Revision as of 18:04, 7 June 2010 editBlack Falcon (talk | contribs)83,746 edits →Speedy category renaming violating the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license: not to say, of course, that it wouldn't be better to be able to preserve the history...← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:43, 7 June 2010 edit undoSupreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,568 edits →Enforcement: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 533: | Line 533: | ||
:Thanks for the heads-up, though vandalism should usually be reported to ]. In this case, the IP has made one edit since their final warning. I'll keep an eye on them (and report them to ] if they vandalise again). ]<sup>]</sup> 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | :Thanks for the heads-up, though vandalism should usually be reported to ]. In this case, the IP has made one edit since their final warning. I'll keep an eye on them (and report them to ] if they vandalise again). ]<sup>]</sup> 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
:"Please" wouldn't have gone amiss, though. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | :"Please" wouldn't have gone amiss, though. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Enforcement == | |||
I have started an enforcement request. So far only one admin have looked at it and he said: ''"all of this happened before his block"'' which is not true. The problem with User Breein is a long time problem which have continued ''after'' his latest block on June 1. And the block he received on June 1 was ''only'' for edit warring at one article. I have at this enforcement request presented many other things he has done. Could some admin please go through this: --] (]) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:43, 7 June 2010
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
- 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)
Start a new discussion
Disruptive template replacements
- Discussion moved from WP:ANI, as this is the more proper place for a community ban discussion, which this has now become. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
174.3.121.27 (talk) has nominated Template:Blockquote for deletion but has not awaited a consensus for deletion before embarking on a campaign to replace it everywhere.
The most obvious consequence of the replacement is that footnote markers (the figures marking and linking citations) following the blockquote are being displaced a line, indented and preceded by an empty underscore (example). (I have checked this on both Firefox and IE.) The user is claiming that "the reference is supposed to placed in that area", and apparently thinks that the footnote has to be on a line of its own, rather than immediately after the quote, to "cite the whole quote, not just a word or sentence". I would think that the indentation of a blockquote as a whole pretty much makes it obvious that it all comes from the same source. Quotation marks play the same role for shorter quotes. These are generally accepted conventions understood by all educated (and probably most uneducated) readers, and there is no need to reinvent a new and inferior wheel.
174.3.121.27 seems to be following his/her own rather idiosyncratic views of how citations should look and seems determined to create a de facto situation before anyone else has had the chance to interfer. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I gave him a final warning; he carried on, at high speed, so he needs a block now. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked by User:Ale jrb for 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my, yes. This one is a piece of work. This is not the first campaign of dubious cleanup he's embarked on - the Talk page of his prior IP, here, is instructive on that score. This problem has been begging for a solution. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this user - esp. the 174.3.123.220 variety - should be blocked for a long time. He's had AGF+many chances, even after prior blocks. He's taken up far too much time from all of us, admins. included.
- Incivility, taciturn - yet time to discuss shopping, jumping around WP reference sites - to troll, does just enough replies & ESs to deflect accusations of not compromising, very chequered history (so is tech-savvy), anon. IP despite > 4,000 edits in 6 weeks, made 18 edits of templates, trivial edits - to irritate rather than improve, just out to push the boundaries, for devilment?
- No sense of Consensus or what Collaboration means. Loose cannon? No user page. Asked many times to provide ESs. He just has an axe to grind.
- Surely we've all had enough? This user's block (& range?) needs extending - he's not for turning. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Outdent) Ok. We have an indef blocked user that is continuing to disruptively sock/edit via IPs. Sounds like the next step is to upgrade the indefinite block to an official site-ban. That'll make it much easier to do the official steps needed for dealing with the shifting IPs, revert on sight, etc.. So, are we ready to turn this into an actual ban discussion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Official site-ban? Absolutely. Trafford09 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd strongly support, of course. He was indef banned initially for a wide range of issues, including wikhounding and what seems to have been the final straw (death threats), and he has basically skirted the ban ever since and continued with the same sorts of issues, including continued wikihounding myself, and I believe several others, through his various IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is a lot of history here and it might be helpful to understand it at least in its broad strokes so that the discussion here is at less risk of being sidetracked by old issues that could be thrown in like chum. Anma's Talk page discussion, to which she previously linked (here it is again), is a good place to get started. JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
User:100110100 - Community ban proposal
Looking through the various links provided above, we have a long term indef-blocked user, who appears to have, at no point, shown any intention of respecting the block. They have continued to edit, often disruptively, despite the blocks. Even a well meant mentoring attempt earlier this year failed to turn this user into an asset to the project. So I would like to propose that User:100110100, whatever account or IP he may decide to edit under, be officially declared community-banned. This will make it much easier administratively to block his varied IPs, and to revert on sight his edits. It will also send a clear message, once and for all, that he is no longer welcome on the project.
- Support - as the one proposing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - editor is disruptive and doesn't seem to understand this. Can we do an IP range block? Yworo (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that a community ban is an administrative measure, not a technical one. The feasibility of a rangeblock is really an independent issue, depending on the size of the range he uses and the likelihood of collateral damage. A ban would make it easier administratively to apply such blocks, but the technical feasibility of a range block is really a totally separate issue. We have banned users who have such wide ranges of IPs available to them that range blocks are totally out of the question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. Given the IPs I've seen, it might be doable, but I understand it's a technical issue separate from the administrative issue. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - as one he has wikihounded with his various IPs - also suggest a check user to find and tag all IPs he's hit under (if possible) and if a range block is also possible -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's kinda pointless. Checkuser is the ability to see the IPs behind an account. In this case, there's no real indication that he is using accounts to sock, just IPs. So we can already see all the information that a checkuser is able to return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- He seems to change IPs every few weeks, and I suspect many have been missed between the ones noted here. If what we have here is enough to evaluate a possible range block, as part of the ban (as he has made it clear he will not obey any block/ban on him from the current history), that's fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - This user has made some sound edits, but he leaves a path of confusion and hard feelings in his wake through his inexplicable and idiosyncratic personal editoral campaigns combined with a determined refusal to engage in useful dialogue. He is persistent and unrepentant and it is asking too much of other editors to follow him around to make sure he doesn't break things. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - The user is disruptive, time-consuming for all concerned, unresponsive - ploughing a lone furrow wearing earmuffs. I think that one of his user pages (the only one I've found that shows any views he has or standards he holds dear) sums up the character best here, along with the cryptic user no. (not name) that he used. I'm at a loss to tell the percentage mix of his behavioural causes. They seem to be some combination of cleverness, technical & Misplaced Pages know-how, obstinacy, insensitivity, boredom, vindictiveness & mischief. He either can't, or - I'm afraid - won't, control his behaviour, let alone discuss it. He has too much time on his hands & a personality disorder, for which Misplaced Pages somehow serves as an outlet - his problem & sadly ours too. Enough's enough. My other concern would be wp:Deny recognition. Trafford09 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. his repeated crusades against completely harmless things only really have two rational explanations: (1) he has no concept of what's important, or (2) he's trolling. In either case he's persistently demonstrated that he's unwilling to change despite the fact that his behaviour is unambiguously disruptive and causes widespread bad feeling. Hence, Misplaced Pages is better off without his contributions. ~ mazca 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. He's apparently a timesink; I'd say: 'good riddance'. Salvio ( ) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. OpenTheWindows, sir! 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment admin User:Frazzydee seems to have extensive interactions with this user, I notified him/her about this discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the edits I reported (above) are typical, as appears to be the case, and the user has made death threats in addition to that, I see no reason to object to this. (Not an administrator, but neither are all the other people who have commented here are, as far as I can tell.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not being an admin is fine. That's why these are "Community bans" rather than "Administrator bans". :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support we've no patients for compulsive sockers. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Community ban proposal for Giano
I am closing this discussion as clearly rejected. Further discussion will not help in any way. Misplaced Pages is for writing articles, not for pursuing feuds. Jehochman 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
I propose Giano be community banned, or at least indeff blocked until a satisfactory Giano specific dispute resolution framework is initiated. I assert that right minded editors have had enough of the situation where he has the evident freedom to do and say things that others editors simply cannot, and that most admins will simply not go near him with a block unless he commits cyber suicide himself, and commits an offence so blatant, it would be moot as to whether he is getting special treatment or not. His behaviour is frequently destructive, demoralising, and down-right divisive, not least when he thinks he is fighting for the greater good or the body politic, and because he knows he has wide lattitude, without a framework, it is not going to stop anytime soon. The project has wasted too much time, and too many words, pretending this is not a real phenomenom, with real consequences. The ban proposal is based on the long term pattern of behaviour, but the latest example of how Giano is treated differently was the recent campaign against Treasury Tag, calling him over a 24 hour period, an 'odious harassing bully' (and per policy and simple common sense, nay decency, it is totally irrelevant whether he is one or not btw, before anyone goes down that route) He was warned by an admin, and he not only rejected that warning, he restored the last attack. So he was blocked, for personal attacks and the restoration thereof, and then after two hours, he was unilaterally unblocked, on the apparent rationale that there is no point blocking Giano. Some people have suggested that these latest acts were not blockable, but I don't believe that one bit, and I think that the prevailing opinion among right minded editors is that they are, routinely, when the perpetrator is not Giano, and for good reasons. But whether you think of yourself as some Misplaced Pages anti-hero, whether you wish a plague on all the admin's houses, or whether you just have a more relaxed outlook on life, it's basic fact that such behaviour is not, and never will be, part of effective dispute resolution. Infact, I find it a bit rich that what caused this sustained tirade, was Giano's claim that Misplaced Pages was tolerating harassment and bullying of another editor. Others have even suggested Giano can do what he likes in this case, as he was exposing The Truth. If people want the project to be run that way, well, good luck to you, but I think most do not, and would rather leave than put up with it. Despite wishing it to succeed,
Wait a week?A week ago-ish we had a general discussion on AN on community ban proposal policy, focused on discussion duration but covering a number of other related topics. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#General discussion - community ban discussion durations Carcharoth proposed that we put in a one-week cooldown period between a precipitating ANI incident and a ban proposal. It was moderately supported and not that I see opposed, but not established firmly as a policy or best practice. I feel somewhat guilty for having pointed the ANI discussion towards doing a ban here and not having simultaneously brought this issue up before this ban was filed. However, that said; I am somewhat concerned that this is an overly early time and that people are in an overly confrontational mood, and that this discussion is trending towards more heat than light. So - question for those viewing. Would there be objections to closing this and reopening it a week from now? In a related issue, would anyone terribly object if a more neutral party drafted the proposal next time, assuming we do close this one? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly if I had to give it a name, I would call the proposal to ban Giano, an Indecent Proposal. Dr.K. 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) A few things are pretty clear. Giano will continue to commit significant civility violations until and unless something is done. Nothing will be done here or at another meta-forum as things now stand because there are enough among the noticeboards' armchair quarterbacks who either don't believe in enforcing civility, or who like the drama of accusing the accuser, to scuttle the overwhelming consensus usually needed for a community ban. But something will be done eventually. There are only two reasonable likely outcomes. One is that eventually a community ban or an Arbcom action leads to a ban. The other is that someone blocks Giano for a while and Giano decides either to moderate his abusiveness, or leaves on his own because he won't agree to it. Unblocking not only prolongs the problem, it removes the second option and makes the ban more likely because it incites Giano to keep doing it. If he thinks he can get away with it because people support it and thrwart attempts to deal with it, he'll keep testing everyone's patience until they have none left.Ideally we could give Giano an ultimatum: if you want to continue editing, shape up. I don't think this was the right time for this proposal, but it's pretty obvious that we have a civility policy, that Giano is breaking it in a disruptive way, and that despite some sputters and coughs the policy does get enforced. Plenty of long-term editors are now indefinitely blocked or banned on that account. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNeeFor how much longer are we to have to watch MickMcNee and Treasury Tag racing up and down the thread hectoring anyone who opposes their ideas? While it's pretty obvious that they are concerned the proposal won't stand alone - some people may find him and Treasury Tag just a trifle intimidating - or is this their intent? Giacomo 10:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Simple question, requesting a simple answerWhy did Giano report the alleged rollback abuse by Fastily, and the alleged harassment of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), to ANI, rather than raising dispute resolution requests? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yahya Alavi fard
A call needs to be made here. I normally close these no consensus with leave to speedy renominate but I do not feel comfortable doing that with a BLP with all its sources in Persian and which was deleted on a sister project. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as delete, invoking IAR if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, if this were an article on a Pokemon I would have had no problem punching "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- If no one contests the deletion, should it not just be treated as an expired prod? (I haven't seen the article, I don't actually know if it was prod-able). Rami R 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- That was pretty much my rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- If no one contests the deletion, should it not just be treated as an expired prod? (I haven't seen the article, I don't actually know if it was prod-able). Rami R 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, if this were an article on a Pokemon I would have had no problem punching "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yet another ban proposal
The result of this discussion is no consensus. This discussion is closed because it serves no further purpose at this time. Jehochman 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
This is pissing me off having to watch all these pointless arguments on here and ANI. Therefore I propose that Giano, MickMackNee and Treasury Tag all be banned from posting to AN or ANI for at least a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
How is there no consensus? there is a 2/3's majority in favor of a ban. I don't see any compelling oppose arguments that site a larger policy which would indicate a larger consensus against sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This was cloed too early. Can we please re-open it?--White Shadows 10:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus and no compelling arguments either way, just increasing acrimony and wasted time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, 2/3's majority in the abscence of larger conscensus from cited policies indicates support for the measure. There was obviously on-going discussion and one with support. Shutting it down will only create more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think the opposes were at least as compelling as the supports - but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that there was anything like consensus either way or any prospect of one developing. Try an RfC/U if you are still unhappy with the various editors the thread was aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why on earth would you want to ban them from AN(I)? I mean they're like The Three Stooges, where else am I going to get a laugh. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of AN(I) is not to get a quick laugh or giggle. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica for that. Rohedin 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh yes, You can get a laugh from ED, but the biggest laugh is from something that isnt trying to be funny (For example, Three Stooges continously niggling and trying to get each other sanctioned) «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of AN(I) is not to get a quick laugh or giggle. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica for that. Rohedin 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why on earth would you want to ban them from AN(I)? I mean they're like The Three Stooges, where else am I going to get a laugh. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think the opposes were at least as compelling as the supports - but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that there was anything like consensus either way or any prospect of one developing. Try an RfC/U if you are still unhappy with the various editors the thread was aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Stockholm
I've unprotected this article (has been semi'd since March) with the backing of an edit notice. Please can we be less lenient on any editor who vandalises the article that we might normally be. There have been sockpuppet issues with this article in the past too. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Harassment & outing by User:ScienceApologist
Hi, apologies in advance if this is not the proper venue; and if it's not, I'd be grateful if someone could correct me. (Added Note: It might be better at AE?
I am filing a formal complaint about User:ScienceApologist. He was topic-banned sometime in 2009 for about six months. Sorry that I don't have the wikilink at hand, but the case is well-known, and User_talk:ScienceApologist/Approved_articles includes discussion of what he could and could not edit (typically, he pushed the boundaries as far as possible even when banned).
What he is doing now is harassing me by making completely baseless claims that I have a conflict of interest, and outing me for good measure. WP:COI clearly states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." I have such expertise in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, and have contributed a lot (under retired usernames as well) to acupuncture. I understand the boundaries around here, and heed them, so I don't get banned or blocked. For example, I understand that WP:COI says that as long as I'm not pushing my own practice, writings, gizmos, etc., then it's fine for me to edit acupuncture. But not in ScienceApologist's world:
- he filed this patently absurd complaint about me: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Middle_8,
- and in so doing attempted to out me by linking to what he believed was my professional webpage. (Note: diffs oversighted by User:Vsmith; here's a multiple diff with the information excised).
About a year ago I retired one account and started a new one precisely because I wanted to stop all use of my name on WP and be completely pseudonymous. I was quite clear about this. It even came up in the context of ScienceApologist's ArbCom case that led to his topic ban (and please note that I'd have to provide that diff offline for privacy reasons).
This is harassment, pure and simple, and if I recall correctly it was behavior like this that led, in part, to his topic ban. I generally just ignore him, but occasionally, Darwin forbid, someone gets in the way of his latest jihad and his full wrath rains down. Today I get to be that special someone. Tomorrow or next week, who knows? And how long does WP tolerate this?
I request and challenge the good people at WP:AE WP:AN to deal with this as harshly as possible, and then some. If I read WP:OUTING correctly, outing is a serious offense that usually results in an immediate block. But there are aggravating factors here. ScienceApologist is a recidivist, disruptive editor who drives away some editors and sets a bad example for others. I suggest a preventative siteban of significant duration. Thanks for considering this issue. Middle 8 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you claim professional expertise. Like Essjay did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and other than the fact that he lied about it and I didn't, it's an awesome comparison! (Seriously, I've always said that any admin wanting to know my identity in good faith can email me.) --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- This information is all linked from this editors various accounts, and was posted appropriately as part of a COI report. If the editor wants to start afresh, perhaps they should start a new account and avoid acupuncture articles. Verbal chat 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Verbal, I believe you are familiar with the history: I retired my old account (which was connected to my real name), and started this one stating that I desired pseudonymity. On-wiki, I never connected this with my old account. Off-wiki, I told a few editors, you among them, my identity, and was clear that on-wiki I wanted to retain pseudonymity. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember warning SA about respecting my pseudonymity, though I'd have to dig up the diff (he was whining about the supposed COI thing). Read WP:PRIVACY; my requests for privacy are all well within accepted guidelines on WP. How could I have been clearer that I didn't want my personal information revealed? Put it in my fucking signature? --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was and is clear that the two accounts are linked. You are free to start a new account that cannot be connected with the old. Verbal chat 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Verbal, that's just not true -- and I wish you wouldn't play fast and loose with the facts. If what you say is true, please document the supposed link between the two accounts. Just for the record. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was and is clear that the two accounts are linked. You are free to start a new account that cannot be connected with the old. Verbal chat 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Verbal, I believe you are familiar with the history: I retired my old account (which was connected to my real name), and started this one stating that I desired pseudonymity. On-wiki, I never connected this with my old account. Off-wiki, I told a few editors, you among them, my identity, and was clear that on-wiki I wanted to retain pseudonymity. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember warning SA about respecting my pseudonymity, though I'd have to dig up the diff (he was whining about the supposed COI thing). Read WP:PRIVACY; my requests for privacy are all well within accepted guidelines on WP. How could I have been clearer that I didn't want my personal information revealed? Put it in my fucking signature? --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Middle 8, you should consider this discussion from the recent Russavia-Biophs ArbCom case. In it, Biophys (who had WP:OUTING issues and was sanctioned in the case) discusses establishing a new account for privacy reasons. Arbitrator Shell_Kinney makes some comments that are particularly relevant to your situation:
- "While editors are able to start new accounts for privacy or decide to vanish entirely, there are some limits to what you may do if you decide to start another account. See WP:CLEANSTART for details ... one of the things the community feels strongly about is that you do not enter the same discussions or disputes without disclosing that you are the same editor that was in these disputes before. This precludes the ability to start over for privacy and re-enter the disputed topic area."
- "... the community feels strongly that editors should not start new accounts, unlinked to the old, and start editing in the same areas/disputes. This has to do with transparency, accountability, not giving the appearance of additional support for a position and not being able to hide behind a new account and bother the same editors."
- "... unless you intend to never edit in the disputed area again, it's likely that creating a new account would do more harm than good. We've seen it happen time and time again - if you edit the same areas you were before, especially when those areas are heated, editors will go to extreme lengths to figure out what your old account was, possibly link them together and may handle things more poorly as a result of feeling that you are trying to hide something."
I make no comment on ScienceApologist's actions - I haven't looked at them - but if you previously edited in alternate medicine areas, which can be controversial, and have returned to them, and in addition have a potential WP:COI, I'd say the chances were high that your old and new accounts would be connected by someone... no matter what your wishes might be. I'm not arguing that this is the way it should be, more that it is the way things are. EdChem (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, EdChem -- I took all of these issues into account, and contacted editors off-wiki to let them know who I was and that I just wanted to be pseudonymous with my new username. I was careful not to give the impression of additional support for a position. I was all about full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki. All I want(ed) is for my requests at pseudonymity to be honored: an analogous case is User:Shoemaker's Holiday, whose name-change and privacy-boundaries seem to have been well-accepted. Thanks again for that background. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Middle 8 - happy to provide the links. The problem with full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki is that it only takes one editor to whom no disclosure has been made to get suspicious (say because of something you said reminding them of something you said with your previous account) and to start digging. The only real way to ensure pseudonymity is to stay away from your previous areas. Without knowing your history I have no idea how closely it is analogous to Shoemaker's Holiday's case, but I would say that his experiences were pretty nasty over an extended period. His privacy may be relatively well accepted now, but that took a long time and his former editing identity is known to a considerable number of users. If you have been through anything like the amount of shit that SH was forced through then you have my sincere sympathies. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know exactly how much crap Shoemaker's went through. I gather I went through less, but still more than enough. I understand what you say about someone inevitably starting to dig around, but since I notified the rest of the world with a great big "Please let me be pseudonymous on-wiki" on my user page, I don't think I could have made my preferences clearer. On my user page, I also state my profession and explain why I don't violate COI, and ScienceApologist cites this in his complaint at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Middle_8 (multiple diff excluding oversighted material). His whole point is that as an acupuncturist I inherently have a COI because of some magic double standard that doesn't apply to other professions. He's not basing his complaint on anything specific to me other than my profession. Since I made that known on-wiki, there was no need to link to my (putative) web page -- other than harassment. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Middle 8 - happy to provide the links. The problem with full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki is that it only takes one editor to whom no disclosure has been made to get suspicious (say because of something you said reminding them of something you said with your previous account) and to start digging. The only real way to ensure pseudonymity is to stay away from your previous areas. Without knowing your history I have no idea how closely it is analogous to Shoemaker's Holiday's case, but I would say that his experiences were pretty nasty over an extended period. His privacy may be relatively well accepted now, but that took a long time and his former editing identity is known to a considerable number of users. If you have been through anything like the amount of shit that SH was forced through then you have my sincere sympathies. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Part of the issue here is that Middle 8 isn't just an acupuncturist, he is a rank pseudoscientist whose website proves he promotes acupuncture far beyond the evidence-basis for it. The issue is that this user is heavy-handedly removing material that contradicts the documented POV on his webpage. I'm all for privacy, but there's this thing called WP:SCRUTINY that can be argued this user is engaging in. If this user wasn't active at acupuncture at all, there would be no problem. That he is and that his account can easily and verifiably be linked to three other accounts who have, in the past, been used to advocate the same POV-pushing tactics is extremely relevant to the WP:COI case. I do not take this charge lightly, but when people use Misplaced Pages rules to flout our WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS policies, I think it stinks of gaming the system to cry wolf about privacy concerns. There is a right to vanish, but one must actually exercise the right in order for it to apply. This particular user did not exercise that right by entering into the same venue and acting the same way and, by the way, linking to his previous accounts (note that WP:OUTING explicitly states that if the user links to the information, which this user did, then this is an obvious exception to the rule against posting personal information — and I only posted a website he had linked to from one of the previous accounts that he is verifiably connected to, and I manifestly did not post "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information"). If an investigation is supposed to happen, we need to be able to present evidence. There is nothing in WP:OUTING which states how this is supposed to be done. People refer obliquely to my identity all the time and I actually had the police called on me once due to Misplaced Pages. This doesn't bother me because the areas in which I work are high-profile and likely to attract attention. If a clarification could be given of how one is supposed to go about taking another editor's problematic behavior to task in such a situation, I'd greatly appreciate it. I definitely promise never to do such a thing again, as I was not really aware that posting a website as evidence was such an issue (and perhaps would suggest adding it to WP:OUTING if it is an issue). If we can explain how such a situation should be handled, I'd greatly appreciate it, and it might help future incidents such as this which are bound to arise. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where did he link to his personal page himself? Email me if it will reconstitute outing. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Rlevse: I never linked to my website with my current account; that's the whole point. Please email me if you wish. I specifically said "let me be pseudonymous" with this account. Consider User:Shoemaker's Holiday as an example of another user who exercised something on the order of WP:VANISH and returned pseudonymously: the key thing being, like me, they didn't want their name or personal info on WP. I stated this preference at every turn. SA was at best negligent and at worst malicious (he's WP:GAME'd enough that I don't readily assume AGF, and he could easily be just making up an excuse when the intention all along was to humiliate and harass). As for SA's ad hominem argumentation ("rank pseudoscientist"), that speaks for itself. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The edits have been deleted or oversighted (not sure which). I don't have them saved and have no idea when they went down. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Middle 8, if you want to maintain, or restore, your privacy why don't you do as suggested here: get a new username and stop editing topics related to alternative medicine? Will Beback talk 04:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Will, I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that he stop editing topics that he prefers to edit, short of any evidence of malfeasance. That almost sounds like a threat (stop editing these topics otherwise you will get outed). I would like to think that ScienceApologist (or any editor on wikipedia) would have the courtesy not to out someone when they prefer not to be outed, even if it's possible to do it without too much trouble. Lord knows SA has filed his own (very angry) ANI thread when other people have outed him in the past. Can we all recognize that Middle 8 doesn't want to be outed, and agree not to do it? If SA had COI concerns, he can ask an administrator to discuss it with M8 off-wiki. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The user here is accused of having more than just an interest in the topic, but an actual conflict of interest. Further, there's an assertion that this potential COI has been a disputed topic in the past. If that's true, then we have a situation of someone who may have a COI trying to avoid the accusations by changing his identity, but still editing in the topic. That's the wrong approach. If there's a COI, and it causes this kind of tension, then he should stop editing the topic directly rather than hiding his COI. As a hypothetical example, imagine I was the president and owner of Beback Enterprises. If I was editing the article on our latest product other editors might raise the issue of my COI. Would it be legitimate for me to change my username, go back to editing that article on my new product, and complain about anyone who connects me to my previous account? No. COIs belong to users, not to usernames. Will Beback talk 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very well put. No, creating a new username doesn't solve the problem. On the contrary. The solution is to admit upfront that one has a COI and will attempt to edit carefully. Doing otherwise would be an attempt to evade the scrutiny of other editors, a practice that is forbidden here. Middle8, just write it on your userpage. Admit it and then just edit responsibly. We need experts here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The user here is accused of having more than just an interest in the topic, but an actual conflict of interest. Further, there's an assertion that this potential COI has been a disputed topic in the past. If that's true, then we have a situation of someone who may have a COI trying to avoid the accusations by changing his identity, but still editing in the topic. That's the wrong approach. If there's a COI, and it causes this kind of tension, then he should stop editing the topic directly rather than hiding his COI. As a hypothetical example, imagine I was the president and owner of Beback Enterprises. If I was editing the article on our latest product other editors might raise the issue of my COI. Would it be legitimate for me to change my username, go back to editing that article on my new product, and complain about anyone who connects me to my previous account? No. COIs belong to users, not to usernames. Will Beback talk 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Will, I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that he stop editing topics that he prefers to edit, short of any evidence of malfeasance. That almost sounds like a threat (stop editing these topics otherwise you will get outed). I would like to think that ScienceApologist (or any editor on wikipedia) would have the courtesy not to out someone when they prefer not to be outed, even if it's possible to do it without too much trouble. Lord knows SA has filed his own (very angry) ANI thread when other people have outed him in the past. Can we all recognize that Middle 8 doesn't want to be outed, and agree not to do it? If SA had COI concerns, he can ask an administrator to discuss it with M8 off-wiki. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Middle 8, if you want to maintain, or restore, your privacy why don't you do as suggested here: get a new username and stop editing topics related to alternative medicine? Will Beback talk 04:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where did he link to his personal page himself? Email me if it will reconstitute outing. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree, Ludwigs2, but the WP:COIN is supposed to be transparent to the wiki and there is no course of action outlined on that page which would apply for (what I did not fully realize) was "sensitive" information. How does one do a private or off-wiki COI notice that can abide by consensus rules? I have concerns about a COI and I want people to know what the concerns are. The issue was that Middle 8 was essentially refusing to admit that there could possibly be any concerns at all. A single administrator that I ask to act on my behalf isn't going to loosen this kind of intractable situation.
The other problem is that "outing" is not a well-defined idealization. Linking to a personal webpage that a person had previously linked to on Misplaced Pages and wasn't on the blacklist seemed to me to be no real thing. "Let me be pseudonymous" can obviously be used to game the system so as to avoid scrutiny. If Middle 8 doesn't want this page linked, why doesn't he ask for it to be blacklisted on WP:BLACKLIST? That would solve a lot of issues and unintentional outings that may occur in the future. I'd also love to see that ANI thread and compare to this incident. I'm pretty sure it didn't have to do with a personal webpage that I maintained, but maybe my memory is faulty. Let me know.
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You knew he wanted anonymity. You outed him anyway. Is there anything else to say about this? Anthony (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Plenty, Anthony... if there was a previously discussed COI issue, CLEANSTART may not be used to hide it. See the comments I quoted above from Arbitrator Shell_Kinney. EdChem (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ed -- ScienceApologist filed one, and it was quickly dismissed by an admin who cited Misplaced Pages:Coi#Citing_oneself. SA is trying to invent a new kind of COI, and has provided virtually no diffs showing my alleged extreme bias (because it doesn't exist). --Middle 8 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
EdChem mentioned he'd quoted me here, and it looks like he's got it about right. Middle8, you simply can't do what you did. Yes, we want to be sensitive to editors who didn't realize how revealing personal information might affect them, however the editor trying to regain privacy has some responsibilities of their own which obviously weren't followed.
The reason the policy states that you may not reenter the same disputes is demonstrated here. If you, as a new account, enter into a dispute you participated in as your old account, you will be recognized almost immediately by editors who had discussed the issue with you before. This is obviously bad for your privacy; an editor who wishes to regain a measure of anonymity needs to be very careful to avoid any behavior that would connect them to their original account.
Reentering an old dispute without making it clear that you are the same person appears deceptive for a variety of reasons. It gives the appearance that a particular viewpoint in the dispute has more support rather than just the continued support of the same person. If the old account had been warned or sanctioned for behavior, or there were concerns of a conflict of interest, creating a new account unlinked to the old avoids scrutiny.
Basically, if there were concerns over your conflict of interest before and they're obvious enough that someone was able to figure out that you were a returning user then what needed to happen was for you to be considerably more circumspect in your editing, not try to hide behind a new account. While experts are in fact appreciated, if your feelings about a topic are so strong that other editors have concerns, you need to consider that editing that topic may not be the best thing for you or Misplaced Pages. Shell 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Shell, thanks for commenting. To clarify several things: I changed usernames for the simple reason that I was tired of seeing statements like "John Q. Doe is a pseudoscientist" all over WP and then popping up in search engines. (These kinds of statements were being made by ScienceApologist and by User:Mccready who has left the project after being indef-topic-banned.) Talk to User:Shoemaker's Holiday; they went through the same thing, and seem to have been granted the courtesy of pseudonymity that I seek. No editor should have to put up with flagrant disparagement on WP under their real name, and there should be an expectation of pseudonymity for editors who are targeted in this way and want to change handles.
- I've been upfront about being the same person as my old account, but off-wiki. On-wiki I wanted pseudonymity, so I adressed the COI issue and handled my real-life identity on a need-to-know-basis. I emailed everyone with whom I'd routinely collaborated: Verbal, Brangifer, 2/0 and numerous others.... I don't remember whether I emailed ScienceApologist or not, but he figured out my identity anyway, so as I recall I reminded him about pseudonymyity as well (and had a big notice on my talk page; see link just below), and moved on. And I did address COI on-wiki (cf. old user page, and more explicitly here). What seems to get lost in the mix is that WP:COI explicitly allows editing in one's professional area. Just because ScienceApologist and his "posse" say I'm biased doesn't make it so; I demonstrably "write for the enemy" and so on. To tie up one more loose end, there was no appearance of my new handle giving added support for a topic because it appeared was after I closed the old one, and again, I notified my editing collaborators off-wiki.
- Maybe I could have handled this better, somehow, but I acted in good faith, and was diligent in notifying colleagues. I was never warned or sanctioned with this or any previous account. Indeed, I'm surprised that uninvolved parties here have taken ScienceApologist's spurious allegations at face value, since he's provided precious few diffs (just a few, showing me disagreeing with him on content! horrors!) and is mostly just hand-waving. He's simply trying to give me a hard time, and it's classic false equivalence to assume our misbehavior was remotely comparable; compare our block logs. Everyone was cool with my pseudonymous-partial-reboot for 18 months, with the exception of two angry, mastodon-type editors who would rather discredit those with whom they have content disagreements then pursue normal WP:DR. By contrast, I'm collegial, consider issues on the merits, and know my subject areas; do you want good editors or do you want to enable like ScienceApologist whose M.O. is to push good editors away with bogus accusations and wikilawyering? As always, any admin can email me if I've missed anything. I'm busy IRL and can't rebut every allegation. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a little confused then - if you told everyone you interacted with what your old account was, how was this outing? I will have to say I'm terribly unimpressed by your comments on ScienceApologist's talk page as well. If you do not have a problem writing for the enemy and your conflict doesn't show up in your editing, surely the COI noticeboard thread will bear that out? All in all, I'm failing to see what here merited urgent admin attention. Shell 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked user Tennis expert is back, jumping between anon IPs
Just a heads-up that the aforementioned user is back (recently editing as 70.253.89.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.253.81.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) - the recent edit history of these IPs, along with the geolocation and IP info easily pass the duck test. Any admin who watches tennis pages, in particular, please be aware. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Two further IPs have just been used : 70.253.78.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.34.100.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Misplaced Pages policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles.
- Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
- From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
- User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
- Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.
For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Handling long-term tendentiousness
Davemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been engaging in long term edit/revert wars on several of articles, most notably Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CR), Triple Goddess and Horned God. His process is to wear down the opposition until they let him do what he wants. I know of at least one productive editor Davemon drove off WP and I suspect several other editors left as well but don't have confirmation. He's particularly adept at intimidating less experienced editors with his bluster and accusations and string of policies.
I have been patiently trying to work with him for 9 months on the CR article. I note that he came to the CR article in retaliation for criticism of his actions on the talk page of the Triple Goddess article by User:Kathryn NicDhàna and myself. Although he denies wikihounding a woman from one article to another article in order to bully her, it certainly looked that way at the time and this issue was discussed on Kathryn's talk page.
Unfortunately, he is practically a textbook example of a tendentious editor. He often ignores consensus, cites policy (usually incorrectly), is argumentative (not in a productive/constructive way), etc.
I've finally reached my limit after he did a flurry of "improvements" today. Other editors have stepped in to work on the article but his tendentiousness is wearying to everyone. I've finally left a note on the CR talk page but I would appreciate input on how to handle such persistent tendentiousness. He's very skilled at skirting the edge of violating policies such as 3RR. At the very least, I'd like some more eyes on the article and his actions. The article, which certainly had flaws before he began working on it but was at least well-written and extensively footnoted, has begun to slowly disintegrate in various parts due to his persistent ministrations. Pigman☿/talk 02:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Though it's possible this belongs at long term editing abuse, I think there are a number of issues here, such as the hounding and bullying. Davemon was succeeding in wearing down people at the Triple Goddess article, and I'm one of the few people who called him on it. He promptly turned up on the only article on WP on which I have a degree of COI and started degrading it, often saying insulting things to or about me in the process. I've mostly stayed off even the talk page of the CR article, but it's been disturbing to watch him get away with so much for so long, on multiple articles. A number of established editors expressed interest in doing an RfC, but they've mostly left the project now. A couple of them said Davemon was the last straw. We need something with more teeth than an RfC. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This diff is where another admin and I discussed Dave's long-term editing abuse: - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- As a temporary measure I've given Deorad (talk · contribs), Beurlach (talk · contribs), and Davemon (talk · contribs) 24 hours off for yesterday's edit warring. As for dispute resolution, if you're thinking of taking this down a formal WP:DR route an RfC would still be a useful step . If it's effective, great; if not, it's "evidence for the prosecution" should more direct measures be needed. EyeSerene 10:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, EyeSerene. I hope that will help. I considered an RfC and several other editors who interacted with Davemon on the other articles mentioned above expressed willingness to participate in the process. Most people, however, who have dealt with him extensively on articles and talk pages seem to prefer just opting for avoiding him rather than deal with the ongoing stress, even in an RfC. This appears to be a deliberate tack on Davemon's part: creating an aversion to engaging with him. It's possible he may have alternate accounts because he has a pattern of engaging intensely for a few days or a week, then not edit anything for a few days to several weeks, then returning to argue more. This is a frustrating pattern. When refuted in argument, he simply shifts arguments or, more frustratingly, redefines the basis for the argument. I suspect that he enjoys the process of argument and conflict much more than actually improving articles. At least, that's my observation. In other words, I think RfC and DR will do little to resolve his attitude and behaviour. I know this is not AGF but his long pattern of conflict inclines me to this view. I think he's burned through his AGF some time ago. I have a little experience dealing with editors similar to him. Still, I guess those processes are the logical next step. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Without having seen the specifics of what's going on with these articles, (and noting that I am not an administrator myself, only an interested bystander), I'd note that WP:AGF only goes so far. You may find WP:CIR to be interesting. It's only an essay, but has some valid food for thought, I think. I can't guarantee that I'll have the time or knowledge to be able to wade into the articles in any significant way, but I'll put them on my watchlist. — e. ripley\ 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, EyeSerene. I hope that will help. I considered an RfC and several other editors who interacted with Davemon on the other articles mentioned above expressed willingness to participate in the process. Most people, however, who have dealt with him extensively on articles and talk pages seem to prefer just opting for avoiding him rather than deal with the ongoing stress, even in an RfC. This appears to be a deliberate tack on Davemon's part: creating an aversion to engaging with him. It's possible he may have alternate accounts because he has a pattern of engaging intensely for a few days or a week, then not edit anything for a few days to several weeks, then returning to argue more. This is a frustrating pattern. When refuted in argument, he simply shifts arguments or, more frustratingly, redefines the basis for the argument. I suspect that he enjoys the process of argument and conflict much more than actually improving articles. At least, that's my observation. In other words, I think RfC and DR will do little to resolve his attitude and behaviour. I know this is not AGF but his long pattern of conflict inclines me to this view. I think he's burned through his AGF some time ago. I have a little experience dealing with editors similar to him. Still, I guess those processes are the logical next step. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy category renaming violating the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license
When checking my deleted contributions to self-review some recent speedy deletions, I noticed that the change I left at Category:Football (soccer) hooligan firms classifying association football hooligan firms as criminal organizations were among the deleted contributions. I then checked Category:Association football hooligan firms and saw my contributions there without any credit after checking the history, making me upset about this clear violation of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. I then undeleted the former category and then left a soft redirect there, and left a link to its history page in the talk page of the newer category to try to remedy the situation.
We need to stop speedy category renames until we figure out a way to credit the people who contributed to the old category. Maybe we need to file a Mediawiki Bugzilla enhancement request ticket allowing category pages to be moved to allow their histories to be preserved as part of a speedy category renaming. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the interim, how about a null edit with contributor's names as the edit summary? Most categories aren't going to have very many edits. --B (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that merely adding an existing category to a page is a copyrightable action. That's the only change you made to the text of the category [here (or is there some other edit that I'm missing?)
- When creating the new category, Cydebot used the following edit summary: "Robot: Moved from Category:Football (soccer) hooligan firms. Authors: PeeJay2K3, Kbdank71, Black Falcon, Qwghlm, Cydebot, Nicknackrussian, Jesse Viviano" - so you are being given credit as one of the authors.
- That having been said, I've seen situations where real contributions to categories, which were subsequently renamed more than once, have lost their attribution. I think that the following would help:
- When Cydebot renames a category, it should leave a (red) link to the old category, making it easier for admins to recreate the detailed history of the category.
- If Cydebot runs into a category, where some edit summary links to some user's user name, it should request that a human editor deal with attributing the edit. This may be a case where the real author of the edit isn't the contributor who did it, but rather the linked-to user.
- When Cydebot renames categories, it should subsequently list those contributors, in stead of itself, the next time the category is renamed.
- I'm leaving a note at the bot's operator to participate in the discussion.
- עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the move log is not visible from the history page. That is why I did not think to look for it. Second, one other example is when I added the template to notify users of the now empty category Category:Suspected hoax articles of the shortcut I created, CAT:HOAX. (It now points to the renamed category Category:Misplaced Pages suspected hoax articles, for your information.) This is why I advocate filing a Bugzilla ticket to allow page moves within the Category namespace, and to and from other namespaces, in order to preserve edit histories and to allow speedy moves of certain problematic list articles to the Category namespace. Also, in the off-chance that many people have made contributions to a category like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which has received plenty of edits, the edit summary for the move log will certainly run out of room and cut many contributors' usernames off. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that merely adding the name of an existing page (category, template, interwiki, shortcut), or even a template with the name of an existing page as a parameter, isn't copyrightable. So, in my opinion, neither of your edits requires attribution. That having been said, there clearly is a problem, as I pointed out in my previous post. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the move log is not visible from the history page. That is why I did not think to look for it. Second, one other example is when I added the template to notify users of the now empty category Category:Suspected hoax articles of the shortcut I created, CAT:HOAX. (It now points to the renamed category Category:Misplaced Pages suspected hoax articles, for your information.) This is why I advocate filing a Bugzilla ticket to allow page moves within the Category namespace, and to and from other namespaces, in order to preserve edit histories and to allow speedy moves of certain problematic list articles to the Category namespace. Also, in the off-chance that many people have made contributions to a category like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which has received plenty of edits, the edit summary for the move log will certainly run out of room and cut many contributors' usernames off. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is a limitation in the MediaWiki software, in that we cannot move the text of a category page in the same way that we do an article. Until that is allowed, all we have are hacks and work-arounds that, as you point out, have various problems associated with them. But it's not that big a deal because people tend not to add copyrightable content to a category page anyway. And if someone were to, that detail would really belong on a relevant article, not the category page itself (this is just how things are done on Misplaced Pages). --Cyde Weys 12:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any way that CydeBot could have a threshold set for notifying a human that manual copying of the history is needed, eg, if there is more than one sentence of prose (ignoring categories and templates)? --B (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Quite simply have it add a {{db-histmerge}} to the new cat. And to answer one question a bit earlier, nothing in Jesse's edit is actually copyrightable. MLauba 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- If history merges were possible, I would have done them and have just blocked Cydebot and left a note on Cyde's talk page until the code is fixed to perform them. Unfortunately, moving anything in the Category namespace is impossible, so history merges are therefore impossible. That is why I have suggested opening up a Mediawiki Bugzilla ticket to fix this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that only a small percentage of edits in the category namespace are copyrightable (most merely involve addition/removal of links or category tags), so history merges generally would be unnecessary. In general, attribution by means of listing the original contributors should suffice, no? That's not to say, of course, that it wouldn't be better if we could move category pages so as to preserve the history. -- Black Falcon 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- If history merges were possible, I would have done them and have just blocked Cydebot and left a note on Cyde's talk page until the code is fixed to perform them. Unfortunately, moving anything in the Category namespace is impossible, so history merges are therefore impossible. That is why I have suggested opening up a Mediawiki Bugzilla ticket to fix this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Quite simply have it add a {{db-histmerge}} to the new cat. And to answer one question a bit earlier, nothing in Jesse's edit is actually copyrightable. MLauba 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost 17k+ images waiting for deletion
There has been a major upsurge in files moved to Commons since the beginning of this month, mostly due to one user moving hundreds of images a day (likely with a script or AWB). Admin help is needed to delete the local redundant copies and bring the levels back to their normal, reasonable level.
- Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons - currently 7 files
- Category:Misplaced Pages files on Wikimedia Commons - currently 4 files
The usual suspects are already on it, but again, there are a ton. Any help would be appreciated. I have previously posted about this at WT:IM, and there is a small discussion happening there. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
81.137.221.153
This anonymous IP has vandalized Misplaced Pages once more time after it was finally warned. Block it. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, though vandalism should usually be reported to WP:AIV. In this case, the IP has made one edit since their final warning. I'll keep an eye on them (and report them to WP:AIV if they vandalise again). TFOWR 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Please" wouldn't have gone amiss, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement
I have started an enforcement request. So far only one admin have looked at it and he said: "all of this happened before his block" which is not true. The problem with User Breein is a long time problem which have continued after his latest block on June 1. And the block he received on June 1 was only for edit warring at one article. I have at this enforcement request presented many other things he has done. Could some admin please go through this: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Category: