PCHS? Invoking Jimbo seems a bit like Godwin's Law, fwiw. tedder (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel the need to spend several minutes looking for 50,000 diffs, so I'm asking that you either take it or leave it. I went to Jimbo for his help, not to do anything in particular, but act as he feels fit for the situation. Since it doesn't appear that anything else would stop this, other than perhaps an interaction ban as proposed by Beeblebrox. I personally find it unfair that I be officially be banned as I really did try to avoid DC until I noticed him rehasing this, but what ever works. This is getting old. PCHS-NJROTC 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to look for it either, but now you've invoked Jimbo and you've claimed there is a consensus somewhere. Neither of these actions have any credibility, and they make me believe DC, not you. tedder (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was displayed in the never ending threads at AN/I and the recent MfD of a particular page if you can see it through the arguing between me and DC. I'm referring to the consensus that DC and I leave each other alone of course. PCHS-NJROTC 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I have been trying to follow this to the best of my ability, but there is a difference between provocateur and "provocatee". There seems to be only one person who keeps trudging this out, despite having been shown a fairly overwhelming consensus that it be tabled, at least for the time being, and it is that trudging that is the source of disruption at this point.   Thorncrag  22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter proposal: back off

Counter proposal These two editors should just back the hell away from one another, this is getting really tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support non-interaction ban. Seriously, enacting a 30-day ban from commenting about each other should dial the drama down. tedder (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, a non-interaction ban? That would be interesting. Force them to interact with each other for 30 days, with any non-interactions punished by blocks? :) Would they be sick of each other by the end of it or would they be friends? Tedder may deserve a barnstar for this novel solution. This is the kind of outside the box thinking we need more of, so I'm giving a support to the idea of forcing them to interact for 30 days. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Double negative fail for me. Should have been an "interaction ban". Or not- maybe this means I can keep my idiot savant badge. tedder (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Would that be like my recent posting DC at WP:TEA? PCHS-NJROTC 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • If I may suggest that most of the "drama" has been caused by PCHS-NJROTC attempting avoid any kind of scrutiny on this and admin wannabes closing threads prematurely, not by my efforts have a serious discussion. Perhaps editors could actually read the evidence presented and !vote accordingly. There is a real issue here, whether or not you wish to address it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

D.c., I read through as much of the evidence as I could handle. I truly didn't see anything that rises to the level of actionable policy violations. If someone gets outed or harassed offline you're welcome to say "I told you so", but this seems like the continuing of a conflict that many editors have suggested be dropped. I strongly suggest self-archiving the thread so you can focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that need improvement. Getting bogged down in what looks like a feud isn't going to be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest ever in the history of Misplaced Pages SupportI totally agree with Beeblebrox. Hey, I don't want my name tarnished, but banning us both from interacting with each other or reporting each other couldn't be any worse than this drama. PCHS-NJROTC 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can both just leave each other alone. This doesnt need a ban. As CoM said.--Coldplay Expért 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried my best. I didn't interact with DC or mention him at all for quite some time. I monitored his contributions for further attempts to rehash, hoping and believing it was over, but just in case. I found something that mentioned my name that I thought was an attack page he was using for his own personal gain, and I could not ignore it. I took it to MfD instead of using a speedy template because I thought that would be least controversial. Then I find that it's actually plans to rehash all of this. I want to leave him alone. My question is will he leave me alone. I can't ignore this kind of nonsense, or else those unfamiliar will not see my position on this. Probably an interaction ban is best; I'd rather just ban him and not me as he was the one that started this again, but I'll gracefully accept an interaction ban on myself as well to keep things balanced and not fingerpoint. PCHS-NJROTC 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Didn't we just do this at ANI? I see two threads on this archive alone. What's different now? Unless there is a good answer, then put me down as Support for the interaction ban. Wknight94 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question - I've added new information, specifically the evidence that shows PCHS-NJROTC mentioning "Jessica Selders" MySpace (that was the person they were accused of outing in the unilateral ban discussion); the quote about going out of their way to "dog" "cheerleader vandals" (which is the root of the initial ANI posting about the improper addition of an editor to the WP:List of banned editors); the fact that PCHS-NJROTC had previously agreed not to add the user to that list; and the clear evidence of PCHS-NJROTC flat out lying to admins about their account being "compromised". Again, I suggest that editors actually read all what I've written and make their own judgment instead of looking for drama. I'm more than happy to avoid interacting with PCHS-NJROTC if I think this ban proposal has been given a fair shake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've kept this to myself to the best of my ability... what is your real reason for this? It has nothing to do with Jessica Selders or the cheerleaders; I've agreed to abandon that, and I've kept my word about it so far (although there's been very little time elapse since then). Why is the first thing you mention in ban proposals WP:ABUSE? Do you really give two flocks about some cheerleader at LBHS, CHS, or any other high school, or is it actually because you a> feel sorry for those I've reported to ISPs b> because you think that WP:ABUSE is silly or c> you don't think a teenager (who's actually the age a majority now by the way) should be submitting abuse reports? Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you have a "thing" for cheerleaders. Perhaps it's something else. Can you be honest? In a nutshell, why the hell do you keep rehashing this? And you say it's not personal. Yet you've done nothing like this with anyone else in recent history. The end of this drama will help the encyclopedia far more than any proposed "topic ban" on of all things "vandal fighting." I guess if you were successful, I'd be expected to allow sillyness like "i like dogs" to stand in articles? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?! I'm sincerely sorry for yelling, but this guy just don't get it and continues to push his opinion despite a proposed intereaction ban and everybody agreeing that this is getting just plain flat out annoying. PCHS-NJROTC 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel as if the ban should also include any kind of accusations on any part of WP by one party against the other. As we both post to AN/I, AIV, and other discussion boards as part of our editing outside of this feud, the ban should only include actions relating to one another (i.e. DC proposing topic bans on me, me reporting DC for incivility, etc.). Agree? PCHS-NJROTC 20:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These two users just need to leav each other alone. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. Resolute 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request - Would someone mind asking PCHS-NJROTC to stay away from my talk page. I have asked and asked and asked, but they don't seem to be able to resist even as an interaction (or non-interaction ban) is being discussed instead of the issue I have presented. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't own your talk page and neither do I own mine. I have supported the interaction ban. The edit you reverted with a threatening comment was merely me trying to clear the queue of an unblock request for a block that was expired. As the admin who blocked you indicated, you should take it to AN/I if you think action needs to be taken against the blocking admin. PCHS-NJROTC 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I wouldn't mind seeing an additional restriction placed on both of these guys from the noticeboards, especially PCHS-NJROTC. Work on some content and stop drama mongering guys. AniMate 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at my contribs, most of my contributions at these notice boards have been non-controverial other than those related to this mess. I recently reported a blatant 4chan vandal to WP:AIV, requested page protection, reported trolls who followed me from Conservapedia, and have contributed to several ongoing discussions on noticeboards including this one. Most of my contribs are uncontroversial despite DC's one sided description. PCHS-NJROTC 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've looked at your contributions and you're having way to much fun playing the Misplaced Pages MMORPG. You seem to really enjoy the drama and do not spend nearly enough time in article space to make you worth the time. Seriously, get off the boards, keep away from SPIs, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. AniMate 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • e/cOkay, there's no 90/10 rule here saying that 90% of my contribs have to be to the article space. Do you have a problem with the reversion of vandalism and participation in discussions? PCHS-NJROTC 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And posting here (and at DC's talkpage, and at Wales' talk page) is not helping make your point. tedder (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        • There's no 90/10 rule here, but there's no reason we should expend energy on a troublesome user who isn't here to build an encyclopedia. If these types of situations keep flaring up, don't be surprised to find yourself completely restricted to article space. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about participating in discussions anyway, when this isn't a discussion project but an encyclopedia. Try participating in building it. AniMate 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Again, I've abandoned LBHSC and similar trolls, and the majority of my contributions to boards is uncontroversial. Participating in MfDs, AfDs, other people's proposals at AN/I, AN, and Village Pump, RfAs, RC Patrol, and other non-article contributions is not related to LBHSC or any other troll, so your argument is null. PCHS-NJROTC 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I remain concerned that the threats of NJROTC to harass a user off wiki for their actions on wiki, and their boast subsequently at having tracked down that person;'s actual identity are actions that would normally be considered blockable until there is a clear statement from the user acknowledging that such actions are not permitted. This was merely one incident in the over-zealous anti-vandal actions being discussed, but I think it was by far the worst, and I think it got overshadowed. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can you post some diffs of the threats of harassment or outing that you reference? If there are clear diffs, a block may be in order, all else aside. Some lines must never be crossed. Jehochman 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I posted previously, : for the threat and then for the statement of having carried out the threat.' DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• See also the bolded sections above which relate to that same person (diffs are & ). It would be great if people would actually take the time to look at the evidence before deciding there's nothing worth looking at. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I did nothing wrong, I did not post any of her personal information. PCHS-NJROTC 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I also did not contact her or otherwise harass her. PCHS-NJROTC 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • And so DC should similarily be reblocked if I am to be reblocked because nothing mentioned was original; anything I posted on wiki was stuff that the user already posted. Looks like DC's done similar. PCHS-NJROTC 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you'd like a small piece of advice from an univolved bystander, it's this: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You've made so many comments that you're well into TL;DR territory. Just leave each other alone and go about your business. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't get a word in with all the edit conflicts. Jehochman 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter-counter proposal Two week vacation from WP entirely for PJHS for invoking Jimbo in such an odd way, and a large trout for Carbuncle strikes me as in order. Collect (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All in favor of just archiving this whole mess again

We all see that DC rehashed this drama once again after it was put to rest, and we all agree that this is simply childish bickering. All in favor of just closing this informally one more time and forgetting this ever happened?

Support as proposer. PCHS-NJROTC 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Ban Delicious carbuncle

This is the fourth or fifth time this subject has been rehashed on either ANI or AN. When the discussion is forcefully archived, Delicious carbuncle either unarchives it or drags it out of the archives (when a bot archives it). This is clear harrassment of PCHS-NJROTC, disruption of ANI and AN, and continued trying of the community's patience. I am requesting that Delicious carbuncle be banned from any and all AN and ANI threads that don't have something clearly to do with him (Delicious carbuncle) and him alone, be banned from having ANYTHING to do with PCHS-NJROTC and be banned from posting any further threads about PCHS-NJROTC. This has gone on long enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I am not allowed to post on Delicious carbuncle's talk page, so someone will have to let him know about this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a large part of the "drama" surrounding this issue due to your improper and premature archiving of the earlier ANI threads. You have a personal dislike for me which seems to have started after I reported User:Allstarecho for violation of his topic ban. A large percentage of your recent edits have been to interfere with, or threaten to interfere with, threads that I have started. Perhaps you could start a new thread for this, rather than add to this circus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, this is a circus, a circus continously started by you and only you have the power to bring down the tent. Yet, the circus is still in town and the townspeople are tired of the elephants crapping on the street. You want the circus to end, end it. Drop the entire damned thing and move on to something new, ringmaster. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All in Favor

1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All Opposed

All Really Rather Weary Of The Entire Matter

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
2. - Hell, I would throw my name in this hat too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   Then why propose this? Ks0stm 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   Because I feel that some kind of action needs to be taken against Delicious carbuncle for harrassment, disruption and trying the community's patience. He doesn't know when to walk away. Someone, be it me, you, an admin, someone needs to tell him to walk away, even if it is by block or ban. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I have a better idea. Why don't you stop coming whining to everyone here and avoid DC entirely? That would be the simplest way to stop all this drama between you two. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5. This has gone on too long. Ks0stm 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
6. To every thing there is a season. Collect (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
7. I have been trying to diffuse these whole drama for some time now, and it seems we may be close to getting both users to agree to disengage voluntarily. Let's give them a chance to do that before pursuing any more actions or dramafests in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail Category

Placed here in lieu of finding any other noticeboard for this type of issue.

One editor has repeatedly placed Category:Nazi propaganda on the Daily Mail article. The apparent purpose of the category was to group German language clear propaganda subjects together, and I rather think placing the Daily Mail in that group fails to recognize the reason for the category, and is intended primarily in the same vein as the redirects "Daily Heil" and the like were used on WP in the past. As POV-pushing of that ilk was deleted from the redirects in the past, I would suggest the category ought not be used on the article about a British newspaper. Collect (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest this is best discussed on the article's talk page. Garibaldi Baconfat 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's best discussed on the user's talk page after he's blocked for it. Discussion on article talk pages is for things which might improve the encyclopaedia; we will be adding that category right after Satan finishes his snowball fight. The Daily Mail is an arsewipe but that is not an excuse. This is RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a long record of disruption, his talk page is dominated by warnings for disruption and other inappropriate behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are getting soft Guy. If I had read this ten minutes earlier he would already be blocked on the basis that there is no plausible explanation for his edits other than intentional disruption in article-space - it's within a hairs breadth of what we would usually classify as vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is vandalism, and disruption, and I'm in no doubt that it's deliberate given the user's history. Feel free to block him, it's certainly deserved. Choosing something which is close enough to the borderline to spark a really long debate is the mark of a good troll. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to jump in to defend RHMED, but jumping in to defend RHMED - its brief period in the 1930s as a Nazi propaganda sheet is one of the best known pieces of the Daily Mail's history, so it's hardly out-of-the-blue trolling. The leading academic work on Nazism in Britain takes its name from a Daily Mail headline. – iridescent 10:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the addition is still deliberately disruptive for reasons which are, I think, obvious. It is not currently a Nazi propaganda sheet (although it comes close on occasion). Guy (Help!) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what are the current Nazi propaganda sheets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The category tag is almost certainly not appropriate. But not by a great distance, and I think it is at least plausible that I could be made to stand corrected if a good RS were produced. There is nothing, as far as I can see, to indicate that this is trolling, and it is something that can be adequtely dealt with on the talk page IMO. The issue of whether the DM needs to be currently a Nazi propaganda sheet for the cat to be applicable, for example, should be determined there rather than here.--FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) The above comments made me look up that editor -- with not just a checkered career on WP but a slew of them which were found. Including "Garibaldi Baconfat" overtly above. Will an admin put an end to this farce? Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, your case has support on the talkpage and it looks very unlikely that the edit in question will be allowed to stand. In the event that RHMED perists in repeatedly adding a category that everyone else objects to, then you'll have my backing. But at the moment, I can't see why you think admin intervention is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It5's needed because he keeps doing shit like this. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his past history. You obviously don't like the cut of his jib, and I think I can see why. However, in the current case he has made an edit that, whilst it is undue and POV-pushing, is vaguely defendable (ie it looks to have been made in good faith). He looks to have only performed one revert and he is now participating in talk. It does not look like a situation which requires any immediate admin involvement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually two reverts. In short order. Do a search on him and pseudonyms. The two admins above appear to be well familiar with him (IIRC, he stood for ArbCom this last time out - getting a net negative 394 votes). Collect (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I dislike his tendency to disruption, choosing something which is borderline defensible is exactly what you do if you want to maximise drama. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, part of the problem is that the category doesn't state exactly what it covers. I'm not up on my between-wars history, but if the DM was a known Nazi supporter at the time, then I can understand the inclusion of the article in the category, even though the DM doesn't take that stance today. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one point has been missed: there was a historical period where the newspaper could have been fairly described by that category. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a perfect way of trolling. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one reason why I'm dissatisfied sometimes with the concept & practice of the category aspect of Misplaced Pages. Even when someone is acting in good faith, it's too easy for categories to end up being a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Categories are good for top-level grouping - Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom, for example, or Category:Taoisigh of Ireland or some such. For minor or historical facets you can't beat prose, and I'm sure this is covered well in Nazi propaganda. Anything that requires explanation or generates a "wtf?" is likely a bad fit for a category. This is not new. Obviously if this were adding Category:Thieving bastards to any past or present Chancellor of the Exchecquer then we'd have no argument, since that is uncontentious. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that's not a real category. Shame on you! ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?

Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xeno 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "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 they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, in that the wording of WP:PROXYING there appears to provide a clear exception to the assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xeno 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama頭 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone does want to start a discussion at WT:BAN, this recent WP:VPP discussion (Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Banned_users) might be of interest. Rd232 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how appropriate that metaphor is, but funnily enough, I do agree with Harm reduction. Rd232 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.

Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.

A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of Misplaced Pages:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, which says (the bolding is mine): "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 they have independent reasons for making them."

That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama頭 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.

Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.

I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.

Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.

As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Misplaced Pages, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Misplaced Pages to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").

Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Dramaout starts in two weeks

Just a quick reminder, the 2nd Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout begins in exactly two weeks from now. Any admins who want to participate just sign up at the page and keep an eye on the date. Hopefully we can make this event even more successful than the first one. :) -- œ 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug. I vote we block Giano on day 1 just because. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You do the block, then I'll contact Viridae via IRC to do the unblock, and then crosspost requests for review to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. Jehochman 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bishzilla do the unblocks for Giano? I know Viridae handles unblock requests via WR, I didn't know he was working for Giano as well now. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• What? Have I have been usurped at both? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need a dramaout? Am I the only Wikipedian who has a life? (Although I'd like a job too. I can contribute more content when I'm employed.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I for one have my popcorn ready. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I hate popcorn. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let's MFD the stupid thing the moment it goes live. Nobody who supports it would dare to speak up. ;) Durova 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Except the drama lovers who will rush to protect it and create huge ANI debates over it... unless, of course, I block them all with talkpage privileges disallowed! Sorted!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only do it to be trendy, cause all my t-shirts went out of style, and I haven't got much left... -GTBacchus 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Heehee. :) Durova 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – meta-discussions over the benefits of creating an account aside, the IP can contact User:Jayron32 or User:Tedder or User:LadyofShalott to request the AFD files be created for them--Jayron32 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – At least while editor is blocked. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards