Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 12:45, 3 November 2007 (→User:I already forgot: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Misplaced Pages should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Misplaced Pages policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Misplaced Pages is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history", but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.

LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Misplaced Pages. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required. Spartaz 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it. Cydevil38 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Suggestion, not decision. Spartaz 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again. One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip. To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing. To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again. After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition. If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope. There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.

If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts. For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day. I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting. I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. —LactoseTI 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this. Spartaz 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good friend100's block by AGK for the 1RR violation has expired and Good friend100 has sought guidence on the terms of the editing restrictions. I have written up my views on this on his talk page . Does anyone disgaree with these terms? Otherwise, he is free to edit based on these. Spartaz 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links

Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Misplaced Pages. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
  • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉ╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links. ELIMINATORJR 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. east.718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
  • I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded. RxS 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Misplaced Pages. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on. I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged. Neil ☎ 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior. As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here. I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template? Neil ☎ 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action". No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets. --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.156.114 (talk)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS

UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock-- WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others. I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Misplaced Pages using a pseudonym. This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.

I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly. --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this. But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy says:

• Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
• The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or cause disruption.
• If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
• Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.

While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas. The account has been used in valid policy and content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM. I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution. That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution. --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war. Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.

The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA. He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts. The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war. An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive. The PM account was being disruptive. Neil ☎ 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy. Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning? PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".

It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking. PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won". ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account. Way to go. Score one for the troll enablers. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy. When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening. If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless. Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call. For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.

Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom. But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with", you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible. If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive ] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email. That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem. What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration. The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation. I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo. I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.

There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.

Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected

The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"! Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that only works if half of Misplaced Pages users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take

So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Misplaced Pages policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine. If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock. Neil ☎ 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.

PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.

As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is not how many times you asked a question, what matters is whether the question had already been answered, and whether there was consensus for an overturn prior to your acting, and whether you consulted with the original admin. I decline to overturn your overturn. I think I am much less likely to undo administrative actions taken by other administrators than you are, so I personally decline to overturn your unblock at this time. That should not be construed as support for your action in contravention of our custom, practice, and policy, nor should it be construed as not standing by the fact that we have apparent "bad hand" and "worse hand" accounts active in this overall matter. The primary account, which HAS participated in discussions about specific outing users and the policy ramifications of it, is not, at this time blocked, to the best of my knowledge, so can participate if it wishes to. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth

I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy-- why are you escalating? You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked, and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with-- PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article. And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway. Can't you just let it go now? --Alecmconroy

• Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment. I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms. To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun". I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling". You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Misplaced Pages user and administrator. It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment? If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block? --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?

There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Misplaced Pages not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.

1. According to the text of the email he's posted claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
2. If you have a legitimate concern that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: "pages" does not mean the particular page in question that was being revert warred over, it means in the same general area, in particular the outing of editors and the drama surrounding efforts to deal with that unacceptable behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Misplaced Pages, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen. If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest. If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist. Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.

Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom. If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM. What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information. Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is. And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used. Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?

Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account. Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour. Misplaced Pages is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Misplaced Pages, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy. Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Misplaced Pages to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Misplaced Pages. I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself. The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring ] to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.

("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)

Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem at WP right now is not harassment websites. It is simply that there is too much drama, and our response to it is ineffective. That is caused and exacerbated, in my view, by two major factions... those that are here specifically to cause drama rather than being here to write an encyclopedia, and those well meaning but misguided folk that play into their hands by overturning sound blocks, or by defending even the worst trollish behaviour on process grounds, on "give them another chance" grounds and what have you. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the outing question, if I understand position that Privatemusings has taken in the debates over policies, it would be OK if someone outed a RL or main account identity on a blog and if we linked to that blog in the course of normal encyclopedia writing. If it's OK to link to outing then maybe outing isn't such a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In what universe will blocking people you disagree with over policy with the flimsiest of pretexts not increase drama? That universe is one in which WP will be pretty poorly written. Relata refero 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

(uindent) Guy says: the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I will not retract it, because it's what I honestly believe. Sincere people are being cynically manipulated by individuals whose principal interest is not aligned in any way with Misplaced Pages's aims. The fact that they are sincere people does not in any way reduce the impact of what they do. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Dan and PM to be the sincere people? or the cynical manipulators? --Alecmconroy 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User Guy may be perceived as Wikipedian cowboy, but he has never (in my view) exploited WP in any way. He also deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand User Alecmconroy states on his user page: "I don't care how wonderful Jimbo is, no one person deserves special authority over the will of the people" and he ends with "If we were going have an election for Jimbo the position, Jimbo the person would get my vote." Someone with beliefs like these is either a confused individual or have a problem with authority. I think he is both, and since he is not an admin and obviously too close to the subjects being discussed ( see his userpage and his "an essay on Badsites"). I think it would be best to remove or scratch from this discussion all his comments off the record. Jrod2 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrod, have you READ WP:NPA? Way to go--- i complain about personal attacks, and you personally attack me. Beautiful. --Alecmconroy 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand the comments. His position nor his closeness to the issue have any bearing regarding the content of the statements. Either the content is valid or it is not. Bringing it up does not assume good faith. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Spryde 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I fear that is not correct. Not all of us are here for that purpose. And of those that think they are here for that, (I count myself among that grouping) I am not sure that all of us are actually effective at it, so that makes at least three groupings, as I said elsewhere in this thread. If you do not recognise that, then I think that is an issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey user Spryde, maybe I don't understand user Alecmconroy's comments, but please don't give me the AGF shenanigan. Either you know Guy and respect and appreciate him for what he contributes to WP, or you don't. Jrod2 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support some of what Guy has done. I object to other things. Overall I say he has done wonderful things but this is not one of them. People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be. And please do not call AGF shenanigans. I could have attacked your contribution much worse than I did but I AGF'ed and hoped that you did not understand the comments. That is all. Spryde 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spryde, should I thank you for your benign comment too? Please, get off your high horse. First, you stated that I was not assuming good faith and that my comments weren't valid to this argument and now you are being benign because "you could have attacked" me much worse? What kind of a silly game is this?. If, I go by your statement: "People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be", I would speedy close this case. Jrod2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to have a civil and productive conversation with you about this incident. I am not playing any games nor am I on any 'high horse'. I stated the comments you made were not appropriate because of the meaning of the statements made by Alecmconroy. I sincerely hope you are not twisting my words to prove a point. My statement about perfection is clear and taking it to extremes is illogical and absurd. Good day (night), sir. Spryde 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Spryde, I am respectfully asking you to stop disrupting this discussion. I don't want to waste space on this section defending myself and my NPOV to you. Your initial comment was to me insulting and you missed my point entirely. I only thought that the statements on Alec's user page were relevant and consistent with someone who have some strong opinions about authority and the establishment itself and that should be examined. That could have explained why he chooses to have a conflict with Guy and his ways. I also asked that he stops all this. Now, that he wants Guy to apologize is to me a contradiction, there can be an element of thirst for authority if someone is trying to humble admin Guy. But again, you can accuse me of AGF violations, so I am going to refrain from making further comments. I would have stopped long ago had you not accuse me of not assuming good faith. Ultimately, I have come to terms with Alec's position and I wish him good luck. But, he has a long road (in my view) if he wants to prove that admin Guy deserves to lose his admin tools. Jrod2 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it would be awful if Guy were to lose his admin tools. I don't want that-- I want him to stop misusing them and to stop attacking people --Alecmconroy 07:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy you are waaay off the mark with your views on dans and PMs attack site linking. They simply reject the idea of instant censorship. And of course the drama is not being kept going by those who are trying to dicuss the policy (when they get a chance to discuss it without being labelled trolls) it is being kept going by people like yourself, who, in seeing this issue in black and white, label them trolls, claim their opinion is worthless because they are of that opinion and run around like a bull in a china shop trying to strip the links from long archived talk pages. Thats what creates drama, because you appear to have no concept of a civildiscussion - instead you blow your top, overreact and bingo, wikidrama ensues. Please try and think about that one. At no point has dan or PM said they advocate harrasment, they simply do not believe in thought crime. Viridae 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I think it's rude for you to call Guy a "bull in a china shop." Please don't engage in argumentum ad hominem. - Jehochman 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is critiscism of his method, so its a tad hard (ie not possible) to avoid ad hominem comments - when I am crisicising his approach, then I have to make my arguments "to the man". Bull in a china shop is not an insult anyway, it is simply a comment on the unsubtle way he conducts himself, which serves to magnify drama wherever he goes. Viridae 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I am sorry if you perceive my remarks as a "personal attack". Guy said something which you are using now to discredit him. Is that a personal attack? If it's not, then me bringing up your views on authority and BADSITES should not be considered one either.In addition, I am not comfortable with the tone of your comments against admin Guy. Have you crossed the line with WP:AGF yourself? I am not here to judge that, but I am not going to sit idle and let a good admin be treated like scam. Is it possible that you maybe biased on this dispute? I am just asking questions and the only thing I thought would be fair to this argument, is that you distance yourself from it. Thank you. Jrod2 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No harm done-- and I'm sure everyone is aware that I speak as someone who opposed BADSITES, and therefore, if opposing BADSITES is grounds for blocking, as Guy seems to have indicated, obviously, I might well expect similar treatment as PM has gotten.

However, we have a serious NPA problem going on in this dialog. There is a campaign of harassment and defamation trying to allege that I, PM, DanT, GTBacchus, and others are allied with hate sites. I've tried ignoring these attacks, and they continued. I've tried pleading for it to stop, and they continued. I'd tried mocking them, and they've continued. I've tried using forceful language, and they've continued. So, now, what am I left with?

And Guy's as good a place to start as any. Either stands by his allegations or he does not. If he stands by his allusions, he should prove them, and all us anti-badsites trolls should be banned. On the other hand, if his accusations are groundless and unproven, he has spent all of today dragging the names of good editors through the mud, and I expect the community to take steps to stop him from doing this in the future.

Hopefully, he'll apologize, and promise not to defame editors in the future, and that will be the end of it. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse

(stricken, please do no rearrange my remarks, use a diff if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts? Cause THAT would be a major problem. As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole. Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people? If he is, then that would definitely be a problem. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the block was way inappropriate. CBD should have respected Guy's admin action, discussed his disagreement in a dialog with Guy and convinced him to undo it himself, or gained consensus on the noticeboard for unblocking. Leaving aside how the unblock was done, the original block was the right thing to do. Whatever privatemusings' motivation, his seeking out controversy to involve himself in does not advance the project. He should have been stayed blocked. Tom Harrison 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside your needlessly insulting (and just plain wrong) comments, Tom, you really should also be open about the fact that you are also a party to the content dispute at Robert Black (professor) - and I would really encourage editors to take a look at the edits you have made, because as far as I can tell you are removing information expressly against consenses, without engaging on the talk page, showing no respect to traditions of our process. That is very poor form. Privatemusings 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Tom Harrison, he should be blocked, and I will block him if I have community support. Jbeach 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with the assessment that he should be blocked. There is not enough even alleged to support that, much less evidenced. I've in the last 24 hours encountered discussion over two blocks that so far as I can tell, come down to "blocked for holding an opinion I disagree with", that of KurtWeber and this one. That is not a sufficient reason for blocking, in either that case or this one. GRBerry 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me again - I really fail to see how that could possibly help the situation. Privatemusings 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I'm left with a current impression no different than my inital impression PM was created as a legit SOCK to avoid becomeing a victim in the contentious BADSITES fight, a tailored purpose for the SOCK. That's been established now, most of the policy is ironed out, and so on. PM then runs into regular articlespace and starts enforcing the policy as he interprets it, getting into a possible revert-war with a possible 3RR. I say 'possible', because the wording of the probably policy says that there's no 3RR on that sort of removal, or did last time I reviewed it, a few days back. JzG took this as something which PM's regular account could've done, and should've, or else PM (the person) should've sat on his hands. As a result of the contentious nature of the edits, he blocked the account, saying it had served it's purpose, and was now becoming an excuse for non-meta-policy contentions, which ought to be handled by the regular account. I support this assessment. I totally understand PM's intent in protecting himself, the 'bad sites' have some sick freaks there, who can blame him/her/them/it for wanting to remain safe I don't have any problem with it in theory, although it does make its edits less credible because of a lack of experience perception behind them. However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do. I've shuffled the pronouns to the point that my eyes hurt, hope that helps. I support this block, not the unblock. However, if PM is only used from now on for meta-policy debates where exposure is bad, I can accept that. ANythign else, though, block the account and toss the key. ThuranX 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A disagreement. You are wrong in asserting that the no personal attacks policy allows 3RR violations to remove such links. The 3RR exception language was very explicitly killed, and we seem to have consensus on what language to use. This particular link had vanished from discussion at WT:NPA because the talk page there felt it had found a different reason for removal and that it was generally agreed that it was better to use reasons other than NPA when removing links from articles, but that different reason is appropriately discussed at the article's talk page rather than WT:NPA so there may or may not ever have been consensus formed around that. GRBerry 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another disagreement: "However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do." Why? Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here? Relata refero 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I stated I hadn't read it in a few days, hence the 'Possible'. Releta, PM stated that the edits from that account would specifically be for the contentious policy, not for randomly running around the project, making edits the main account could do. Further, if the editor knew those mainspace edits would be contentious, then hiding behind an alternate account to do so is contravening normal consensus building policy. Again - to protect oneself during a contentious policy debate about personal privacy makes some sense; to exploit the policies to accomplish edits which the regular account could simply find consensus for, or cite the policy to support is a problem. ThuranX 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of small points - looking at the edits you'll see that there was absolutely no violation of 3RR anywhere. It's my belief that you really have to squint at the situation to see an edit war also - but then these allegations have been largely retracted, which is good.

The irony of the whole situation, is that I can really see the points in your comments about appropriate use of accounts, and would have welcomed dialog on this - or at least notification that I was behaving in a way some felt to cross a hitherto undefined line (it's certainly not in any guideline yet - perhaps that's the more appropriate venue for discussion of this type). I've tried to respond immediately and politely to every concern raised with me - but what made me so upset and angry was from out of nowhere to be slap-banned forever and my talk page protected. I further believe there to have been serious ethical lapses, but would like at the moment for the whole situation just to calm down. I'm serving tea on my talkpage, if someone can bring the biscuits then we can leave AN/I alone. Privatemusings 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You were never banned. One of your alternate accounts was blocked. You said ahead of time that you were using this account because you expected that your edits would generate "anger or hot feeling", other words for disruption. You apprently knew it would be controversial so you explained your motivation ahead of time. So, how was this response unexpected? You knew the use of a sock puppet would be controversial because questions were raised about your previous use of sock accounts. Now you've said that you are going to "edit solely using this account", rendering pointless its use in the first place. I hope that commitment includes sticking to one account in the future. Using sock puppet accounts is not an acceptable and non-disruptive method for engaging in activity likely to result in "anger or hot feeling". If we aren't willing to take the heat that our actions may cause then perhaps we shouldn't take those actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be indefinitely blocked with no warning was hugely unexpected. My decision to stop editing with my other account is an attempt to calm and resolve the situation. Your proposals for WP:SOCK may well gain interest and approval, but should be implemented there. Privatemusings 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You did expect to generate "anger and hot feeling". Intentionally generating anger and hot feelings is disruptive, and some might call it "trolling". WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here. May I ask if your user page announcement is in fact a commitment to use only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary is edit warring on two different articles: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy & Michael Mukasey. The first article was placed under protection do to the editor's edit warring, and Eleemosynary has now followed me to Michael Mukasey, and article that he has no previous edits on, and is reverting my edits just to mess with me. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His persecution complex notwithstanding, Steven Andrew Miller is misstating the facts. --Eleemosynary 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss edits on the articles talk page. Tiptoety 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that both editors have violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in the past, but not at present. Please check the recent history again. --Eleemosynary 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Steven Andrew Miller for 24 hours for a clear three revert rule breach at Michael Mukasey. Eleemosynary has three reverts on this article and should not revert it again. He also has two reverts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but this page is now protected. If he edits disruptively then he may be blocked, but not at the moment. Sam Blacketer 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something new? Eleemosynary has a bad habit of edit warring. I'd block even for the three reverts. One is not entitled to 3 reverts per day. The fact that he's edit warring on a wide scale, constitutes disruption.⇒SWATJester 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And you'd be wrong to issue the block. 1) I have no "habit" of edit warring. 2) You have no say as to what any editor is "entitled" to, and are as bound by Wiki policy as I am. 3) Your claim that I'm "edit warring on a wide scale" is a lie. I realize you're having major issues with Jimmy Wales these days, but try not to take that out on me. --Eleemosynary 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my "say". Read the policy. WP:3RR explicitly states that users are not entitled to three reverts per day, and you well know this. ⇒SWATJester 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make "three reverts a day," nor have I ever claimed I was entitled to. And none of those reversions were "disruptive," to quote the policy. You have a history of misrepresenting my actions both on and off-Wiki, so you'll forgive me for not assuming good faith with you.--Eleemosynary 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't. Assuming good faith is policy. ⇒SWATJester 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But your abuse of it, as I believe your off-site actions have done, frees me from assuming you're acting in good faith. I'd be happy to get some more admins to weigh in on this. Sound good? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my off site actions? Yes, lets please get some more admins to weigh in on this. ⇒SWATJester 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are issues other than the two Miller mentioned. Since section this is listed as "resolved," I've brought up these issues under "More User:Eleemosynary." Calbaer 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? --Eleemosynary 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of admin User:Dbachmann

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

Looks like User:Dbachmann has been blocked by User:Penwhale while he was trying to enforce policy at Race of Ancient Egyptians. He isn't requesting immediate unblock but he is requesting that various actions be taken. Please see his talk page for details. Requests include: *consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today. *either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves. Would uninvolved admins please pursue this case. Thanks. --Folantin 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed paths with Dbachmann in the past, and unfortunately I get the impression that he seems to be willing to use his admin tools in disputes he's involved in. He did unambiguously break 3RR in a content dispute, and on top of this he used his admin rollback to do so. He also appears to be making sharp and unneccesary personal attacks towards Penwhale, the blocking admin. Unfortunately, this block was probably warranted. --krimpet⟲ 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Dbachmann was trying to ensure articles adhered to Misplaced Pages policy. Plus - correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought blocks were supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. --Folantin 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DBachmann is one of the strongest defenders of the encyclopaedia against nationalst trolls of all stripes. I think that needs to be said, repeatedly, and remembered. Relata refero 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Using admin rollback on trolling edits may not be 100% ideal, but admins do it all the time and I've never seen anybody cite it as a reason to block that admin before. As for the 3RR, it's a fair cop, though should a hardworking admin's very first 3RR error get as much as 24 hours, really? That also is a new sight to me. Anyway, keeping dab blocked for the full 24 hours would be punitive after his own parole suggestion, see his talkpage. Penwhale doesn't seem to be editing. I've called for him on his page and on irc (where he's lurking, but I think not personally present). Unless I hear from Penwhale in 5 minutes, I'm unblocking on the conditions dab himself suggests. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely, endorse unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, good unblock. The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmph! This place gets dafter by the moment. Giano 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear friends, I don't think a mere 5 minutes is a proper discussion. See this proposal by User:Daniel, "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking ...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee." Please restore the block until there is a consensus to unblock. This block wasn't a mistake, nor was it placed in bad faith. - Jehochman 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-close clarification: For the record, I have never said I support that proposal, and never also in this circumstance. I have actually no opinion on the block, or unblock. My proposal at that RfAr is an attempt to clarify the ArbCom's stance on Jimbo's edict-like comment. Daniel 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to place a request for my desysopping here to get any action on that from the ArbCom, Jehochman. Jimbo Wales, indeed, may desysop me without a request—we'll have to wait and see—but he doesn't after all intervene in the day-to-day running of the place very often. The ArbCom is your best bet. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Oh, noodles! not another case. At least you tried to contact him and waited for one or two comments, and this is hardly a sneaky vandal we're talking about. - Jehochman 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone calling Dbachmann a "problem user"? I don't think so. Rather, he's a very productive and helpful admin. While he may have violated 3RR (I haven't checked), he should be given an opportunity to correct his mistake. I don't think this block was made with Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind, and I support the decision to shorten it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec.) The preceding version of the proposal Jehochman linked to sums up what is actual long-standing good practice: administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Which is precisely what happened here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also support a decision to shorten the block, but I think we should wait, let's say, 60 minutes to get a consensus, not 5 minutes and just two additional opinions. This is a high traffic board. Wait an hour for deeper snow. - Jehochman 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It was a short 24-hour block for 3RR (and that might be disputed) of a good editor and productive admin, not a block of a problem user. There is a world of difference between that and an indefinite block and proposed community ban of a problematic COI editor (Sadi Carnot). The former can be resolved with a short discussion, and the latter should have had further discussion before an unblock took place. The point about the 3RR is that it can be removed once the editor has agreed to stay away from the page as Ryan said "The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page." The alternative viewpoint is that, as a strictly defined block (limited to 24 hours), 3RR blocks are best left in place if unblocking may cause drama (but then who can predict that?). The deeper snow comment is relevant, but how deep does snow have to be to overcome time considerations (appearing to unblock hastily)? Carcharoth 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not extremely happy with the unblock (which was first posted on my talk page a little under 2 hours ago -- and that was 5:00AM time that bishonen posted on my talk. I never thought that someone might assume that I wasn't hanging around to deal with the unblock issue. Unblocking after only a 12-minute wait period isn't something that I feel should have been done, but I'm not going to wheel war over this. - Penwhale | 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

←I support the unblock. Dbachmann is not a troll or vandal, he has agreed to avoid the article in question. I don't know if he has or hasn't violated 3RR. Yes he was incivil toward Penwhale but I doubt that it is a trend or ongoing problem. James086 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many established editors here who make solid contributions to the Wiki get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. I have not seen them unblocked after a 5 minute discussion. These sort of actions make users think that there is a two tier system here, with admins getting a free pass for their transgressions. It makes one think that, in spite of all the blather one reads on Rfas, adminship is, indeed, a big deal. Jeffpw 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Short discussion followed by strong actions seems to be a trend around here recently. Please, before anything drastic is done, allow decent conversation. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot reasonably expect an administrator to be online 24/7. I was informed of the actions when I woke up just a few minutes ago (which is 6:30 AM), so I feel slighted by that. - Penwhale | 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reason that things should not be done in such rapid succession. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. No suggestion of ill faith on anybody's part, no suggestion that Dbachmann wants to escalate this, Penwhale was offline and there was no pressing reason to retain the block as there is an adequate explanation for the behaviour identified. I suspect that someone was gaming the system here to try to make drama, but I've not really looked into it. Anyway, I propose we archive this thread, file it under "nobody's perfect" and move on, since there's clearly no need to escalate this any further. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been IMHO a troublesome admin in the past. However, he does do good work as well. Race of ancient egyptians is a shithole of an article, as evidenced by the recent edit wars that have brought it onto AN/I at least two, and possibly three times in the last 7 days. As much as I dislike his admin practices and editing behavior, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. P.S. we should also delete that article, start it anew from a blank stub, and require every single edit be sourced before it is included. ⇒SWATJester 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, forget it, I do not consent to this archive. This is absurd. An admin that barely made it in his RfA due to lack of mainspace experience decides to make-up new mainspace rules, such as blocking for rollback. Someone should have the courage to say something about that, and I'm glad Bishonen did. El_C 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made my stand and responses, and you're just trying to flare things up again. Do not instigate this further; dab and I have talked and came to an understanding (and this was before you started complaining on here and my talk page). - Penwhale | 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, I don't know what the problem is but from my perspective you seem to be frequently adding only brief and vague responses to legitimate questions or statements. We're not mind readers here. Wikidudeman 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · logs)'s vandalism and slurs

The report was accidently removed by a bot, so I post it here again. And he hasn't apologized to me yet and rather blames me doing childish behaviors, I abandon a hope from him. I only need a fair justice.

I file a report regarding Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors. He was once reported here due to his intentional slanders against User:Smoove K, the owner of Heart Corporation in order to avenge his friends on User:Smoove K. , , , Wiki is clearly not a place for him to work off his grudges, but he repeatedly does that when he conflicts with other parties. I want to report his disruptive behaviors on 3 matters.

• 1st : Reverting my talk page to mock of me. I assume his repeated scorns to be regarded vandalism.
• 2nd: His disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles
• 3rd: His personal and racial slurs. --Appletrees 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion

I have made numerous efforts to resolve this matter on appletrees' talk page, making offers of civility, etc - these offers get no response.

He has demanded that I apologise to him. I don't see the need, and neither do I see any point in me making an apology that will not be sincere. We argued, he complained, I made it clear that I wish for us to both edit in a more civil manner.

I dont wish to waste any more time on this matter Sennen goroshi 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your preach and strong admonition on my talk page cant' be referred as you efforts on civility. You're just excusing your past abusive behaviors on me and my talk page. Even more, you're chiding me how childish I am. That's impressive indeed. I need your apology even if it was not frankly from your heart. Because I know people can't be suddenly changed, I only ask you to show your one effort for the future.--Appletrees 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* This is not the complaints department, try dispute resolution. I've seen the two of you here before, bickering away unconstructively, and it needs to stop. east.718 at 17:40, 11/1/2007

Appletrees, I think that you have misunderstood what about blockpolicy. Blocking is NOT to punish users. If your contribution is read, it desires to punish an user or to only make it apologize. , , Please re-read WP:BLOCK and re-consider your own behavior.--Watermint 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Watermint, I didn't misunderstand anything. I file a report based on Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors on several people. After his recent scornful comments on my talk page again, I couldn't help to repost it here. That is my right because I'm one of his victims from his insults. Besides, you are not an administrator and some party might knows well about who you are. According to your contribution history, I can only see your controversial edits and JPOV on "Korean-Japanese related article", so your comments just sounds unreasonable and biased. I expect fair and unbiased comments from administrators or third parties to not engage in Korean-Japanese articles. Before saying something to others, please re-consider what you're doing. Take care.--Appletrees 12:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that the conduct to him of you are also sufficiently offensive and discriminatory. , , , , ..etc,etc..... I wonder why you can blame him unilaterally.--Watermint 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You care so much about people irrelevant to you, but don't care about the time information. That was my following response to his insulting comments, that is called "cause and consequence". The threat is done by him, not me. Besides, you have some very impressive and clean(?) history like that. You're not certainly in the position to judge anything because you've engaged in so many edit wars with many one for "your pushing POV" (quotation from your line to somebody) and surely not an administrator. ,

, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, or so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletes own images in anger

Moriori (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems to have gotten into a dispute with Liftarn (talk · contribs). He is upset that the PD status of one of his image uploads had been questioned here. His response to Liftarn was "are you calling me a liar" and, although Liftarn apologised for any unintentional insult , Moriori has deleted a number of his image uploads including a personal attack against Liftarn in the summary and blanked his user and talk pages. Obviously this is totally unacceptable use of admin tools. I restored the images that are being used in the mainspace (they were on Commons so he could only orphan them, not delete them). The rest of his images are not used in articles but look like they could be pretty valuable. PD and GFDL releases are irrevocable so the deletions are invalid but I thought out of courtesy I would ask him to undelete them rather than undeleting all of them myself. I understand Moriori was upset, but his conduct really is indefensible. Notifying here for further input from uninvolved parties. WjBscribe 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin tools are not for making a point in a dispute, and certainly not for revoking your own contributions. I strongly urge this admin to reverse these actions. 1 != 2 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is more it seems that Liftarn had made a very reasonable request in a polite manner, calling him an arsehole in you administrative action summaries is incredibly inappropriate. Personal attacks are a nono, but using them as summaries in you admin actions makes this site look like it is ran by children. 1 != 2 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the images should be undeleted so people can judge if they really are public domain or not. Evidence should be provided on the image page (eg. a claim that the user took the pictures themselves), or via OTRS. When the uploader is active, it may be polite to ask them first before taking it to Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images. In this case, with no evidence that the images are public domain (which is different from GFDL), all the uploader has to do is say "oops, I got it wrong". I think this is different from a case where the original release is under the GFDL as a "self taken" picture (taken by the user). In cases of "self taken" pictures, the original user claimed copyright and released under the GFDL, and the only way that status can be changed is by saying that they were wrong, and they are not the copyright holder and not entitled to release the pictures under the GFDL. I hope this is covered at the latest incarnation of Misplaced Pages:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. Please note that the claim for these images was public domain, so that essay does not apply here. Carcharoth 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - now the images have been undeleted, I see they are all user-taken and released into the public domain (I could see the deleted versions of the image page, but couldn't work out how to view the images without actually restoring them). I presume that PD-release is irrevocable, in the same way that GFDL licensing is, but can someone confirm this? The original image that started the dispute is different, in that a different entity (ie. not the user uploading the picture) is said to have released it into the public domain. That, as has been said, does require evidence to be provided. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely childish. Since this admin appears to have left the project in a huff, I recommend undeleting his images so we can actually (1) use them if the license is valid and (2) verify the proper license if they're not. --Haemo 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those steps, and would go a little further and suggest ArbCom take a quick look with an eye toward de-sysopping Moriori. Using the tools in such a childish fashion is totally unacceptable, as is including egregious personal attacks against other users in the indelible deletion summaries. If he comes back with an explanation, apology, contrition, etc then re-sysopping could be considered, but for now I think his admin buttons should be withdrawn until he's calmed down at least. MastCell 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Mastcell. Unacceptable. Liftarn tagged one of Moriori's images for CSD due to unknown copyright status and then apologized for any inconvenience for it and Moriori deletes all of his images and calls Liftarn an "arsehole"? This is totally unaceptable from any editor let alone an administrator, however incidents like these dealing with administrators seem to be becoming more and more common. Wikidudeman 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Childish behavior with the admin tools should not be tolerated. This case is pretty clear. Friday (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And another agreement.... Moriori can always ask for them back if they wish, but I wouldn't be comfortable with them having the buttons unchecked after that display.--Isotope23 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't even a CSD, it was a questioning of the public domain status; the image was not put up for deletion and all Moriori needed to do was get the original rights holder to confirm they had released it to the public domain. Personally I would hope Moriori would do the honorable thing. Sam Blacketer 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to wait for him to fix his mess. We should undo the damage. I've begun restoring them; they were deleted without a valid reason. Friday (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an opened a request at WP:RfArb for ArbCom to look this over quickly and see if desysopping is warranted. Input welcome there. MastCell 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And as the response over there has shown, that was premature. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I've withdrawn it. Though I continue to feel pretty strongly that desysopping, in this case, is not premature, it's become evident that ArbCom was not the correct venue. MastCell 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More User:Eleemosynary

I'm starting a new section because the last User:Eleemosynary section, addressing only his edit warring, is marked as "resolved." However, the edit warring is only part of the issue with his reverts — I'll assume it's "his" for the sake of this discussion — and the reverts at Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (and subsequent wikistalking to Michael Mukasey) are only a small part of a long pattern of Eleemosynary's violations and willful misinterpretations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. He has consistently reverted the edits of others as "vandalism," "trolling," etc., if he disagrees with them. On this talk page, a user archived the talk page, (innocently) failing to take care to keep recent (days-old) discussions. User:Steven Andrew Miller reverted this, and Eleemosynary entered into a revert war, calling the reversion "archive vandalism," which is wasn't. I would have preferred Miller had taken this to the talk page first, but it wasn't "vandalism" not to have done so.

This is far from an isolated incident. A look at the edit summaries of both the talk page and the corresponding article (as well as the content of both the talk page and its archives) reveal a long list of accusations and personal attacks on other editors by Eleemosynary. Eleemosynary regularly edits others' comments if he doesn't like them, ironically calling them "personal attacks" (even when they aren't), and citing policy for his regular edits of them (which actually violate WP:TALK#Others.27_comments and WP:NPA#Removal_of_text whether or not they are personal attacks).

In addition, he has a long history of homophobic personal attacks against Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine ) which have not been formally addressed. I've tried to give polite warnings (e.g., ) of this, but, as per his M.O., these are reverted as "nonsense, trolling, etc." (He has a right to revert like that on his talk page, but not a right to accuse everyone of pointing out his violations of being a troll.) I have not brought these up here because I'd prefer to deal with these without administrative assistance, but, after dozens upon dozens of unaddressed violations by an unrepentant Eleemosynary, it's clear that polite reminders and peer pressure alone aren't going to get him to start adhering to policy, let alone to be civil. Calbaer 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort of outcome are you seeking? Perhaps you should consider seeking mediation. If that doesn't work, the next step would probably be to file a request at WP:RfC. Ronnotel 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about a conflict that needs to be settled — hopefully Miller and Thumperward can do that themselves regarding the archiving issue — this is about a user continually ignoring policies and guidelines so that he can willfully disrupt the project. I realize that specific instances have gotten him blocked in the past, but if you look at the overall patterns, it doesn't seem like addressing these instances separately as they come is anything less than a waste of everyone's time at this point. I think it's gotten well past the point of mediation or WP:RfC. Calbaer 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And Calbaer's crusade of sophistry goes on... and on... and on. --Eleemosynary 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for emphasizing my point. Calbaer 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "point" can be summarized thusly: "Because I, Calbaer, have been unable to achieve consensus to slant the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page to my partisan whim, I will use lies (charges of "homophobic taunts" and "Wikistalking"), sophistry, and "concern trolling" to try to have Eleemosynary blocked. And, because I, Calbaer, don't have a leg to stand on, I don't want any mediation or RfC to get in my way." Not surprising. --Eleemosynary 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting words into another person's mouth while simultaneously denigrating their position is highly uncivil. Please stop. ⇒SWATJester 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my actions, once again. Please stop. You also appear to be goading. That's not gonna work. --Eleemosynary 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the words he puts into my mouth are rather ironic, seeing as one of my motivations behind not reporting the homophobic taunts and other violations of policies was because Eleemosynary was, at one point, the only user providing balance, representing the "other side" to the debate. Now that users like Thumperward are involved in the article, there's no longer any positive role played by Eleemosynary. I know that balance isn't a justification for treating disruptions differently than I might otherwise, but that, along with wanting to avoid unnecessarily bothering administrators, was a motivation for my trying to deal with Eleemosynary's behavior on talk pages rather than here on prior occasions. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Never was a "homophobic taunt" made by me re: Matt Sanchez. I mentioned his previous career, and one of his professional sobriquets. As Sanchez has been proven an unreliable source, and was trying to crowbar his OR into the article, his history was worth mentioning. This issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago. Because you were not able to use your constant lie -- "Eleemosynary used a homophobic taunt" -- to have me blocked or banned, you are rehashing the argument, perhaps hoping that "the twelfth time's the charm." You also may want to check your edit history: you have reported me on prior occasions, with the same "homophobic taunt" lie, with the same result. I'm going to be watching the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page for some time, and editing constructively, as I have been. That's something you're going have to deal with. But feel free to issue as many bogus "incident reports" as you wish. --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, interesting edit. Thanks for letting us see the seething behind all this. --Eleemosynary 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I explicitly drew attention to my word choice change in the edit summary (unlike, say, this edit), so it's no great victory for you to have "discovered" this and no purpose in emphasizing it yet again. I used the wrong word, and if you view it as "seething," parapraxis, or a personal attack, so be it. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I view it as a "drawing back of the veil." --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't want to follow the links I gave, Eleemosynary twice reverted Sanchez's edits, giving the reasons "discredited porn star" and "gay porn actor" in the edit summaries; I pointed out on his talk page that these explicitly violated WP:NPA. However, he multiple times after that called Sanchez "dirty Sanchez," even after being told this was a homophobic violation of WP:NPA. And while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I, also contrary to his claims. In any event, I have difficulty seeing how such a pattern of general violations and attacks — at Sanchez, at me, at Miller, of multiple Misplaced Pages policies — could be "mediated," since they're not disputes; they're one user making a nuisance of himself, having come to the conclusion that he can break any rules he hasn't been blocked for before (and even some of those he has). Calbaer 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To revise my above comments, apparently Calbaer feels "the 13th time's the charm." "Dirty Sanchez" is not a "homophobic slur," no matter how much Calbaer wishes to make the case. It's a practice equally applicable to heterosexuals. The nickname, in context, has to do with Sanchez's well-documented career. (Do a Google search on "Matt Sanchez" and "Dirty Sanchez," for more on this.) But Calbaer has been screaming "homophobic slur!" for weeks, even though other editors have pointed out it's not one. And, again, this issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago. I've agreed to stop using the nickname, but appparently Calbaer wishes to keep employing it. --Eleemosynary 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please point to any edit in which "other editors have pointed out it's not one." You're the only one who's made the claim that it's not. The Google search reveals others who, like you, have maligned Sanchez. Just because a slur has gained currency among hateful, partisan websites does not make it acceptable on Misplaced Pages. If "you can Google it" were a valid defense to any violation of Misplaced Pages policy, Misplaced Pages would be in a lot of trouble. (By the way, if anyone's in doubt that it's homophobic, I think this edit will remove any doubt.) Calbaer 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "the 14th time's the charm." See above comments. --Eleemosynary 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, although Calbaer states above that he "has not previously reported to WP:AN/I" for the exact same comments, he did so one week ago, just as dishonestly. . Either he has an extremely short memory, or he's lying. Ronnotel and I spoke about the issue, and I agreed to stop using Sanchez's nickname here. I have not used it since. Now, it seems Calbaer wants to disrupt the page by rehashing things that were settled. It's not easy to assume good faith with this one. --Eleemosynary 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, "while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I." Please stop saying that's a lie when the evidence you linked to indicates that that's precisely what happened. And, again, please provide evidence to your claim that anyone (aside from you) said that your "nickname" for Matt Sanchez was not a slur and/or not homophobic. Yes, I said I'd ignore your past if you changed, but your attacks and policy violations have not yielded, so I felt it was finally time to discuss them here. Anyhow, as much as attempting serious replies to your statements may seem like a waste of my time, your responses illuminate that your attitude has not changed (and illustrate the veracity of your prior statements), which I think is useful to counter your argument that your past policy violations are "settled" rather than part of a long pattern of disrupting Misplaced Pages. Calbaer 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

15. --Eleemosynary 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Enough already - both of you. The next person to speak is going to lose their Halloween candy for good! Ronnotel 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing Misplaced Pages and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Misplaced Pages. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?

Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not. A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests. Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article. It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point. I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected. He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author. The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC ]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave ]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism ], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.

I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil. The ArbCom knows. I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do. So, would you be willing to change your editing style? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator ]group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.

As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA ]. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.

So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture ]. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam ]. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki ]. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Ali'i pointed out, Davkal may have not meant to vandalize OM's user page. But what he did insert was surely a personal attack against SA and I. I won't address the puppet accusations in any great detail because they are completely baseless. With regards to my first edit being on an RFC, well, who cares? I thought that RFC's were for community input. Just because I was a brand new editor I wasn't supposed to comment? And yes, I made a joke with Dave that I was a bit familiar with everything because I have always been tinkering with WP without a user name. I corrected a few misspellings here, a broken link here, revert a little vandalism, all very minor stuff. So I was familiar with how things worked when I finally registered my user name. Contrary to your belief, I do not follow SA around and "gang edit" articles. We just have similar interests. The articles that we have worked on together are dwarfed by the amount of articles that SA has worked on that I haven't or vice versa (a lot heavier on SA's side). You are making this claim from two articles, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and Electronic voice phenomena, and my comments on an IfD regarding an image used at the EVP article. And yes, I knew how to change the link in SA's evidence because I read it, clicked on the link, and saw that it did not link to the findings of fact regarding your disruptive editing style. So I fixed it because I knew that is where SA was going with the statement. My words to you on LOPAPC (which was actually my 2nd comment to you, the first mentioning how your proposed title change was not a good idea) must be read in the context of what Simeos mentioned above, in which he cautioned you twice about your behavior. Taken out of context they make me look like a rabble-rouser. Read in the correct context I am merely echoing another editors concerns.

I don't know enough about SA to know about the use of sock's in previous discussions but it is hardly relevant to your current behavior. If SA has had sock's in the past, I am sure punishment will come, especially since it is addressed in the current Arbcom between MartinPhi and SA. However, I would like to say that SA made an extremely bold series of edits in the EVP article that have improved the article significantly. It is not hijacking, but improving the article. I am not sure what you mean exactly by having editors tell you to doff your caps to SA but from everything I have seen so far with working with SA, is that 99% of the time SA is completely correct, especially in regard to policy. Baegis 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus on improving an article and frequently inserts POV. For instance this user vanishes for a month and then reappears to oppose a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears to support a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears at an arbitration. All relating to article content that this user frequently attempts to drive POV into. This user has been blocked an astonishing 10 times in the past year for edit warring etc. This is clearly a problematic user and has made little positive contributions to the project. Wikidudeman 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal is now engaged in revert warring at Electronic voice phenomenon. Are there no admins brave enough to tackle this user? ScienceApologist 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is right engaged in POV pushing on grand scale on the EVP article. He is blatantly ignoring the decisions of the arbcom and he is inserting his own pseudoscientific theories into the article without sources. I am reverting to the stable version of the article that was moving, albeit slowly, towards possible good article status.Davkal 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With all I have read on this discussion thread, I would congratualte any administrator who gave Davkal an indef block. Jeffpw 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should take these accusations with a grain of salt. ScienceApologist has been biting good-faith editors on Talk:Electronic voice phenomena when they politely ask for him to refrain from language, and from looking at the *entire* page (not just cherry picking diffs) it appears both sides are busy throwing choice words at each other. I don't know the history of Davkal, but the confrontational style and behavior of SA makes me unwilling to support a one-sided block. David Fuchs 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please look at the entire page. The user is a single purpose account who fits the disruptive editor designation almost to the letter. I challenge anyone to show how I am cherry-picking in this complaint. ScienceApologist 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I happened to drop in on the EVP article but have had no prior involvement other than to make a note on the talk page regarding how poorly written the article is. If there's a disruptive editor involved, that certainly wouldn't help the quality of the article. I'm especially concerned about the statement "Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus." If this is true and can be supported with diffs, that's a serious matter; if not true, it's still a serious matter because such accusations are not to be made lightly. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, having reviewed Davkal's recent contributions, I have placed a block to prevent any more disruption from that user. I'm now going to look through the past arbitrations in respect of the articles he's been editing. Nothing I've seen in Davkal's history indicates that he is amenable to education or reform, he is a tireless advocate for fringe theories, which is fine in some places but not on Misplaced Pages, where tireless advocates tend to have the effect of actively impeding progress towards consensus. I note that there are other editors who have a reasonably sympathetic view of EVP and so on, let's see of they can come to some kind of view as to how it should be covered. I've also left a friendly warning to ScienceApologist, whose zeal for the mainstream can be a source of friction. While sympathising with both his viewpoint and his impatience with POV-pushers, I think this thread is representative of his approach, which could perhaps be a bit more collegial. Hark at me. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up on that, the more I see the more sure I am that Davkal is just in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure how to hark, much less how to direct it toward anyone. Nonetheless, good block. For Pete's sake, look at Davkal's block log. There's no sort of disruptive behavior he hasn't engaged in at some point. This block was long overdue. MastCell 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I always love it when someone is accused of something, and the first thing they do is not deny what they have done, but accuse someone else of something. The SA/Baegis sockpuppet charge is amusing and quite boring--the point of this ANI is not SA or Baegis but it's Davkal. Let's stick to that discussion. MastCell makes a valid point--why are we bothering even having this discussion. Time for Davkal to move along. OrangeMarlin 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Guy, for a more balanced view for a change. If one looks at ScienceApologist's sock puppet record, it is not at all out of line to suspect more, especially when that user follows SA around and upholds his edits. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My, but bringing up ScienceApologist's sockpuppetry certainly seems to be a popular method of deflecting unwanted attention these days... it seems to be the equivalent of temporarily raising the terror alert level. MastCell 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so now it's just so much background noise. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet so often that I now consider it a badge of honor. When a POV-warrior accuses me of it, that's precisely the point I know they've run out of logic. Same here. Davkal cannot defend himself, because his actions are indefensible. And I like SA's zeal. OrangeMarlin 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy's characterization of the issues. SA's zeal is often gratting, but there is no indication that User:Davkal is an asset to the project. --Rocksanddirt 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to mostly agree with User:David Fuchs. This is not a clear cut as some think. The two sides of this issue both have issues to work on. Davkal is not the only one that is culpable here. The whole thing reminds me of the East Europe(Digwuren), Sri Lanka, and Middle Eastern areas of wiki where the two sides never learn to get along and are constantly trying to blame the other side and do each other in. I guess now we can add the paranormal group to the EE/SR/ME list. Maybe we should full protect the pages and force the two sides to work things out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the pseudoscience issues can be distinguished from the Middle Eastern/etc areas of wiki in that there are content guidelines regarding fringe theories specifically. I'm not particularly familiar with the Middle Eastern/etc cases, though, so I won't say much more than that. Antelan 23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The block is well deserved in this case, such disruptive editors have no place in this project. OTOH, I am concerned about baiting. Many editors become royal pains in the arse when they see that they are talked down, labeled as trolls at every opportunity, their comments refactored or collapsed between archive tags, and other such demonstrations of lack of respect. Editors that engage in these type of baiting, need to become aware that these and not useful, if not actually disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the members of the opposing side are innocent? I highly doubt it. This is too similar to EE/SR/ME situations. I'd like to know what people who've never edited a single paranormal article on wiki have to say about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am saying that both sides are at fault. I would also add, that these editors need to be aware that their behavior is also under scrutinity, and will end up in the same situation as these they bait if they persist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If both sides are at fault, why is only Davkal blocked? SA has a block history too. — Rlevse • Talk 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see the warning placed by Guy in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. Davkal was aggressively pushing a POV, SA is aggressively pushing NPOV. Neither is great editing behaviour, but one is a more pressing problem. I have advised SA to be less aggressive and more collegial. We'll see if that has any effect. I suspect he may accept a steer fomr me that he would not accept form an editor with a long history of advancing fringe theories, so it's worth a shot at least. Davkal is just in the wrong place. I'm sure he's a nice guy and kind to his mother, but Misplaced Pages is sincerely trying to be a neutral encyclopaedia and his input was definitely not helping in that aim. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More broadly, that article (and probably others in similar topics) could do with more involvement from editors in the reality-based community. Looking at the talk page it's clear that there's disproportionate influence from the paranormal/fringe camp. Maybe then SA wouldn't feel so embattled. Raymond Arritt 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then he should ask for help from non-involved editors, Raymond. Feeling constantly embattled is not a good think, as it encourages the wrong behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe in such a thing as aggressively pushing NPOV in this case. I see it more as pushing the mainstream point, while obliterating the non-mainstream POV. That makes for poor NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've jumped into this mid-way as a mediator invited in between both sides at the lone article EVP. It seems to me that paranormal editors like Davkal are baited by editors like SA into edit wars resulting in a general mess. ScienceApologist has a troubling history that should be addressed - practices like where he went on a literal 'rampage' with the article not only reverting others work without disussion but making POV changes without first discussing the issues first, and where following the previous incident of editing without consensus or discussion (as was accepted on the talk page, and considering the present Arbcom would be the wise and cordial thing to do) he started another dispute over templates of the paranormal. It's this type of stuff that is causing the mess in the first place and although I can't speak for Davkal's editing patterns I can understand at least what this user puts up with from ScienceApologist. It's disappointing Misplaced Pages attracts crusaders like the LaRouche crowd and RationalSkeptics (who I considered joining as a skeptic myself but decided not to because of the harm I see coming from some associated with this group) who wish to convey their fringe view of subjects changing long standing articles in such a manner that is contrary to the spirit of NPOV. Wikidudeman below, as well as ScienceApologist, and others are active members of this group that have a fringe skeptical view, at odds with the very existence of paranormal terms and articles at Misplaced Pages; rather than balancing the articles out with a good and pithy criticism section as is standard. This is the ROOT of all of this mess here and at Arbcom. The repeated harassment of paranormal editors is shameful - and should be addressed. At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on. --Northmeister 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of the paranormal editors as being "harassed" by the mainstream ones is absurd. Would it be best if SA showed saintlike civility and forbearance when faced with aggressive promotion of (let's be frank) physical impossibility? Sure. But sometimes we have to take what we can get. I'd much rather have SA as he is, than leave these articles to be dominated by the paranormalists, resulting in Misplaced Pages being the target of well-deserved ridicule. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am wrong - How so? I've seen nothing but this since arriving at EVP and reading up on he history. The recent incidents above are just more of the same - thus the actions of editors in the paranormal community trying to deal with editors on the fringe of science. I wouldn't call trying to change paranormal articles clearly framed as such and understood by the general public as such; mainstream. Although I probably would agree with ScienceApologist opinion on matters paranormal, I'm not about to endorse what is being done to instigate these things - thus my observations on the ROOT of the problem and SA's troubling editorial habits. --Northmeister 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right, Raymond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

True, they don't. Again, in an ideal world SA would be more patient. But sometimes we have to choose between less-than-ideal worlds. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure that choosing the lesser of two evils is wise in the long run. In any case I see that you have joined Guy in his warning to SA, and hope he will take that to heart. There is a point in which the balance may not be in the project's favor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To Quote "northmeister", "At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on." I have to agree. SA should not be getting off scott free here when the other is getting indef blocked. The one doing the baiting is just as guilty as the one who bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And what goal would that accomplish? How would banning one of the more productive editors who always strongly, strongly pushes for NPOV and well sourced information help out the WP community? Sure SA may be short on patience sometimes, but if we all had to deal with some of the editors SA seems to encounter, we would be quite short with them. SA is not a saint, but I'd take a take someone with an aggressive, no nonsense attitude over a dozen of Davkal's type any day of the week. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of aforementioned charge

user is gone for 2 weeks and then returns to oppose my RFA. Davkal opposed because he perceived my being a skeptic as POV or something like that. Davkal stayed about a week and then vanished again until:

user appears after over a month of inactivity to support another editors RFA. The editor (Dreadstar) coincidentally made a lot of comments or edits that Davkal agreed with apparently. The editor disappeared again for a month until:

The editor returns to comment on a new RFA concerning the disruptive edits of other editors concerning paranormal articles

Wikidudeman 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like all he did during that time was only to edit 3 RFAs, which is simply not true. You also fail to mention that he was one of 24 who opposed your RFA and that it did not succeed. Sounds like sour grapes to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And that helps in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more accurate view than wikidudeman's obviously skewed presentation. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikidudeman's presentation is not skewed he merely didn't mention the other edits. Lets examine them further:

• From July 9th until his strong oppose to Wikidudeman's RFA (July 30th) or a total of 22 days, he made 0 edits. None, no talk, nothing. In his 7 day reappearance, in which he commented on said RFA, he made a total of 13 contributions. 5 of them were in relation to the RFA, and 7 of them to the, you guessed it, EVP articles (talk inclusive). His one other edit was to give a barnstar to User:RedSpruce, which appears to have been removed since it was given.
• From August 6th until September 14th (40 days) he did not make a single contribution. He came back on September 15th and made 3 posts on the Dreadstar RFA. It is interesting to note this because Dreadstar's thank you card continued to be present on Davkal's page when all of his warning's were posted (or harassment as he declared) and subsequently quickly deleted by Davkal. So it would be safe to say they are friendly.
• After this one day appearance, Davkal disappeared again until October 16 (32 days) to make 2 contributions to the MartinPhi/SA Arb case. He made a single edit on October 18th and then disappeared for 10 days until he came back on October 27th. What happened from this date forward is what brought this user to this board.
• So, yes I think it is quite safe to say that Davkal only appears to cause other's grief or to help out his buddies in someway. While there is no harm in lending your support for an editor's RFA or invoking your right to object to another editor's RFA, since July 9th it is quite clear that Davkal's contributions have been suspect at best. Disruptive would be the better word for his actions. And, since he shows no sign of changing, he should not be asked back. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi already said nearly everything I might have, and Northmeister certainly brings up interesting issues. I don't happen to agree that baiting is an excuse for what anyone has done. However, one main issue that people should consider here is gang editing against consensus, which has been done many times in the past by the skeptical community (see history of EVP article). They can get away with this because they simply out-number those who wish to give the paranormal an NPOV or positive treatment. Ideally, the two sides would balance out to NPOV, but they do not because of the greater numbers of skeptics. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Gang editing against consensus"? If you're constantly outnumbered by a "gang" of editors who disagree with you, you may want to consider the possibility that your views are not actually supported by a consensus. Just a thought. MastCell 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more like a strong possibility. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see this indefinite block. At one period, I tried to keep an eye on Davkal and contain his disruptive editing, but I got burned out on his recalcitrance and aggression. :-( Seeing the ArbCom take him on in the Paranormal RFAr was a relief; but then the committee, with surprising inefficiency (vote in the ArbCom elections!), made a hot and strong finding of fact about Davkal which was not followed up by any remedies: none of the numerous remedies proposed gathered enough support individually, and they were never coordinated into something the arbs could agree on. I despair sometimes... anyway, I'm very glad to see the community move towards its own remedy here. Davkal has wasted enough time for enough productive editors. P. S. He has been blocked for block evasion once, so please keep an eye out for socks. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

What Bishonen and Guy said. I was so dismayed when the Paranormal Arbcom failed to agree on any remedy for Davkal's behaviour that I stopped contributing to the EVP article rather than work with him further. For the record: "Davkal (talk · contribs) is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors." Certainly ScienceApologist would be well advised to adopt a more collaborative approach in future. Perhaps other sanctions may be necessary in his case - although I have no strong feeling on that subject - but such considerations should not distract us from Davkal's actions. It's a shame that Davkal couldn't have become more like Martinphi, a strongly pro-paranormal editor who (in my experience)remains civil and avoids edit-warring. Sheffield Steel_stalk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra

Could someone have a word with him? He seems to have appointed himself moderator of Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and is removing posts and issuing orders, laced with profanity. Who appointed him drill-sergeant, and WP:Signpost missed it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his talk page. David Fuchs 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user for this edit and the breach of WP:LEGAL therein. ("removing personal comments that border on libel - unless you have proof of this, refrain or we'll look into lawful matters") I welcome your review of this block. --John 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked upon the user's assurance that no legal threat was intended. This might warrant continued scrutiny though. --John 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He made those attacks against me. I still have the copy of the e-mail he sent warning me about another Editor. Who cares actually, but I thought I'd let that Editor know. This guy was also selectively removing my posts across Misplaced Pages, and threating that some "game is going to begin"; i.e., he is going to get me blocked and banned, or he is gonna come over to my home and hit me. :-) Talking about needing a Wiki-break.... jeez. Icsunonove 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a little administrative focus on user Icsunonove here. Can a user continue to harrass another with constant banter, insult, and defamation without warning or punishment, while other users are scrutinized? I thought Misplaced Pages was a NEUTRAL place where ALL PARTIES involved are supposed to be treated equally. In this case, two wrongs don't make a right - so what about Icsunonove? Is there an admin out there that can see his various postings and sum most of them up as personal attacks and borderline libel? In my case, I have been regularly contributing positive, useful, and informative postings to wiki. With the case of South Tyrol, never again do I wish to be involved - but someone please stop Icsunonove from going to every talk page he can to leave slanderous and defaming comments. Thank you. Rarelibra 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, "don't look at me, look at him!". Reminds me of elementary school. Interesting points you make though, considering that you began on Oct. 31st by messaging a new editor that I'm an "Italo-extremist", which I caught by a chance visit to Misplaced Pages. Then you go and selectively erase/edit my and others' posts. You must be pretty thick skinned to believe you will not receive return comments when you initiate attacks on other editors. I guess you've at least been consistent in convincing yourself time and time again that you are absolutely always in the right -- so I'm wondering why I am even bothering with this lecture. I think what you seriously need to do is focus a bit on your own behavior. Making legal threats and vandalizing others' edits is an issue you need to deal with. By the way, that is your opinion you regularly contribute positively; I believe others would have issue with that opinion, especially given the regular warnings you receive from Admins. Now, I ask you to please stop harassing editors that you somehow feel compelled to lambast once or twice a month. Also cease vandalizing the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page by placing POV tags, giving no clear explanation, and demanding who and who cannot then comment... i.e., read Lar's comments, and understand them! The bottom line is you sent me an e-mail, one that i still have, defaming Septentrionalis. You can call my action of telling him what you said "libel" until you turn blue. Maybe what you should have done was not sent it in the first place. I DO sincerely hope I no longer have to be involved with your lot any longer.. gosh, one can only wish! I'll let the Admins deal with your yelling, and constant stirring the pot on ethnic debates. Icsunonove 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Disruption over. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Temporarily blocked. TigerShark 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – blocked by Secretlondon / as requested by bot itself --slakr 06:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – schoolblock -- zzuuzz 10:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – CarloPlyr440 blocked 1 month due to repeated violations of copyright policy. Fourth block.

Resolved – Another one bites the dust Guy (Help!) 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards