Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 26 April 2009 (→Sick and tired of the accusations: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

On April 26, 2006, EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by the Misplaced Pages Community. He has since contacted the Arbitration Committee to appeal this ban. Since the ban was instated by the community, the Committee has opted to defer this decision to the community as a whole.

For information about the events leading up to this ban, EddieSegoura's entry on WP:BANNED is provided below, including links to the discussions leading to the ban:

Editing career was spent almost entirely on using Misplaced Pages to promote the existence of a neologism. He engaged in massive disruption of the original AfD with votes from sockpuppets he created (confirmed, suspected), as well as attempts to change votes. His numerous attempts to recreate the article finally exhausted the community's patience (version 1, version 2). His disruption has been so severe that the unusual step was taken of salting his userpage (it has since been restored). Has also been suspected of causing similar disruption on Wikitionary. (from WP:BANNED#E)

EddieSegoura has posted some information on his userpage detailing his intentions if he should be unbanned and restrictions he is willing to be subject to should he be unbanned. The Committee would invite users of the Community to review this ban. To facilitate discussion, a portion of EddieSegoura's talk page will be transcluded below to permit him to respond to questions and comments without being unblocked.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold , on the 22nd day of April 2009 (no timestamp to prevent premature archival)

When was his last activity using socks? I've counted about 30 confirmed, and about 8 suspected. Has there been a reasonable amount of time since then? Also, can someone more familiar with this post information regarding this user so we may have the pertinent information before voting? Synergy 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The last edit by a confirmed sock was by User:Grounded into a double play in February 2008. Mr.Z-man 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion is premature. Why don't we wait for the user to post an unblock request on their talk page, which can then be discussed here? Jehochman 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A single admin would probably have to seek further input before granting an unblock, so skipping that step seems efficient. Here is the "unblock request to the community", if you will. I'm always one for second chance and it's been a long while, so I'd support unblocking with reasonable conditions as determined by those that remember the run-up. –xeno 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he was already requesting unblock through e-mail. It was taken to arbcom for clarification, and kicked back here for community discussion. From Mr.Z-man's comment (thanks by the way), I believe his three year ban should be lifted given that his last known socking was over a year ago. So I support an unblock but I do request he be watched and if needed, be mentored. Synergy 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with xeno and synery's comments - no point in a further unblock request. Regarding the request I support lifting of the ban with a period of probation - say 3 months - which would see an immediate blocking and return to the ban in the case of similar transgression/s during that time.--VS 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(after several ecs)There's been an awful lot more than 30 socks. The reason you can only find 30 confirmed socks is that Eddie employs new socks to systematically detag his blocked sock accounts, like this for example. We're talking about a ton of socks, hundreds of them, perhaps even thousands...he was, after all, the so-called "exicornt vandal" and I don't believe he has ever stopped socking since he was banned. The community should also be aware that last year he was impersonating living people, including Power Rangers actors with accounts User:Jason Smith and User:Austin St. John. These were checkuser confirmed and self-confessed eventually by Eddie in private. At the time he pulled the Power Rangers stunt, he had been emailing me telling me he wanted to get the ES account unbanned and I had been talking to him off-site, trying to help him. He played games with me with the Power Ranger actors accounts and went so far as to contact me through OTRS pretending to be these actors wanting their accounts unblocked and asking me to call him on the phone so he could prove he was these people. He did eventually confess and apologise to me once I confronted him with my suspicion that he was behind the accounts but I was rather astounded he would waste my time with those sorts of games when I had extended him my good faith and gone out of my way to try to help him. I am very sorry to have to write about this and I know it will upset Eddie, but I feel strongly that the community should be given the full facts when being asking to extend a good faith chance to a banned user. I noticed in his userpage statement he mentions being mentored by me. I did not endorse that statement and have not agreed to mentor him. I'm simply not here enough to mentor anyone anyway and in Eddie's case, I have tried to help him many times in the past but have never been able to get him to take my advice about anything, not even my many, many attempts to get him to stop socking and attacking and harassing other users (Ryulong and BunchofGrapes are two users he has harassed in the past and blatantly refused to AGF of), and I fail to see why it would be any different this time, so I frankly see the idea of me mentoring him as a waste of both our time. That said, I'm not going to oppose or support the appeal because I'm not here enough to help deal with the consequences, but I think Eddie needs to finally be completely honest and transparent about his activities if he expects the community to give him another chance. And he needs to own up to all current socks he is operating as I don't believe for one second that he isn't currently operating accounts. It would be much better for his own case in trying to convince the community that he is now willing to abide by this project's policies and guidelines if such information was provided voluntarily by Eddie, rather than having to be revealed by other people. I feel the community is entitled to the truth and I call on Eddie to be entirely frank and honest about his activities here, particularly over the last 6-12 months. Sarah 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion/Voting

• Comment (after ec). In the past, we have often requested that users who have conducted extensive sock puppetry reveal all sock puppets for the sake of transparency (our version of truth and reconciliation, I suppose). Sometimes this has worked and sometimes it hasn't. In this case, since Eddie repeatedly denied the Voltron connection before finally admitting it, and also denied being the Exicornt vandal for a long time (bizarrely, even though he'd written the original article), I'd like to see it. Also, the User:Grounded into a double play and User:Voltron accounts were active simultaneously (rather, Eddie started Grounded, abandoned it in favor of Voltron, and then went back to Grounded when Voltron was blocked), which I find at least odd--if they were really honest attempts to start over in good faith, why make two of them? All that said, I do recall, as an admin who dealt with him back in the day, that my impression of Eddie was of someone good-natured but eccentric who, for reasons I never understood, got all into knots over the exicornt nonsense. Chick Bowen 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with your impression that he is good natured. I have generally found him a nice fellow to chat with, but he unfortunately gets a "bee in his bonnet" (for want of a better description) about things and people and simply refuses to let go of them and this appears to be what gets him in trouble the most - his fixation on particular users he feels have wronged him, on creating account after account, on the whole "exicornt" thing (which led to Wiktionary having to block AOL in order to stop Eddie. ).I guess the issue ultimately is whether he can control his eccentricities sufficiently to edit collaboratively without continuing to cause disruption. Sarah 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris, also see NewYorkDreams (talk · contribs) which was also being operated at the same time as Voltron and Grounded into a double play. Sarah 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to spend about half an hour of searching, tagging/re-tagging - I managed to find some more pages, making the total # in the socks-category jump to 43. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per RickK. Hesperian 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Err, what? RickK hasn't been active since mid-2005, well before this ban was placed. What exactly are you referring to? Hersfold 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I too was confused when reading this; I assumed he typed the name wrong? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• The last think RickK said before he left was "Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do." Four years later, nothing's changed. We're still more interested in rehabilitating trolls than in creating an environment conducive to building an encyclopedia. Hesperian 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ah ok; I understand what you mean now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I find that to be a truly crappy rationale for leaving the project, and for opposing someone else's possible re-entry. We're a community of volunteers - anyone who comes here looking for a pat on the back is in for a rude awakening. However, not a day goes by when we don't work towards improving the encyclopedia-building environment, and rehabilitating trolls (where possible) is part of that. No one is forcing any admin to put an ounce of their time into rehabilitating Eddie. As a supporter of lifting this ban, I'll vouch my time to check each of his edits. If you want conditions imposed like a weekly (or random) CU, I'm sure there is someone empowered to do that who doesn't consider it a burden at all. The possible downside is that Eddie relapses and does something stupid, in which case he gets reblocked for life and someone hits the rollback button on whatever he did, end of story. The possible upside is that Eddie (given his obvious interest in the project) becomes a solid contributor and makes needed additions and improvements to thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles, for years to come. I'll roll the dice on that upside. bd2412 T 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't just RickK. Hundreds of good editors have left over this issue. We have too many bleeding hearts who can't bear to stand by and watch the pitiful suffering of the poor troll who went and got himself banned; but couldn't care less about the good faith editors who are sick of having their time and energe wasted by these people. The real downside here is this: if Eddie relapses, one of two things will happen: either (a) someone will wield the banhammer immediately, in which case the bleeding hearts will scream blue murder and overturn it; or (b) we'll all hold off wielding the banhammer for a while, in which case we all go through the same time-wasting crap all over again. Hesperian 14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hesperian is entitled to his view, as you are to yours, bd2412. I don't see any problem in commenting on a view regarding someone else's reasons for opposing someone's entry in this project. But, I don't believe that it's anyone's place to be negatively commenting on a productive user's reasons for leaving - you achieve zilch for the good of this project by calling someone's reasons for departing "crappy"; instead, you create more negative feelings, and invite potentially more negative responses, and criticisms. If a productive user has left, then that is a great loss for this project - we should think why he/she was leaving, and whether we could've reasonably done something to have prevented him/her from leaving. Perhaps rather than attacking someone's stated reasons for leaving this project, you could consider being more focused and pro-active: why have you not made a proposal to ArbCom or the community that you're ready to mentor him (or something to that effect to help allow him to re-enter)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well I did volunteer in my statement above to vouch my time to check each of his edits, and I stick by that. I don't know if you'd call that mentoring so much as policing, but if he vandalizes, I'll permablock him, and if he gets into, for example, a heated discussion, I'll counsel him to keep his cool. I don't think anyone will hesitate to block him if he relapses into real vandalism, and if we establish now that any relapse means the ban is restored, and forever, I think a substantial majority of the community will support that condition and that will be the rule. I'm as sick of vandalism as anyone here - I've made numerous proposals to throttle back vandalism , , , including even suing vandals, all of which have been shot down in the name of the principle of maintaining an open source encyclopedia. However, it is impossible for me to work on this project without seeing it for what it is - an eight year old child that is already the largest storehouse of readily accessible information ever assembled in human history, and one that is constantly absorbing more information and improving along many dimensions. So maybe I was overly harsh for saying RickK's reason for leaving was "crappy", but I think it was thin-skinned, in light of the real progress that we are making as time goes by. bd2412 T 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Eccentrics don't help the project, so they should not be welcome here. Friday (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was asked to refactor to avoid offending the eccentrics. And to be more accurate, I imagine there are any number of eccentrics who do useful things here. What I was thinking but failed to say is that eccentricity by itself is an unhelpful attribute for a contributor here. Eddie's past behavior certainly fell into the extremely unhelpful category. That said, it probably wouldn't be very harmful to give him another shot. The big challenge will be reigning in the cadre of self-appointed therapists. Don't let them interfere if he needs to be blocked again, and the risk is minimal. Let them interfere, and this has the potential to waste lots and lots of community time. Friday (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS - do not waste time with mentoring- has this approach been known to be useful? I can't recall a case where it was. But, I've often seen it be harmful. It frequently leads to the mentor becoming too involved, and thus subverting attempts to deal with the their protege's disruption. We can't really do anything about it if someone appoints themselves a "mentor", but we can choose not to mention anything like that in the unblock agreement (if such a thing happens.) Leave Eddie alone to either sink or swim. It's not a good use of anyone's time to babysit. Friday (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sarah's information. It is uncommon for editors to come back and be productive if they are unblocked after sockpuppetry on this scale. A good-natured editor who is a chronic and incurable sockpuppeteer is not an asset to the project and will just waste our time again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking - and I was one of the admins who had frequent run-ins with Eddie and his socks; nonetheless, it's been years and people do grow up. I say give him a chance, and keep a close eye on him. He must know that if he gets one more chance, that really means one more chance. bd2412 T 04:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per EdJohnston. In fairness, I will reconsider my vote pending his response though - what has he been doing in the last 6-12 months? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I've read his response; confirming my view as it stands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Had to do a lot of link-finding myself when coming to my view; but now some of them have been posted below - thank you Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - adding a comment here to add links to fill out some of the background here. Please read here for the comments by TML, JzG (Guy), and Ncmvocalist, and the arbitrator discussion. Guy's comment in particular has relevant links. For the initial request from 3rd February, see here. For the statement by Dylan620, see here. Finally, though he hasn't mentioned it yet, it is worth reading EddieSegoura's response to Guy here (if link breaks, permalink is here). I think that is everything I'm aware of. The comments and history detailed so far in this discussion should also be taken into account. I'd like to thanks Hersfold for leaving various notifications. If anyone else needs to be notified, please do so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've supported this from the very beginning, back in mid-February, on the grounds of WP:AGF. Compare this to User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. We let him back a couple months ago, and he had HUNDREDS, possible even THOUSANDS of socks. Up against that, Eddie had a lot less. I think that VirtualSteve's suggested probation is a good idea. I also stand by the unblock terms that I suggested back in February (Carcharoth links to them in his post just above). --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? I think you're confused, Dylan, because that's exactly what Eddie did - he created hundreds and thousands of sockpuppets. Originally he did it to try to force us to contain material on a railway word he made up "Exicornt" and then he did it to attack and harass users he decided had wrong him, and then simply to avoid the ban and to play games (ie the impersonation of the Power Rangers actors last year). He's never actually honored the ban and not edited and he took his mass disruption to other WMF projects which were forced to shut down editing from AOL IPs simply because of Eddie. I'm not sure where you get the idea that this wasn't massive socking but it was. As I said in my post above, we're talking about hundreds, likely thousands of accounts. And I honestly don't believe it's stopped even now. Previously when Eddie has appealed, he's been concurrently socking and he is such a creature of habit that I don't believe this would be any different and his careful language below doesn't reassure me at all (ie he "addresses" his three years of socking by saying he wont need to sock in future if his account is unblocked). Last year a checkuser identified a "probable" sock tied to Eddie's sock User:New York Dreams. I never blocked the account and it's still editing today. I call on Eddie to be honest and own up to all socks he currently has. Frankly, if he doesn't start being honest about what he's been doing on this site in recent months I will be forced to strongly oppose this request myself and I really would rather not have to do so. Sarah 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sarah, you say "Previously when Eddie has appealed, he's been concurrently socking" - I am aware of at least one past appeal where alleged socking was involved, see here (from September 2007), and another appeal here (November 2007). Are you aware of other appeals? You said earlier that you feel strongly that the community should be given the full facts. I agree, especially that Eddie should make a clear statement as to when he last engaged in socking, and should "give up" at least his recent and (if any) unblocked socks, pending confirmation they really are his socks (listing all his past socks might not be possible). A few more questions: you said "Last year a checkuser identified a "probable" sock" - could you give more details there? And, earlier, you mention OTRS stuff - could you give dates for some of this? It is difficult to sort out the timelines and details here. I agree that this does need doing, but a full account (in order to make a fully informed decision) will probably only be possible if you, Eddie and others take the time to provide that. I'd be happy to co-ordinate documenting such an account, but the question then becomes how much time to spend doing that before allowing an appeal such as this one (which is now in progress). One thing I would suggest, depending on when the last appeal was actually heard (and not just ignored) is that future appeals (if this one is not successful) be strictly limited, with the limit reset after each premature appeal. But equally, if this is to be the last appeal for some time (months if not years), it needs to be done properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, sorry for the delay answering your questions...I was hoping Eddie would start being open and honest so I wouldn't need to say anything else but it seems that is not going to happen. To answer your questions in order - When I referred to Eddie's prior appeals, I was not referring to appeals to the community but rather his prior appeals to the Arbitration Committee and to individual Arbitrators. He blind carbon copied me on some emails sent to the arbitration committee and sent me some correspondence from then-arbitrators he had contacted. At the time he was appealing to the arbitration committee (such as the appeal he sent 25 Feb 2008 to the Arb Com mailing list, Newyorkbrad, Sam and Uninvited Company), pledging he would not continue socking because "there was no point", he was still socking.

I don't really want to give Eddie the exact details about the Checkuser, so I would prefer to answer your question about that via email. As I said below, the Checkuser who checked the NY Dreams account for me told me that it was unlikely it was Eddie and if it was he had learned to cover his tracks very well and so I don't really want to give him the specifics of the results of that Checkuser. I was hoping that Ed would voluntarily reveal information about his accounts himself but it seems apparent from his responses to me that he is intent on continuing to play games with the community.

Do you have access to OTRS? If so, you can check ticket:2008022010006563 in the info-en queue. If not, well basically, I username blocked User:Jason Smith and User:Austin St. John and instructed these users regarding how they could appeal the block and confirm their identities if they wanted to edit under their "real" names. "Jason Smith" then contacted me at OTRS wishing to confirm his identity and have the account unblocked. He asked me to call him on the phone so he could talk to me prove his identity. Not sure how Eddy intended convincing me that he, a New Yorker man, was actually a young Australian guy from my own home town but at any rate I declined the phone call offer for obvious reasons. There's only a couple of emails in the ticket as "Jason" subsequently emailed me through my WP account and the conversation continued there until I eventually confronted Ed with my suspicion that he was behind these accounts. User:Austin St. John also emailed me through my WP account and attempted to convince me that he was in fact Austin St. John. A Checkuser later connected both accounts to some of Eddie's other socks. This happened last February/March. As you can see from the edits these accounts made, they were disruptive accounts - Austin St John was trying to userfy the article on Austin St John and have the article deleted from the mainspace as "requested by subject" and User:Jason Smith was running around everywhere telling everyone he was Jason Smith, actor, so his "fans" could find him, listing himself at Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles and so forth . Not good faith accounts and he was doing this at the same time he was operating his 'good hand' account New York Dreams and another disruptive account, User:Grounded into a double play. Grounded into a double play was confirmed by a Checkuser (Alison) as an Eddie sockpuppet on 20 February 2008. Five days later he was appealing to the Arbitration Committee swearing he was a different person and was done with socking.

I really don't want to be one of the people trying to stand in the way of his return but there is no way I can support this appeal unless Eddie quits playing games and starts being honest with the community and I just don't see it in his responses below. Sarah 09:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I never blocked the account and it's still editing today. — You're too modest. According to the block log you blocked NewYorkDreams on 2008-02-20, 1 year 2 months ago, and the account has (of course) not edited since. Uncle G (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course I blocked New York Dreams. I never said I didn't block New York Dreams. Please don't confuse things more than they already are. If you read the sentence you're quoting in its actual context, you'll see that what I said was, there was another account which a checkuser identified as a "probable" sock of Eddie's sock New York Dreams. However, since I wrote that post I've reread the emails again and what the CU actually said was this other account was a probable sock of another of Eddie's socks, EddieSegoure (talk · contribs), not NY Dreams (sorry for confusing the two socks). EddieSegoure was a sock he used to post appeal notes to User:EddieSegoura and User:EddieSegoure and to detag his Voltron (talk · contribs) sock after it was blocked. I was told by the checkuser I was discussing User:New York Dreams with that this other account (NOT New York Dreams but another account entirely) was a "probable" sock of Eddie's other sock User:EddieSegoure. As I said above, this other account was not blocked and (having just checked its contribs again a minute ago) last edited a few hours before I posted that comment. Sarah 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not introducing any confusion. Your "the account" has two possible antecedents in the sentence preceding it, notice. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - we spent hours trying to help eddie make constructive contributions and even with that mentoring he fell through the cracks. Apparently he then made an army of socks to waste yet more volunteer time. Such time sinks are a huge negative to the goals of the project. It's this type of user that drives away otherwise productive people who just get frustrated with the baby sitting. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Cautious support, if we can find a mentor; I was going to bring this here myself, in fact, but RL intervened. Here's why: Eddie wanted to promote a Great New Thing he invented, and reacted in an immature way when he was stopped. His expressions of regret sound sincere to me, and there is no chance whatsoever that he would escape an instant reblock if he even thought "exicornt" while logged in - the risk to the project seems to be fairly low, the contrition looks genuine, and he seems to have put his hands up to it all and thrown himself on the mercy of the court. Some banned users cry crocodile tears and you know damned well that if you let them back they will just cause hell. I don't think that is the case with Eddie, because of the polite and humble way he has asked for readmission. And I don;t for a minute believe that the recent exicornt nonsense was him, I am sure that was a joe job by one of our recurring trolls. So, if we can find a mentor, why not give him a second chance? Luke 15:7 "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." I honestly think this is a repentant former vandal not a troll. So that's my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments. I can confirm at least that Eddie is basically telling the truth about his emails with me; he asked for forgiveness and I accepted. This was in early 2008. In truth, I never felt particularly harassed to begin with, though Eddie certainly did vandalize my user pages with sock after sock for a while there. I suppose since I forgave him I should support his unbanning as well, and I kind of sort of do, but I do want to mention that Eddie has more issues than just the tiresome "Exicornt" thing. If previous patterns hold, any user who agrees to monitor all his contributions will quickly find that perhaps one in 10 actually improve the encyclopedia in any way. Has he changed? I dunno. But the fact that he's still capitalizing most of his pronouns speaks volumes. If you want to see what a "good behavior" EddieSegoura sock is like, check out the history of User:Mostly Rainy. It's not all bad, but it's not a net gain to the encyclopedia either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that the issue, though? I think the point is that he's willing to try to be a good contributor, not an assurance that he will succeed in making good edits (as opposed to "good faith" edits). bd2412 T 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Question I'm happy to accept that, once unbanned, there will be no need for socking. So... what are your plans? What about Exicornt? Is it all in the past now? Apologies if this has been addressed somewere and I have missed that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Question/Comment. From the discussion above, there seems to be some concern regarding the extent of his sockpuppetry. Can someone clarify when his most recent sockpuppet was active - more specifically, was it within the past 12 months? TML (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking temporal extent, rather than number of sockpuppet accounts, aren't you? There's no question that there is a large number of sockpuppet accounts. I was one of the several administrators who blocked them at Wiktionary. I'm also one of the administrators that range-blocked AOL there because of this vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's right. My point is, if his most recent sockpuppetry was more than 12 months ago, then I would probably support unblocking; if it was within the last 12 months, then I would probably wait until at least 12 months have passed. TML (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking Perhaps I am sympathetic to the notion of second chances, but in my "day job" I provide counseling for individuals who have been released from prison and who are trying to navigate their way back into society. These people need a hand -- and not across the face. Eddie is not a felon, of course, so why should he be treated like one? He has acknowledged his error, so let us move beyond that troubled period into a better day. There will be many eyes watching him, so it is unlikely that any lapse will create chaos. If Eddie is asking to return to the community, he should be welcomed. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Additional comment - I'm away this weekend, so I'm posting an additional comment here to give some of the background to EddieSegoura's latest statement below (where he says he received an e-mail from me). The e-mail I sent to him was in response to one that he sent me, asking about Sarah's comments above. I replied with a combination of standard and specific advice, copying the reply to the arbitration committe mailing list and advising him to send future replies there, rather than direct to me. EddieSegoura's next e-mail was sent to the arbitration committee mailing list and is awaiting a reply (my view is that he should be talking here where the discussion is taking place, and not asking the arbs questions about what to do, and in fairness he is now doing that with his statement below). The main points of the advice I gave were as follows:

  "You need to be open and honest about what accounts you have had and still have. You need to edit from one account only and not create any more accounts you have to help tidy up and draw a line under your past behaviour before you and everyone else can move on."

  There was more, but those are the key points I think underlie every unban request where sockpuppetry has been an issue. The other key point of an unban request is stating what the person asking to be unbanned intends to work on - though I believe he has answered that elsewhere. I hope this provides enough background to the references to e-mails. If anyone has questions about this before I get back, please ask one of the other arbs, as they can see the full e-mail thread. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking and watching closely - He is capable of good editing. I gave User:Voltron a barnstar after reviewing their contributions. Silly me. Nothing stops this user from editing via sock accounts. The fact that they wish to edit through their main account where we can keep track of them is a positive development. We should give it a test. The worst that happens is we have to reblock them. Jehochman 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm currently strongly opposed to this request as it stands. I would like to see Ed given another a chance, but I think honesty is an important part of reconciliation and rehabilitation and I don't see Eddie being honest or open here. I'm not asking him to identify all his socks - there have been so many over the years that I'm sure even he doesn't know them all anymore - and I'm not asking for honesty so we can all stand around and berate him for his misdeeds on this project. However, I do expect him to come to the table with honesty and openness, to put his cards on the table and identify the unblocked socks he currently has access to. Also, I find it rather hard to believe that he is now ready and willing to follow our policies and guidelines if he is still violating policy by running socks. Unless Eddie answers my questions honestly and is open about his current activities on Misplaced Pages and identifies the current unblocked socks he has access to, I will remain strongly opposed to this request. Additionally, if he is to be unblocked, I think he needs to find an experienced mentor to assist him stay on the straight and narrow. Sarah 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hesperian. If Eddie wanted back to just be himself, he truly could have made a new account and evaded the ban. I would have been against that, of course. It is my opinion that 98% of the time that overturning a ban is a vindication to the banned editor, and such disruption will resume. This is evident in Eddie's socking, and in this unblock request. To be clear: this is my opinion. Keegan 08:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: From personal experience, he is not a net benefit to the project and has rarely if ever contributed positively since his initial ban. As it has been mentioned, there have been multiple users who have left the project. I can even remember an administrator who gave up his administrative tools and retired due to the "onslaught" of Eddie's editing. Good edits on sockpuppet accounts while banned by the community don't really show much of anything except disregard for the community's wishes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Action from NYC Wikimeetup

These photos were from a Sunday meeting between Misplaced Pages editors at Barnard College in Manhattan on March 22, 2015. It was supported by Wikimedia New York City and fellow Free Culture Alliance NYC partners. @DGG:

Old stuff from 2005-2009

Buenas suerte

Take care, Eddie. I hope you decide to come back. —Viriditas | Talk 13:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not abandoning WP altogether, I'll still come back from time to time. :) Eddie, Monday April 17 2006 at 02:09

That's good to hear. Take care and be safe. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think an unblocking is appropriate at this time. At minimum, this block will stand for at least 24 hours while we sort things out. --HappyCamper 04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let it be that way, but I want you to know that it was User:Bunchofgrapes that started all this by nominated exicornt to be deleted. Now he blocks me because in his opinion, mentioning the word in wikipedia is a crime. Eddie 04:48, 25 May, 2006 (UTC)

The User That Blocked Me

The Bunchofgrapes|user that blocked me has caused me a lot of suffering on this site. We had a fight over a word that he nominated for deletion months ago. He hates the word so much that he suggested that any mention or inclusion of this word be consider vandalism.

I posted an {{unblock}}

In any case I will wait 24 hours and see if my request gets fulfilled.

Any user with sysop right can email me and we can talk outside of WP.

I'm letting the block stand for now - I'm writing a response to this, so it will take a bit of time for that. I have this page on my watchlist. I can't guarantee that I can respond immediately, but I will visit it periodically. --HappyCamper 05:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As the first user who originally confronted Eddie, and asked him many times to stop what he was doing, I support this block. Eddie has had many chances to reform, and instead has deliberately chosen to disrupt Misplaced Pages instead of becoming a valuable contributor to rail-related articles. I'm sorry Eddie, I wish things had turned out differently, but these choices belong to you and you alone, and you have chosen to be a vandal instead of a Wikipedian. I hope in the future you will decide to truly change your ways. Until that time, take care. —Viriditas | Talk 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A response

This is in response to this followup post. I'm assuming the IP address is yours. Yes, I can see that Bunchofgrapes was the nominator for that article, and was also involved with your recent indefinite block. Perhaps from your perspective, that particular pair of actions appears to be "unfair" or "unethical". I don't know how to change this perspective to alleviate the problem, other than to lift the original block, and replace it with an identical one of my own. At the moment, this seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. Now, there is some discussion about it here and here (near the bottom), so ultimately, the block will be subordinate to the opinion expressed there.

At minimum, I'm sure you recognize that some of your actions on Misplaced Pages of late have been less than productive - there is CheckUser evidence to substantiate this, for example, see 1 and 2. I would characterize this sort of behaviour as somewhat chronic (considering the AfD was months ago), and unfortunately, your recent use of Misplaced Pages's resources inclines on the side which does not support the case for you to be unblocked readily.

At the moment, what I can do for you is the following: I will keep this page on my watchlist for a little bit, so if you wish to respond to this, you are more than welcome to. I can't guarantee that I will respond immediately since I have other priorities to attend to, but I will visit this page periodically, at least for the next little bit. Based on my experience here, if you want to contribute more to this project, one option is to start over from another account, and preferably one that would distance itself from the terminology you wanted to introduce to Misplaced Pages. Up to this point, it simply has not been substantiated to an encyclopedic level which satisfies the community at large. Perhaps you have a differing opinion on the matter, and perhaps the system may be blind towards your wisdom. However, the negative associations with that word have been exacerbated now, and I imagine it to be rather difficult to overturn that sentiment at large.

If you do choose to make another account, it would be quite possible for other administrators to detect this, and based on current policy, I imagine there would be an inclination to block any additional accounts you might make. Should and when that happen, we'll talk more about it then. In the meantime, it would probably be a healthy thing to refrain from editing a little bit. Some of your actions today have upset a number of things, and it is in your interest to wait a little bit longer so that more people would be willing to listen and attend to your concerns. We'll see how things unfold. I hope this helps. --HappyCamper 05:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of resolution you wish to achieve - do you simply want to continue editing from your old account? As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be a problem. However, especially after today, I don't think the community is quite as open to trusting you just yet. My suggestion is to wait at least a little bit before requesting an unblocking. --HappyCamper 07:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this block is that it originally came from a user that was fighting with me over the "exicornt" term. He hates the word, anytime i mention it, he calls me a "vandal". Im not here to mess up wikipedia pages.

Yes, I would like to be able to edit using this username. While I don't edit often, I doubt trying to post a word that's hated by another user merits being blocked indefinately by that very same user. However, I will wait a few days before I tag here with an {{unblock}} request. -- Eddie (email) 07:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't request an unblock, Eddie. It just clutters up the backlog. Your case has been agreed on by at least five admins at last count (see WP:ANI), and the CheckUser evidence is hard to disprove. You will not be unblocked, at least not in the near future. Perhaps you might like to try in a month, but not in a few days. Also, please stop editing from IPs, otherwise your unblock request in the future may be compromised by accusations of block evasion. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:43 UTC (2006-05-26)

Response to your Email:

Eddie: No. Stop being silly. I haven't made the decision to block you alone by any means, as you know. This isn't about rivalry, or a content dispute, and if you genuinely don't understand that, I'm sorry. Finally, threatening continuing vandalization if we don't unblock you is not a negotiation tactic that has ever gotten anyone unblocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HenryBigg.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HenryBigg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chillum 05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

This talk page is now unprotected to allow you to appeal your ban. You probably know how to use templates, the one you want is {{unblock}}. Any rationale should directly address the reasons for your banning, which were: vandalism, sockpuppetry and harassment. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I also would like to thank TML for His effort in trying to resolve this issue in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. I finally feel like I am getting somewhere after nearly three years of frustration.

Though I'm not quite ready to use the {{unblock}} template, I will address the three reasons You mentioned above:

1. Vandalism: While it's true I exausted everyone's patience back in 2006 for trying to recreate an articdle about a word I coined, I soon gave up trying to repost it. As for the recent incidents, that was not Me (I cannot prove it, but I can tell You I don't edit wikiquote or wikinews, and the deleted content contained a lot of vulgar language, and simply don't talk that way)
2. Sockpuppetry: The excessive number of accounts I had were created out of frustration and a few of them were attempts to return as a constructive user. See Voltron's edit history. I wasn't trying to come back and do all the stuff I did back in 2006. I've tried a few times to contact arbcom by email but no one responded and I felt that trying to email arbcom was getting no results.
3. Harassment: After a few months, I've emailed and apologized to the user who I argued with. He's accepted the apology and I have not contacted or interacted with Him ever since. Incidently, He was the user that started the AFD discussion. He also originally blocked Me during the ANI discussion after Essjay made His claim before I had a chance to reply. After I argued, I was unblocked and then immediately reblocked by user HappyCamper.

I am open to Email, but I would love to have this resolved on site (either on this page or ANI). The reason is that I want this to be discussed in a way so that I can come back under limited conditions that everybody agrees on. I know I still have some opponents who would never trust Me ever a bit and would not want to see Me return, but I don't think a permanent injunction from editing makes sense because I tried to recreate a rejected article numerous times. After all, what usually happens to such a page? It is blacklisted. The article title "Exicornt" is blacklisted (i.e. protected indefinitely from creation) and only an admin can create an article with that name. Therefore -- issues aside -- I can assure You that I won't return as the person I was in 2006. I hope everyone understands that. Eddie, Monday April 20 2009 at 00:07 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Request for clarification: EddieSegoura ban appeal attempts Discussion on WP:RFAR
2. Creation of the AFD discussion
3. Essjay's claim that I and the throwaway accounts logged in from the same static IP Address, as opposed to AOL
4. Exicornt's page creation protection The page can only be create by a sysop user.

Ban appeal

Hello, EddieSegoura. This is to notify you that your request for a ban appeal has been deferred to the Misplaced Pages Community and is now (or will shortly be) posted at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal. To permit you to respond to comments and questions posted in that discussion, the section below has been transcluded onto that page. Any comment you make in the section below, above the <noinclude> tag, will appear on AN for other users to see. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them below or email me at hersfoldwikigmail.com.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

</noinclude>

Comments from EddieSegoura

This section is transcluded from EddieSegoura's talk page to permit him to comment in this discussion. Please make comments or questions directed to EddieSegoura in the section above. Thank you. Hersfold 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank those who supported my appeal. I didn't expect many to support giving Me the clean slate I've been trying to attain. Of course, I understand Sarah's concerns. And yes, I see that I have some opposition to My return (users Friday and EdJohnston). The stuff back in 2006 I did was out of frustration. Being blocked indef in itself was hard enough, but I couldn't take the fact that it was the very same user who nominated my article for deletion. Everything I did after that was out of frustration. But a couple of months after the block, I finally let it go. I felt that if the word has become so infamous and rejected their is no reason to further waist My time. That was then. I doubt that I would make any further attempts to repost anything related to the article that led to me being in this position.

That being said, I cannot go back in time and change history. All I can say is that I truly regret it. I want to come back a different person.

As for my run-ins with bunchofgrapes, I decided to email an apology to him and he accepted it (I don't know if I still have his response, but we haven't had any contacted ever since and He hasn't edited actively). So if I'm banned for harassment, then the issue itself is resolved in respect to that person.

Those issues aside, If I am allowed to come back, their would be no reason to edit with another account beside this one. That addresses the socking issue. I hope we can reach a conclusion that every agrees with. EddieSegoura 05:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have received emails from Carcharoth (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs). I would like to suggest the following in regards to Sarah's comments above:

• The user that performed the check on EddieSegoure (talk · contribs) do a WHOIS on the IP the account edited on, it might beling to public computer (such as a library or internet cafe) Also I need a time frame as to whether or not the "other account" logged in immediately after EddieSegoure. If there is a substantial amount of time between the edits then I probably have nothing to do with the other editor and the only connection is the IP itself. Eddie, Friday April 24 2009 at 22:53 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, or you could simply quit playing games, put your cards on the table and be honest. I am sure that you are right and the IP of your socks resolves to a public computer - you told me you didn't want to use New York Dreams to edit from your home computer and the checkuser who originally checked the NYD account told me that if it was you, you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. So I'm quite sure you've been very carefully segregating your accounts. I don't want to oppose your return to Misplaced Pages and I would actually like to see you given another chance but I'm going to have to oppose this request unless you put your cards on the table and identify the accounts you've been using so they can be blocked (after all, you won't need them anymore, right?). You told me that you couldn't help yourself when it came to Misplaced Pages, that you were addicted to the site and couldn't stop editing, so I don't believe for a second that you haven't been editing over the last year and don't have any socks at present and I'm extremely disappointed that you are trying to side-step being honest with the community. Surely after being banned for all this time and finally having a realistic opportunity to be allowed to return legitimately, it is worth being honest and transparent? Please answer these questions: have you been editing over the last 6 months? What unblocked accounts do you have access to? Thanks. Sarah 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to (I'd rather do it offsite) but we need to draw a line between the one that actually belong to Me and the one You think belong to Me. Looking at the list of accounts that were tagged there are a couple that I know don't belong to Me. Some don't even have edits. Frankly, I kinda wonder how You managed to find out about My NYD account. I would prefer we discussed by Email, because I need to know who and why You're targeting some editor and why You suspect Me of being that person. Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 10:48 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I can explain it. I can tell you that I did user the IP user:38.109.64.162 to post My appeal. A WHOIS clearly states is a Library IP. Now if some other editor happens to edit from that IP in the future, You'd natually assume all future activity would belong to Me, right? That's why I need to know EddieSegoure's last IP so I can determine if it's public or not. Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 20:18 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any benefit in you answering my questions off-site. These are reasonable questions which the community deserves honest answers to. It should be straightforward to answer those two questions - either you have been editing over the last six months or you haven't, either you have currently active socks or you don't. I think the community deserves an honest and straightforward answer here on this page or your request should be declined. I found the NYD account by recognising your writing style - simple as that. Sarah 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To Keegan: I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user (Voltron, NewYorkDreams, etc.). Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal. It's clear most of the oppose users are people that have known Me in the past. It's clear to Me can't change their minds but I wish they'd stop looking at Me as a gangster that who likes to drive people crazy and start looking at Me like a human being. I'll be happy to discuss any recent activity but You can't assume everything You suspect is true. If You'd ask, "Eddie does Account X belong to You" and I say "No", You'd prolly insist I'm lying and that I really own it anyway. Therefore we need to draw a line between what I actually did and what You believe I did. This is especially important because if I am unblocked and during the probation period You suspect that another account is Mine, You'll assume it actually is and I'll be back here singing the blues. I'm happy that I finally have an opportunity to try and convince the community — as a whole — that I'm not the person I used to be. I can't let it slip up because of some suspicion that I can't clear up. I know I'll have a short leash for the first few months but I want to make it clear that I am trying to come back so I can drive people crazy. I'm trying to come back so I can have something productive to do with My time. Yes, I've had a shaky past, but it doesn't mean I can't change right now.Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 11:13 AM

I appreciate you taking your time to read my comments and reply to them.

Your activities have not been destructive, but they have been disruptive. For years. Your alternate accounts have not been hunted down as you imply on this page (particularly your response to Sarah), but I am a firm believer that a tiger can't change its stripes. I am not making a personal judgment upon you; I am a very understanding person. It is from this understanding that I do not believe that you can uphold your part of the bargain. Your socks were found because of evident patterns in your editing.

Let me see how diplomatically I can put this:

A community ban, while insulting in nature of its title, is not reflection of you as a person. It means that you (personally, as oppossed to a block) don't belong here. We don't get along with you, you don't get along with us. You still don't now. I can't see why you'd want to return to the site considering the nature of comments like my own. If you want to build an encyclopedia, you can/could have through actually changing your behavior. If you had done so, your socks would not have been found. Persistence in trying to overturn a community ban after have continued disruptive behavior will never be favorable to an unban.

If you had chosen to just make a new account and leave this be, it is a violation of the ban policy but I wouldn't care on a personal level, and would turn the other cheek. Your two years of socking and this and that is way too much drama, and it is drama of your own making.

You can respond to this, of course, but I think I've laid it all on the line regarding my opinion and it's not going to change. I do wish the best, Keegan 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to Your own opinion. Still, knowning their haven't been any incidents since February 2008 I feel I should get that second chance. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 10:59 AM

The fact that their are people who support My return means that not everyone agree that I should never come back, there were few people I didn't get along with but most of the time there wasn't a problem. In fact, some are not around today. The few that do know Me have commented, and not all of them oppose. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 11:40 AM

"I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user...Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal." - So in other words, the problem isn't with you or your behaviour and actions but rather with the editors who identified and reported your sockpuppets and the administrators who blocked them? Sarah 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the way it was handled in the first place. I can not deny My past action was wrong and yes I understand spamming and harassment are serious. But Going back to the 2006 discussion, I feel I was blocked prematurely. I never had a chance to state My case. I was blocked only minutes after the discussion was started. What about Voltron? Were their any annoying incedents when I used that account? The blocking user (I don't want to even mention His name, because He Himself has history of questionable actions) had to admit in an ANI discussion that the account wasn't disruptive. After that I wrote to You and after You told Me You could not help Me further I created NYD. I don't know how who told You I had that name, but trying to convince You that I don't have hundreds unblocked unused accounts won't be easy.

Re, I am writing about the discussion back in 2006, the original discussion makes no initial proposal for banning, just a block. Since the policy clearely distinguishes the two, I felt the original block (and protecting of my talk page) was too extreme. The protection especially hurt because I had no way to resolve it without making more accounts. Like I said above, emails to the arbcom were not answered and I felt I was being ignored. I feel appalled that people like You could entertain thoughts of Me making plans to go back to My old self and (secretly) make hundreds of accounts. I still don't know who exactly You're trying to hang My face on and why You believe these belong to Me. I am going to contact ArbCom and have them decide whether or not it this should be handled on WP:RFAR or not. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 23:43 PM

PS I got Your emails and I will respond shortly. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 10:59 AM

The account didn't need to be disruptive, however. You were editing while under a community ban and thus under the block and ban policies the account could be blocked. Whether the blocking administrator has had problems in other areas is not really relevant and I don't think it serves your case to engage in ad hominem arguments. No one told me you were using the NYD account. I simply noticed the account on my watchlist, felt something was "not right" about it, looked at their contributions and recognised your writing style. Same goes with the Power Ranger accounts. Sarah 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Also, you cite Voltron and NewYork Dreams as examples of attempts to return to Misplaced Pages as a user in good standing, however while using both these accounts you were concurrently socking with disruptive accounts (eg User:Grounded into a double play and the Power Ranger accounts). Can you please address this and explain why Voltron and NYD should be considered examples of good faith attempts to become a user in good standing when it appears you were simply segregating your edits and causing disruption with other accounts. Thanks. Sarah 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, You win for NYD editing simultaniously with other accounts (when GIDP was blocked it was involved in a dispute as to whether or not a certain article should be posted) but how do You explain Voltron (I know You're going to tell Me about the account that tried to appeal on My behalf but then again why wasn't user TML — who initiated the request on WP:RFAR — suspected as an account of mine while that other one was?) Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 11:33 AM

I think I can answer part of this question for you: the other account that tried to appeal on your behalf had no other edits aside from the appeal. I, on the other hand, have a sizable amount of edits, and my edits do not resemble your editing style in a way that would closely link my account to yours. (BTW, I stated on the original inquiry that "I have no relation to this user" - and I reaffirm that statement, as I have nothing to hide regarding this issue.) TML (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to close the discussion on WP:AN. Just because it ended up at the top of the page and the vote tally is about 50/50 (and I am including the ones before Sarahs comments) that doesn't mean it should be closed. I call on the ArbCom to make a decision as to whether I should have them deal with this by email or if this discussion should continue on WP:AN.

I also noticed that VirtualSteve is retracting his support and there are still people who are entertaining thoughts that I plans to create and use more account do what got Me into this to begin with. That being said, and given the fact that the ArbCom is privyy to checking IPs I am making a request to check the following:

• User:EddieSegoure's last IP (Sarah said it was checked so it should be in the log) for any recent activity. This IP belongs to a wifi hotspot.
• User:Malmindser's last IP if it was checked. This user was the first to appeal on My behalf and it was tagged as belonging to Me but I deny this given the language used.
• User:24.185.34.186's recent activity. The last IP of User:Grounded into a double play. This was blocked by Alison for 6 months and has expired in August 2008
• User:24.185.47.131's recent activity. The last IP of User:The Blue Lion. The talk page was protected but recently unprotected.
• User:38.109.64.162's recent activity. As I stated above this is a library IP (has three more anon edits after My posting).

The following accounts were recently created by Me:

• User:PrimaDoll- Unused.
• User:PuzzleSolver - Made a few edits, but after the block of NYD I felt it was much safer to edit anon since their is no point in making further accounts only to have them blocked. I obviously am going to have to check edit histories and articles but if You feel any edits from these IPs raise any red flags, feel free to ask any questions. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 23:43 PM

as we approach a meetup in NY on Sunday, I will be attending.

Ethics of sharing an account

I wonder if we have any policies - and if not, should we have them - on ethics of multiple users sharing one account? It was recently brought to my attention that such accounts - often with activity patterns showing near constant edits for 20 or even 24+ hours - exist. I was asked if they are "all right", and I couldn't easily answer. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOSHARE. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are decidedly not alright. Care to point them out? —Travis 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you point out those accounts? We have to ask the account owner whether the account is shared or not. WP policy doesn't allow multiple users to share one account. AdjustShift (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user who asked me the question of this thread, I don't have any specific evidence myself. Hopefully the interested editor(s) will post here with more info. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, is it an issue with the licensing that makes the rule that way, or just a core fundamental of Misplaced Pages (trust, accountability)? - Jarry1250 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a licensing issue, although at the moment I cannot put my finger on the exact part of the GFDL that deals with it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's both. The licensing issue is a big one, because the GFDL (section 4i) specifically requires a list of authors, not a list of contributing usernames; if we allow shared accounts, we might run afoul of this - or some litigious type might claim we had as a way of being litigious. At the same time, the most common excuse vandals give for why they replaced the contents of 53 pages with "WANKERS!" is "oh, that was my brother". The best way to deal with both problems is have a preexisting policy we can point to that prohibits account sharing. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes the GFDL a headache, but that aside we simply disallow role accounts or shared accounts. The relationship of accounts to physical humans driving them is supposed to be 1:1, not 2:1 or 20:1. rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One such user is Russavia (talk · contribs). We debated this thing some time ago with Tiptoety here, but it caused an angry reaction by the user. I am not quite sure how one can edit 24 hours non-stop and repeat this day after day ... Biophys (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, as you were told before (quoted below in its entirety), all of Russavia's edits are coming from a single machine. This does not preclude someone else using the same machine, and yes it's suspicious, but as one farfetched possibility (and this is not an attack on Russavia), it's possible that he uses drugs and thus is frequently awake for long periods of time. It's also possible that he (like me) suffers from serious bouts of insomnia, or has the freedom to edit for long periods of time and is slightly wiki-addicted and doesn't notice how long he's been at the computer. Or could be any number of other things.

Per your request, I have run a check. I see absolutely no evidence of multiple users. There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer. I can't absolutely rule out the idea that there are two people in the same building using the same machine, but it is a rather fanciful suggestion. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accusations are thoroughly without merit. Sam Korn (smoddy) 8:06 pm, 13 November 2008, Thursday (5 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)

The above is a Checkuser's comment on the issue. Biophys, I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you drop these accusations against Russavia. //roux   18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone with such editing patterns, including you. Other users noticed the same. I am not quite sure if Sam was talking about one computer or one IP address. Any way, I have no further comments unless specifically asked by someone. Sorry if my comment was out of line.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not quite sure? That's a bit disingenuous. Quote from above: There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer.

//roux   19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, would checkuser be able to detect multiple users using the one computer via a remote client? Martintg (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of a number of users who edit for periods that long. I have done it myself, both on Misplaced Pages and on Wikisource. Just yesterday I was wiki-ing for around 18 hours almost continually. If you dont believe me, I can find the logs to prove it. John Vandenberg 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But not 50 hours. If you look at a period between 16:09 April 8 and 22:09 April 10, there were only a few gaps around 1 hour: if I am not mistaken. That is what I am talking about (I apparently own more explanations after message by Russavia below). Thanks.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SO *'ING WHAT. You have been told to stop. NOW STOP WITH THIS HARRASSMENT. --Russavia 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. Editing started at 02:39 on the 9th, after a 10+ hour break. It then continued sporadically until 22:32 on the 9th, before a 13 hour break. A long day, but it looks like dedicated editing to me, by someone who (like many of us) spends a lot of time on the computer. There's no problem here. - Bilby (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the authorship issues remain the same whether the multiple people are editing via a single computer or each using their own computer. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sick and tired of the accusations

I am getting sick and bloody tired of the continued paranoid accusations (harrassment) of User:Biophys in relation to myself. I have posted this on his talk page, warning him that if this harrassment continues, I will take it further. The complete text of what I wrote is as follows:

I am getting sick and tired of your repeated accusations that I am sharing my account, like you have continued at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account. You have been told by numerous administrators that there is no truth to your accusations, and you continue and continue and continue with them. I have told you already that I owe you nor anyone else any explanation, and I am not going to give you one, and I frankly don't care what you or anyone else in the peanut gallery thinks. I demanded that a checkuser be done on myself in order to stop your paranoid accusations, and that has not made you stop...and by the way, checkuser requests on oneself are not granted very often when requested by an editor, so the fact that it was done in order to stop the harrassment speaks word. Consider yourself advised that I am taking this as continued harrassment by yourself, and if you so much as even insinuate that I am sharing my account in future, I will take it further. Consider yourself warned.

I have nothing more to say, but am posting this here so that it can be recorded that I am pissed off with this continual harrassment in relation to my account. Checkuser has been done (at my DEMAND!) and the paranoid accusations have been shown to be untrue. Enough is bloody enough!! --Russavia 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied here. Please follow WP:DR.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not follow dispute resolution when some paranoid editor can't get it thru his thick head that the continuation of unfounded allegations against myself is pissing me off and is a form of harrassment. Now go and complain about civility and other such crap, and you can even ask the peanut gallery to post here (Digwuren has already pointed Colchicum here), I don't care. So please, get it thru your skull, that if you or any other editor brings up my name for sharing my account, I will seek redress for this. --Russavia 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think RfC/U is better for you guys.--Caspian blue 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit beyond DR, Biophys. You persist in accusing Russavia of account sharing/socking after being told unequivocally that his edits were all coming from a single machine. And yet above you claimed that you couldn't tell what Sam Korn meant, despite the crystal-clear and unambiguous language. Is it possible that more than one person uses that single computer? Yes. Is it likely? Not really. Should you immediately cease and desist with these accusations, forever, and issue an apology to Russavia for the continued harassment? Absofuckinglutely. After e/c: RFC/U is unnecessary here, as the behaviour by Biophys is cut and dried and has been shot down in flames before.

Frankly, I strongly suggest that this whole portion of this thread be considered the absolute final warning to Biophys on the matter, and should he make any further unsubstantiated accusations along these lines he is to be blocked indefinitely. Note: given the previous checkuser results, everything he has said so far counts as 'unsubstantiated'. So no gaming. //roux   15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested them to take the matter to ArbCom because I've seen their tit-for-tat 3RR reports more than 10 times, but doing it to DR is purely their job if they don't want to ruin their reputation further. So I recommended the less-time-consuming way. Others may think differently.--Caspian blue 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean Offliner. I do not remember Russavia or me filing 3RR reports on each other more than ones. Any way, I have nothing against Russavia except him being a little bit disruptive and mobilizing other users (like Offliner) against me. Not a reason to start an arbitration case.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeat the accusations, like you have done here, and I will file whatever the hell it takes to have you stop with the paranoid nuttery in relation to me and my account. I hope that I have made myself very, very clear. So much as an insinuation is all it is going to take, because I have had an absolute gutful of the bullshit. As for the other, like the rest of your accusations, none of it is grounded in a shred of fact. --The account sharing Russian government employed internet propaganda master 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban of User:207.237.33.36‎

• 207.237.33.36‎ (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 207.237.33.117 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 207.237.61.168 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As suggested by Jeremy, here, I've taken the discussion of the ban of this user and his small /24 range of socks here. As stated in the ANI thread, my conflict with this user began on the RFC of Collect, then moved to the 3RR noticeboard, where the IP stalked my edits and contributions and reported me for reverting vandalism and OR. The IP was soon blocked for disruptive editing, which, in the block message, read as pointless confrontations with multiple users. It didn't say in the block message he was harassing me, but another admin agreed with me that the IP user was harassing me.

Not long after the IP was blocked, he or she came back as another user, the second listed IP in this report. The IP of course denied socking, and even tried to act differently than the master account posting crude images and insults. This IP was soon blocked for blatant block evasion. Finally, several hours later, the third IP came in and reverted my notification of involved users about the master account's behavior.

During the time between the emergence of the third IP and the blocking of the second IP, I was contacted on youtube with the message of:

Oh No! Did an anon IP user from Misplaced Pages track you down?

Why are your teeth so yellow? Is it to match your spine?

I of course took a screenshot of said message, and, if asked, I can provide a screen shot of said message. I responded to this message, telling the IP user it was a bad idea what he or she was doing. I got a message back saying that a year-long block on his IP address would be a minor setback and that they would continue to stalk and harass me. Since then, I have gotten several more message from the user on my youtube account, and I have since removed said messages and blocked the user from sending or posting more on my things.

Either way, the message is clear: They plan to continue to harass me on wikipedia. I'm not going to just stand by and let someone do this to me, so I'm asking you, since this IP, as stated in the SPI report, is on a very small range where very little damage would occur if the range was blocked, can we please ban this user from wikipedia, and block the IP indefintely. I've read WP:BLOCK. I realize that indef blocks on IPs are seldom, and only used in serious matters. Well, to me, this appears to be a serious matter, so please, get rid of this user.— Dædαlus 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a compelling enough reason to block an IP indefinitely. It certainly won't stop them from commenting on youtube videos or whatever. I think a year or 2 years is reasonable. Remember, that's just the technical block. If the user shows up after 1 year, we will just reblock without issue. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Remember, Protonk, bans apply to the person, not the handle, so this is a legitimate request, even if we cannot indef the IPs involved. -Jeremy 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • ...I just said that. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The user is now posting my full, real name on some blog. I'm going to report the IP to the ISP as suggested by Jeremy.— Dædαlus 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• What's the evidence for the person(s) on Youtube and elsewhere being the same person(s) as the IP here? Writegeist (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Do tell me how he found a blog if he didn't know my name.— Dædαlus 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I still don't understand how this off-wiki activity is necessarily a Misplaced Pages problem. I feel for you, Daedalus, having had one furious editor pop up on my off-wiki radar earlier this year. But unless there's clear evidence that it's this particular person (e.g., a blog post which shows the logged IP, server logs of a server you control, IRC logs that show the user's hostname), I don't think it's appropriate to go above and beyond issuing progressively longer blocks for disruptive behavior on that IP range, as Protonk seems to suggest. And I'm reasonably sure that without that sort of evidence, an ISP isn't going to pursue an abuse report, as ISPs get an absolute ton of abuse email every day (mostly DMCA-related, but that's another issue entirely). Of course, I'm not saying you should compromise your privacy by posting such evidence here- I think an Arbcom email is the right place for such a complaint, though someone more experienced with such matters would be the one to ask. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • For the record, I saw the edit made by 207.237.61.168 (talk · contribs) prior to it being oversighted. The question has nothing to do with whether or not the person behind the above IPs is the same person harassing Daedalus969 off-wiki. There is no doubt about it. The question is what response, if any, is required moving forward on-wiki. --auburnpilot talk 00:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, considering that, I still don't think there's much reason to enact a de jure community ban, and in fact per WP:DENY (especially considering the comments Daedalus is reporting) I would suggest we have reason to believe a simple rule of RBI would be in the best interests of both WP and Daedalus himself. I don't see an indef rangeblock as happening when indef blocks of individual IPs are already unusual, especially for IP addresses belonging to a major regional telecommunications network which very well could be reassigned in very short order. As to the harassment, Daedalus should be encouraged to correspond with RCN Corporation's abuse department and the WMF for the oversighted edits as evidence. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't think it is simple enough for RBI to work in this situation. When admins are blocking the stalker IPs, and these actions are questioned, what will happen when they redirect their questions to this discussion, where nothing apparently happened. We need to formally ban this user. This isn't some troll seeking attention(as in regards to WP:DENY), this is a stalker, one who claims to be a long-time editor. This user needs to be banned.— Dædαlus 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Nothing happened the we can do something about.I actually believe that this falls perfectly into. WP:DENY I agree that this user is stalking and trolling, even if he's blocked on Misplaced Pages he will still continue harassment offsite. RBI is your best method, eventually he will grow bored and stop. Don't feed the trolls.--Skater (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see your point Daedalus, but still disagree that a formal ban is the right solution. He can already be considered de facto banned for the block evasion anyway. All I see is encouragement to persist when it's already been shown this user is willing and able to evade regular blocks. Seriously, considering the messages, that he doesn't care about a year-long block, indicates that he's just doing this "for the lulz", so to speak. And, honestly, we don't need to strike while the iron is hot. There are lots of eyes on this case, and the /24 range is blocked for the next 2 weeks. If the troll doesn't die of starvation by then, this can be quickly and uncontroversially sped through. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So then what am I going to do if another sock appears? Who do I report it to? And I still think we need to ban this user, so as a reason for a long block.— Dædαlus 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If the IP starts blowing personal info around, oversight is your answer. As to blocking new IPs that show up outside the rangeblock, I believe what most other ppl do is report directly to one or two admins that were involved in the original investigations. In any case, a ban will do nothing extra on top of this. When a new IP shows up outside the rangeblock, it'll either be a WP:DUCK, where it'll get blocked rapidly (same as if it were banned), or it'll be less obvious, and even an involved admin would be careful in rapidly labeling a non-DUCK case as a return of a banned user. All the ban does is provide a quick way to prove that the user in question should be blocked as a matter of fact. But, IMO, the user's block log says the same thing, and any harassing edits would do the same. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright. Now, as noted below, that a rangeblock is out of the question, could an admin at least separately block the three offending IPs for a year per this discussion?— Dædαlus 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I personally wouldn't be opposed to uniformly lengthening the blocks on the individuals, or even putting up a longer block on that /24 range until it's shown the user can evade it... Might want to ask lucasbfr why he identified the /24 if the /16 is the real range. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • @Protonk - would you be able to lenthen the blocks for the three IPs listed?— Dædαlus 04:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent/change of subject) FWIW, these 3 IPs come from a /16 (not a /24) that is assigned to RCN Corporation; traceroute pins it down to the New York area. Probable web page is - blocking the /16 would cut off an entire cable TV network's worth of Misplaced Pages editors. (Whether there are any reasonable IP editors in that range is a completely different question.) --Alvestrand (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the network is a /16, but the user seemed to remain consistently in the /24 which was much less noisy and could be softblocked with much less collateral. That's why I reported the /24 and not the /16 :) -- lucasbfr 09:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for block reevaluation

I recently received an email from User:CmdrClow, who was blocked after a sockpuppet investigation for two weeks. He said that he was on vacation when the investigation started, and when he returned he found that he was blocked. He has asked me to look into this further, so here I am.

It would appear that a number of things were out of process in this specific investigation. CmdrClow was never alerted that the sockpuppet investigation had been filed (although even if he had, he probably wouldn't have seen it since he was on vacation). Additionally, the blocking administrator (User:MBisanz) did not notify him of the block on his user talk page, so he was further unaware of it until he tried to edit.

CmdrClow gave some good reasons as to why he felt that the block was incorrect in the email, which he was simply unable to outline because he was unaware of the investigation and was also on vacation. The following section will be transcluded from his talk page so that he may make his comments again and defend his position; I don't want to directly copy what was in his email because he didn't give permission for me to do so. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll advise MBisanz of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand CmdrClow's statement, he shares an IP connection with other employees who happen to support his edits via IPs and another account. Even if these other edits are not made by the person who controls the CmdrClow account, WP:MEAT still applies. The provenance of a fellow employee happening to show up at the same pages as CmdrClow to reinforce his would violate the policy that reads when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Further, the reason his co-workers can no longer edit is because the checkuser blocked the IP range of the store due to the socking.

As to why I didn't leave a block notice for CmdrClow, there is a direct link on the block screen when he tries to edit linking to the SPI. As a checkuser confirmed the direct technical link, the abuse appeared clear enough to not warrant a detailed message. MBisanz 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec, some edits made in light of MBisanz's comments)

First things first, yes, CmdrClow and I have had points of friction. But that tends to be on a few specific points.

And I'll take a mea culpa on not dropping a notice on his talk page. Case of not seeing it spelled out if/how/who is responsible for that on the SPI page.

Beyond that, I was mildly surprised that the IP and CP wer blocked, and very surprised that Clow was. My hope was, if there was a strong correlation, to go back to Clow and strongly suggest that:

1. Remember to long in when editing, and
2. Avoid editing from work (CP).

What has come out of this, including Clow's comment below, is that the edits from the IP range and the store have become suspect. It is unclear if the edits have or will come from:

• CmdrClow personally (sock)
• One of his friends (meatpuppet)
• Or an unrelated 3rd party

The bottom lines as I see are:

Is there a problem here? Yes. Based on the actions of CP and the IP range a degree of puppetry has been going on.

Should something have been done about it? Again, yes. Blocking the IP and CP seem reasonable, the duration though are on the "maybe" side of reasonable. Again, my preference with Clow would have been a warning, either the soft one I outlined above or a templated one.

Should something have hit Clow's talk page? Yes. At the very least, when the closing admin decided the blocks were warranted, then some sort of notice should have been dropped on the account pages. One was on CP's but none on Clows. MBisanz's comment makes sense, but is it in line with reasonable practice with SPI?

- J Greb (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that many times SPIs with dozens of socks make individual talk page notifications burdensome, particularly when checkuser indicates the person knew what they were doing when they were socking. The talk page notice is more for the benefit of people who weren't aware of their actions and for reviewing admins, since the block log shows up more prominently than a talk page message, see sample image. I also should add that many sockpuppeters, when caught, claim it was a friend, roommate, co-worker, etc, and the believability test is "why were these friends who weren't coordinating things with you editing the exact same articles to reinforce your edits?" It just simply isn't believable that two people on the same limited IP would independently edits several of the same pages to reinforce each other's edits without coordination. MBisanz 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking at this again; I know very little of the case and have had no other experience in the sockpuppetry/CheckUser area; I just wanted to give CmdrClow a chance to respond here because of the situations surrounding the block. I, personally, don't feel that I have enough experience with block- and sockpuppet-related matters to be able to form a logical opinion at this time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been over the edit histories. There is clear alignment of edit interests among the IPs and two accounts. However, the specific edit patterns of CdrClow and the others don't look identical. There are different behaviors there. I agree that the IPs largely match the User:ComicsPlace edits. WP:SOCK does not require that there never be editing overlap in topic of interest between people who know each other in real life, or even true sock accounts of the same person. It prohibits uses which are, in Misplaced Pages's contexts, abusive - from Sockpuppets because one person appearing to be many can distort consensus and wider discussion, and from Meatpuppets because we cannot be sure if they really are separate people, and many times must assume they are the same person from a policy perspective. Reviewing from an abuse perspective, however, the only abusive behavior seems to be related to the (WP:USERNAME violating) ComicsPlace account, in the sense of it being used to promote the business. We don't allow group accounts or organizational accounts. The IPs edited serially rather than in parallel, as a rule. They and ComicsPlace reinforced each other a bit - but I don't see either the IPs or ComicsPlace acting in concert with CdrClow on pages, in the sense of specific behaviors we prohibit. My two cents on review:

• Even making the worst assumptions about behavior, CdrClow didn't abusively sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the sense of actual behaviors we prohibit. I recommend he be unblocked, and asked to be careful to not let his coworkers support him in a way that could be construed as a meatpuppetry violation.
• The ComicsPlace account is an organizational name and people there tried to use it to promote the business. We should just indef it for that, and ask the individual editors who used it to get real accounts.
• Due to the issues with the IP editing and the organizational name account, we should probably long term anon-only block the IP range once the individuals have accounts set up (or, assume they can create accounts elsewhere, and just block it now)
• It's reasonable to ask that the individuals involved all identify their affiliations on their user / user talk pages, to avoid questions about undisclosed conflicts of interest and to help remind them not to violate the cooperative action restrictions in the meatpuppetry policy.

I see why people reacted this way, but it's useful to recall that the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry policy was intended to prevent abusive behavior, and that absent abusive behavior we don't necessarily need to block people who know each other and overlapped a bit. I'm actually curious why the category F checkuser went through here - the actual editing behavior was far tamer than a bunch of CU requests that I've made that got denied as unnecessary or fishing. I think that the connections were fairly obvious, and the responses fairly obvious, without resorting to CU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him a second chance, but if providence brings other new accounts to reinforce him in the future, I suggest that we won't be as understanding. MBisanz 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair; if there isn't any opposition to that, could someone unblock him? (I would, except that I don't want to get involved in actually blocking/unblocking users and I haven't looked over the details of this particular situation). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Archives

1. October 2005 - June 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Gotham City Sirens 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gotham City Sirens 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CmdrClow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gotham City Sirens 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gotham City Sirens 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Man of Steel Box Art.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Man of Steel Box Art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reverse Flash.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reverse Flash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emerald City ComiCon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Emerald City ComiCon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Batman TDK 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Batman TDK 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daredevil 65.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Daredevil 65.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Black lightning JLA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Black lightning JLA.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Batman Inc 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Batman Inc 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Red Robin 1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Red Robin 1.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JLA 13 Covers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JLA 13 Covers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vaderdies.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vaderdies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Spider-Man 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spider-Man 6 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AnakinEp2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AnakinEp2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Spiderman 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spiderman 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Spiderman 6 until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iron Man bleeding edge.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Iron Man bleeding edge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TeenTitans50.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TeenTitans50.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iron Man bleeding edge.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Iron Man bleeding edge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Last Stand of New Krypton 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Last Stand of New Krypton 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:JSA1 Variant.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JSA1 Variant.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Battle for the Cowl.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Battle for the Cowl.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука 06:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Darren Davis Signing.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Darren Davis Signing.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit on protected BLP - Julie Bindel

Hi, round X of getting this BLP policy-compliant led to this discussion on the RSN board. If an admin could overview the discussion to ensure it measures up and please remove:
Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference,

and

In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.

and the sources that were discussed from Julie Bindel#Reactions to Bindel's journalism I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Help please, I'm trying to get poorly sourced negative information off a BLP. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Using {{editprotected}} on the talk page would be handy. Removing these 2 sentences leaves "The nomination attracted a protest against Stonewall outside..." hanging. How do you propose that should read? Kevin (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be misreading that Kevin, this would remove only the NUS content and sources. "The nomination attracted ..." sentence wouldn't be touched at this point. I didn't add the template as the talkpage devolves into accusations so no consensus is occuring and those who disagree with Bindel's views have vowwed to keep inserting the content and revert any changes I make to this section. They've asserted that an admin approved of the prior content and sourcing. Here CIreland confirms - The previous "consensus" of which I was originally a part of was not so much an agreement as me insisting that the article musn't misrepresent sources or attempt to attribute attitudes to the "LGBT community" by original research. This was primarily concerning the issue of the Stonewall award. It's my opinion that there has been an ongoing attempt to push a POV that might be crudely summarized as "Bindel is disliked by most LGBT people" without any serious sources to back that up. So these same editors - at least one has changed usernames - have refused to allow changes unless an admin makes them. I think they believe I'll simply tire and walk away. We still have other bad sources there but this is the first round through RSN. If RSN isn't a valid consensus then we likely should delete the article and start over. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask admins to refrain from enacting Benjiboi's edits. I don't like either of the above sentences either and they need to be rewritten, but Benjiboi is attempting to use BLP issues as a cover for some fairly hardline POV pushing. This is something that needs to be worked out between the fairly diverse range of editors on the talk page - a number of whom share Benjiboi's perspective, but unlike him, have been helpful in trying to work out an agreeable compromise. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has been forum shopping all over the project in an attempt to do an end-run around that discussion and find an admin who will edit the protected article along the lines of his particular POV. Rebecca (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a unanimous decision at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and you participated in it. I'm sorry that past discussions have failed to follow policies and effectively inserted bad sourcing and POV writing effectively coatracking on a BLP but we are fixing those issues despite the enmity towards the subject and me personally. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment {{edit protected}} is at Talk:Julie Bindel#Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GeoCities is shutting down

Yahoo! has announced it will be shutting its GeoCities website hosting service later this year . I know a few of you will shed a tear for your first website you built back in the 90s (the one that was permanently "Under Construction"), but WP has a fair few references and links that will die (if they're not dead already) . Is this something to be tackled as a project, or a bot, or should the links in articles be removed gradually over time? --Stephen 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We reference geocities? Yuck. We links in articles should be removed generally; geocities is as much a WP:RS as the last bit of lint I picked out of my underwear. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a Geocities site reproduces a public domain reliable source, there's no reason not to use it as a convenience link. --NE2 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't someone working on a WebCite bot/plan for our references, for exactly these kinds of future problems ? I believe someone had been talking to them, can't remember who. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/WebCiteBOT –xeno 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe User:WebCiteBOT? -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, its not useful as a convenience link. It appears a citation in that sense and is presumed to be reliable. We have no way of verifying whoever put that content on geocities didn't modify it. There shouldn't be a single fact cited to geocities unless the subject of the article runs the geocities site.--Crossmr (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also almost positive I've seen a few railroad companies' official sites on Geocities or another free hosting service. would certainly be a reliable source for North Dakota State Railroad Museum. --NE2 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the history of that "museum" which is "Just For Kids"? geocities is not a reliable source, period. --98.182.55.209 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 37,900 links to geocities on WP. MBisanz 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT is not yet approved for its first task (archiving new links). Once it is approved I will file a separate BRFA to archive all Geocities links used as references. (A BRFA is also planned for all Encarta pages, which are also dying later this year). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to use User_talk:WebCiteBOT to alert me of any future problems like this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, CompuServe Ourworld will shut down on June 30, 2009. Cardamon (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also quite a few image files sourced to Geocities. Any plans how to handle this? Durova 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Individually. GeoCities is not shutting down next week. We need to look at each link and evaluate it. If it is not reliable then delete it. If valid then find an alternative. I have already contacted one site: the user was not aware that GeoCities is shutting down, but is going to take steps to move. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gadget, the specific question has to do with how to handle images which are sourced to GeoCities. A brief survey indicates a good number of these have fair use rationales, which would (theoretically) make them OK for most purposes--except that the source link itself will return a 404 error once Geocities does shut down. Seeking comments that specifically pertain to that issue. Durova 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the copyright holder is independant of the link (say, album covers), then it doesn't matter if Geocities shuts down. --Carnildo (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can try to have WebCiteBOT archive any Geocities page listed as a source for images as well. Thanks for the heads up about this additional need. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thaddeus, that'd be helpful. :) Durova 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for neutral Administrator to close merge discusison

I would like to request that closure of the two merger proposals by an uninvolved administrator on The Ting Tings, as it has been a bit controversial and it needs to now be concluded. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote box formatting errors

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but it seems within the past few hours the quote box code formatting has been changed. Please see the current format of To Kill a Mockingbird in the Style section. I use quote boxes often, and some helpful anon IP fixed the problem in Mulholland Drive (film), and I was able to fix it in the Lesbian article, but I can't figure out how to fix the TKaM quote box.

I fixed the box - the problem was the lack of </div>s. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the future, if the quote box formats change, which the have within the past 4 months to create spacing problems, a bot should be employed to change all the quote boxes to adhere to the new changes. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TKaM uses {{quote box2}} which did have some changes done to it a few hours ago, but that does not seem to have caused the problem. The content of the box had opening <div> tags, but no closing tags. Those divs are not needed at all; I added parameters to align the content and source a long time ago. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened between yesterday and today to mess up the quote boxes? What happened 4 months ago to create extra spaces around the layout of the quote boxes so in order for the article to appear seamless the quote box can no longer stand alone in code, but must be buried within surrounding paragraphs? Who makes changes to quote box formatting? Is there a consensus, or does someone just decide to tweak it? Why must I find anon IPs tweaking FAs to make them legible? It seems on the face of it to be a fairly insignificant issue, but as someone who maintains these articles, I had no idea the changes were made. I had no idea the articles looked awful and no one could read them. --Moni3 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I created and maintain {{quote box2}}, but others have added features and fixes. The quote box2s in TKaM and Mulholland Drive should never have worked in the first place without a closing div. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  02:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I found another one in Marge Simpson, an article I have not previously edited. Regardless of the quote boxes needing the div tags before yesterday, the articles were readable, and then they weren't. How many articles use quote boxes? Since I don't know what happened between yesterday with the code formatting, which is preferable: changing the code so the quote boxes look all right, or hunting down every quote box in an article and adding the div tags? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went through every article using {{quote box2}} and found no valid use of the <div> tag. This should now be fixed for quote box2. I did not directly check articles using {{quote box}}, but I did find a and fix a few with the same problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw and appreciate your efforts. Not to beat this to death or anything, but how can this be prevented in the future? --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate medical information

I don't know if WP has a definite policy on providing information on the sizes of lethal overdoses of pharmaceuticals. However, if there isn't one, I think there should be - and it should be that such information should be deleted on sight, no matter where it appears. To be clear, I don't mean that data readily available in an MSDS should be prohibited - rat LD50's (for example) are easily found online - but information like X tablets of Y will kill is inappropriate and unnecessary. I raise this because I came looking for information on the opiod dextropropoxyphene napsylate. A friend of mine asked me about a medication he is taking that includes this substance as one of its ingredients. He's only very recently out of hospital following a near-successful suicide attempt. Consequently, I was stunned that he would be prescribed something containing dextropropoxyphene napsylate as it is addictive, easy to overdose on, and very vulnerable to abuse.

The comments that bring me here are on the talk page, starting with the section on enzymes where User:DrMorelos talks about lethal dosages of paracetamol (aka acetaminophen) in the third indented paragraph. "15 grams of acetaminophen within 16 hours (guaranteed liver poisoning)". DrMorelos is discussing a wildly foolish self-experiment, and does include warnings not to try this - but to a person intent on suicide, this information is valuable and the warnings would be ignored. DrMorelos has neither a user page nor a talk page, and the posts appear old, so I can't just ask him or her to remove the comments... and in any case, there is a more general question here. The following section states (in bold) "It only requires 10-15 500mg tablets to kill you", according to User:PainMan, who I will notify of this post.

So, in short - is there a policy on providing quantity information relating to lethal overdoses of pharmaceuticals? If not, should there be? And, is there some way to search for and remove other instances of inappropriate information like this - assuming you collectively agree it is inappropriate. EdChem (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The applicable policies are WP:V (unverifiable content may be removed), WP:HOWTO (we do not carry instruction manuals, including for suicide by overdose), but also WP:NOTCENSORED (content is not removed solely for being morally objectionable). In other words, information in an article in the vein of "the LD 50 for this medicament is 100 mg" should be retained if accompanied by a reference to a reliable source, but removed otherwise. It may also be removed from talk pages if it is not related to discussion of the article's contents.

Also, WP:VPP would probably be a better place for this discussion.  Sandstein  20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would suggest Misplaced Pages Talk:WikiProject Medicine if you want people with expertise to see it. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Add WP:BEANS to the list. As with anything suicide-related, the potential for time-wasting and deliberate trolling here is enormous. WP:V and WP:HOWTO should eliminate most information of this type, or at least require rewording into a more encyclopedic form. Durova 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, a statement that X amount of a given medicine is fatal can be a useful warning to people concerned about prescribed dosages. While Sandstein is correct about the information being verifiable -- especially as individual biochemistries vary so much that it may take 2 or 3 times the normally fatal amount to kill one person, while another could die from half the usual amount -- still, some kind of yardstick is better than none at all, & more people have access to Misplaced Pages than have immediate access to the Physicians' Desk Reference.

(Just to make sure that my thoughts were relevant in this instance, I had a look at the section EdChem wrote about. The Wikipedian in question wrote to warn people about the toxic levels of this drug, not to encourage people to abuse it in order to kill themselves.)

And the sad fact is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way. Put a warning label on anything, & a potential suicide will see if can be abused in this manner. They'll drink drain cleaner, paint thinner, or fill their pockets with rocks take a one-way walk into a deep body of water. (I know a woman who tried to commit suicide with an OD of antihistamines -- which didn't kill her. It did make her sick as a dog for a few days, & she had a week at a nearby psych ward for observation.) Almost any information in Misplaced Pages can be abused. -- llywrch (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No response at talk page of locked template Catholicism

I attempted, on March 3, to propose a change to Template: Catholicism. I have never gotten a response.

The most important thing is to remove Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter from Particular Churches as they are not a Church, or even a religious order, but only a society. It's a huge error in the template.

The other things are things that I would like to discuss with people but it looks like there's no one to discuss them with. :C joye (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha, apparently the "requests for page protection/unprotection" page also includes requests for changes, which I was wasn't aware of from my brief scan of "Are you in the right place?". So... I'll take this over there. Whoops. joye (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Or... maybe not? Because it seems to say over there that edits will only be done in exceptional circumstances with lots of talk page discussion before hand, but there's no one on the talk page to talk with! I don't know I am confused. joye (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to bring up the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity and try to generate a consensus there, given that it's the appropriate Wikiproject. – Toon 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would just post the request at RFPP. Template talk pages are rarely monitored and you are unlikely to get a response without using the {{Editprotected}} template. That template adds the page to a queue where admins can scan all protected edit requests and attempt to execute them. I think you can make a case at RFPP for the particular change you want made. I would make the change myself, but I know next to nothing about particular churches w/in Catholicism, so I don't feel comfortable doing it. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt

Does anyone have any idea what the deal is with this user, Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt (talk · contribs)? I know its not particularly recent but his edits seem to be simply making userpages and subpages for "bots", half of which aren't registered anyway, and the ones that are have no Bot approval or flag and zero edits--Jac16888 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask him on his talk page? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, those edits are from October 2008. MBisanz 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An Anne Rice fan. Durova 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have made it clearer, I did pop a note on his talk page, but being inactive since October I don't expect a response. Basically, I've spent the last few weeks clearing Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, and of the ones left, half are doppelganger accounts that weren't actually created. I've nudged all the owners and most are active enough that I should get a response before long, but not him--Jac16888 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems deletable, if that's what you're asking? Durova 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah :), just wondered if there was a purpose behind them--Jac16888 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history it appeared the user may have misunderstood project scope. Most of the page creations are based upon character names from the Vampire Chronicles. If any vampire tries to pop up and intervene, just tell 'em the Wiki Witch of the West said it's OK. Durova 02:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

haha, ok. Have deleted them all then, thanks--Jac16888 02:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed for delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com

This delisting request was posted 15:18, 11 April 2009; there has been extensive discussion, and discussion has stopped. I request a close from a neutral administrator. --Abd (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed as consensus supporting removal, blacklist entry removed. Viridae 03:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Abd (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really possible to read "consensus" - there seemed to be a distinct lack of independent outside input in that thread. That said, it's probably time to let this die. I agree with the delisting; let's see how things go, and if the site is spammed abusively then it can be readdressed, hopefully by some fresh eyes. On to the next drama. MastCell  03:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with mastcell about the "consensus" here. It is a shame that we will now have to work harder to ensure that this site isn't abused again, as it was in the past. Verbal chat 08:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell and Verbal, though the debate over Cold fusion is a difficult one, with some entrenched positions, and isn't going to be resolved without work, yes, working "harder." The goal? Thorough coverage, NPOV, as shown in reliable sources, as determined by consensus. In other words, Misplaced Pages process. The decision wasn't made, I hope, on preponderance of votes, but on arguments, and the rough consensus simply showed that, and if Verbal or anyone else thinks it was warped in some way, there is WP:DR, which works. If there is anyone confused about how to proceed if they think a decision was improper or warped by some local participation bias, ask me, I do know how to proceed with minimal disruption. --Abd (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose a speedy reversion of this, at least until the arbcom case concerning Abd and JzG is over. Jtrainor (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was also disappointed to discover this: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae. This does not seem to be what I initially thought it was, and I'm disappointed (again). For this reason it should probably be reverted and reviewed. Verbal chat 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to toss any political fireballs, but is this site being spammed across multiple articles? If not, it should not be blacklisted. If so, it should be blacklisted if it's not appropriate and consensus agrees on that. The RFAR status should have no relevance. The AC as a body has zero authority over what goes in or out of the blacklist(s) and never will, as that is a pure content matter. rootology (C)(T) 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It was blacklisted correctly. Verbal chat 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reagardless of wether it was blacklisted correctly at the time - I really don't care, it was removed according to consensus supported by policy. Viridae 08:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rootology: I do believe that there is cause for concern, and that the site was abused (in several ways, to several articles, and by several editors, and for quite some time), and I still have concerns that this may not be over. However, there absolutely is also proper use of this site.

For the record, I agree with User:MastCell and User:Verbal that I find it difficult to read consensus (but I recuse from deciding again as I have stated my opinions earlier and declined there), but I urge, with User:Abd, for independent review of this (and I am afraid that User:Viridae here is not an independent reviewer (per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae), though they might be right in their conclusions). --Dirk Beetstra 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I was able to, later, request delisting after Beetstra had confirmed the original listing, Beetstra or anyone can request relisting; however, as Beetstra understands, a listing request should be accompanied by current evidence of linkspam, which isn't merely a placement of a link according to ordinary editorial efforts to improve an article, even if the placement is controversial. Beetstra and I still, apparently, have many disagreements over how blacklisting is conducted, but I'm confident that we can, nondisruptively, work these out, for the overall benefit of the project, unless some sledgehammer descends from on high. I want to be on record as supporting his monumental efforts to control linkspam, and my disagreements have only to do with edges and details, and I want to be sure that, whatever is done to fix the problems on the edge, it doesn't damage those efforts. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Just a side note, Abd, about 'current abuse': the link could not be used for the last 3-4 months, let alone be abused, so there is no current abuse. According to that reasoning, one could after 1 month delete the most awful spam from the blacklist as there is no abuse anymore, and re-listing is not necessery as there is no abuse until the abuse starts again, which is what we just wanted to prohibit in the first place (well, the first abuse we see would be enough to relist it, actually). In the meantime, one would have to again revert the abuse. --Dirk Beetstra 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin to look at image please?

Could an admin look at this weird instance? Did something get deleted / how did that MW message get into the editable text? It's a bit of a mystery and needs confirmation as to whether something happened not in the public logs. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. The image was an apparent copyright infringement, so I deleted it. Jehochman 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I'd still like to know how it appeared with only error-message text and zero edit history. I'll presume a deleted initiating edit I guess, though I didn't think that was possible. Franamax (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't tag a protected page for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed - Template:GFDL-presumed is protected, so I left a notice on the talk page, I just don't want anyone crying foul. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a tag. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism or not?

I noticed this Diff on a recent article - I'm not sure if it's a good faith edit or if it's vandalism... and I am not sure what the right answer is either. I looked at the user's talk page and they have possibly vandalised one page beforehand so I would probably go with vandalism, but I wanted to check with an admin so as not to accidentally revert a 'good' edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tom_and_Jerry%3A_The_Movie&diff=286084076&oldid=285936619

Thanks! --86.26.160.235 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried looking up the data elsewhere? Shouldn't be hard. --jpgordon 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

According to IMDB it was 1992, thus it seems to be a good edit. Nja 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

Just as a precaution, would a good many admins mind watchlisting this? It will almost certainly be on our front page (In The News) for the next few days if not longer, and it's almost certainly getting a ton of views right now. Amazingly little vandalism so far, but it's only a matter of time, and with it's visibility and usefulness to the general public (we're going to be the #1 search hit in a little while with how it always goes) it would be bad if anyone started abusing tags, adding inappropriate images, etc. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, need an RS check on that talk page

Given the sensitive nature of the topic and it's massive public visibility, please weigh in there--not here--on this. rootology (C)(T) 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Genocide

I noticed that a mass number of images are receiving aggressive tagging.

For example {{PD-ineligible}} images tagged with {{PD}} are being tagged for deletion for lacking sourcing. This is primarily because of people tagging by using scripts making them act like unauthorized bots. This is unhelpful to the project. In addition several people are making a pointless effort to search and destroy all unused images. This is pointless because we do not really delete images. They just become visible to administrators.

This process is disruptive because peoples talk pages are constantly flooded with copyright notices. This not only deters from contributing to the site at all but also compels people not to check their talk pages as they often end up getting multiple notices a day.

It wastes valuable time for people who end up checking their talk page to see yet another automated/templated notice. Also an admin will have to delete the image in question rather than spending time on something else.

-- Cat 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide some diffs to specific examples? I'm having a bit of trouble finding examples of what you described. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing White Cat is referring to File:May_be_Disturbing.gif and File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg although I see no evidence from either of these there is any sort of mass effort nor do either involved PD-ineligible. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki treasure hunt

The editor User:DoodleHammer, whose edits prior to me knowing him, have almost all been deleted as non-notable new articles. Then, he posted, in the article space, the rules of a Wiki treasure hunt he is organizing, allegedly with the help of three sponsors, who "conveniently" asked to remain anonymous. A note this user then left on my talk page and on that of the admin who performed the actual deletion of his rules convinced me that his edits should be systematically reverted as being part of the "contest," but I am wondering whether this user shouldn't be blocked altogether, given that the contest has not been called off yet. -- Blanchardb -- timed 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned DoodleHammer not to do this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards