Misplaced Pages

You clearly think they should be, so let's hear it already.— Dædαlus 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap? There's nothing to cut. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in regards to this user. Do some homework before you decide to comment. There is nothing drastic or controversial about banning someone who has a history of disruptive behavior, along with disruptive socking.— Dædαlus 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is little need for this drama, Feedback. I pointed Sugar Bear to the banning policy and he's followed the directions for appealing his ban there by emailing arbcom. Fighting about it here is pointless. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of this discussion when the user in question appealed to ArbCom (the editor has indicated this on their talk page). I'm not commenting here as an arbitrator (I am going to recuse on any formal decision that ArbCom make on this), but I'm dropping in here to make a comment or two.

• (1) If WP:BAN says discussions should run for a minimum of 24 hours, it would be good if the letter of that suggestion was followed, as otherwise you typically see so-called WP:SNOW closes being done earlier than 24 hours. The point is not WP:SNOW, but to allow people who are asleep (and may only edit once every 24 hours) to see the discussion and say something that might just reverse the tide of opinion or bring new evidence to the discussion.
• (2) If the user in question turns up and wants to say something in their defence, then it seem rather bureaucratic to insist that they go via ArbCom rather than reopen the ban discussion and let them say something to the community that is voting to ban them. It would seem simpler to let the ban discussion run for longer and let the user say something in their defence.
• (3) When assessing a ban discussion such as this, you need to distinguish between those that have history with the user and those who are independently making an assessment (coming 'cold' to the discussion). In particular, some of those who have a history with the user at nu metal and WP:FAC did correctly declare that history above (but some may have not). My view is that it really does help to have supports and opposes segregated into 'I know this user' and 'never heard of this user' sections (if the only people commenting are those who have interacted with the user, that risks the assessment not being objective). The ideal ban discussion will have a mixture of opinions from those who know someone and those who have never heard of them before, but if people don't make that clear then that aspect of the ban discussion cannot be assessed.
• (4) It would be nice if a fuller history of the user that a ban is proposed for is provided. Daedalus says "This user has a bad history" and then proceeds to give details of the socking history and the history at nu metal. That is true enough, but that completely ignores the featured article work that has also been done by this user. Of course, no amount of good work will ever excuse bad conduct, but no ban discussion should present an incomplete picture of an editor's contributions! My view is that a reasonably complete overview of en editor's contributions must be given if the editor themselves is not here to give such a summary. That overview seems to have been missing or incomplete here.

For the record, my history with the user is that I first became aware of them through the featured article work they do on films (primarily films directed by Ralph Bakshi and specifically the The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)), and I later became aware of the repeated (and ultimately disruptive) attempts to nominate Ralph Bakshi for featured article. I'm aware that people can have a bad side and a good side, and I see that the socking and behaviour at nu metal is the bad side of this editor that I was unaware of (I was also unaware of the name change). For the record, the good side is six successful featured article nominations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). If the ban discussion had still been open, I would have declared the above and opposed a site ban in favour of a topic ban from nu metal and related articles (with a site ban following if the socking continued), though having looked in more detail at the socking, I am wavering towards neutral as anyone who socks like that should be indeffed without the need for a community ban discussion. The only thing keeping me opposing the ban is the fact that an incomplete presentation was made concerning this editor's history on Misplaced Pages, and I would even suggest that a fuller overview be presented and the ban discussion re-run to see if opinions would change.

Anyway, that's a rather long comment, but I hope that some of the points above made sense and will be considered both here and in future ban discussions, even if opinion weighs against changing what has been decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are 3 active issues here:

1. Discussion on ANI vs AN (best practice is AN)
2. Discussion less than 24 hrs and without obvious need to truncate it due to hostility etc
3. Lack of historical depth in the proposal itself.

I agree that the ban was probably called for, and that the location and duration of the discussion were probably harmless errors in the bigger picture. But I am going to open up a new discusson on WP:AN regarding lingering process issues for bans. We're seeing a lot more now, and having process too sloppy on them is not a good thing.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Donny Long

I would like to request admin assistance at Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests, where the individual "Donny Long" is still mass-IP hopping and adding personal threats, threats of disruption (and er, disruption). Since I've reverted three times today (though that was to remove personal attacks), I'd rather not do so again as this isn't worth risking 3RR over. I believe this needs the attention of an admin and application of the duck rule to block each new IP as it starts vandalising under this individual's name. He's already been blocked on about 3 IP addresses at least, I believe, and has been using dozens of IP addresses in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD of which he is the subject. Thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second this request. I have found the entire situation completely laughable, and the IPs actions deplorable and offensive. I have blocked one for 24 hours (suspect it has expired now) but I would go so far as to protect the AfD to stop this nonsense. There is a deeper, more worrying gap in policy that is allowing the idea of a 'subject' wishing for an article deletion to become an actual AfD argument, but that can't be fixed here or now. I propose protection of the AfD, this is unprecedented bollocks - if you excuse my language. S.G. _ping! 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was considering requesting semi-protection of the AfD, but expected that it would be a violation of policy since it would prevent non-autoconfirmed users from adding their arguments to the page. My current approach has simply been to mark all of Donny Long's multiple IPs with the SPA template and leave a request that the reviewing admin take care in determining consensus on the closure of the AfD. GiftigerWunsch 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the thing has been open for only two days and is already such a mess from this nonsense. The only reason I don't use strong terms is because I know WP:BLP includes non-article pages! S.G. _ping! 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Re: 3RR: I would also like to ask an admin if they can confirm that since I have been reverting truly blatant personal attacks on this page, I am not in danger of violating WP:TALKO or WP:3RR? If I have incorrectly assumed this, I apologise and will refrain from reverting these comments in future. I will wait for this confirmation before continuing to help deal with this trouble user. GiftigerWunsch 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have protected a few of the pages he likes to vandalize. His threats are pointless. You are not in danger of violating 3RR at this point, given that what he is typing is clearly vandalism. If he can rationally explain his points without personal attacks then don't revert.  7  13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that for me, 7. I thought so too but didn't want to risk a violation by just assuming I was in the right here. I have been very careful to leave any of his comments which could been considered even slightly constructive, and opted to remove only the most blatant attacks / threats. GiftigerWunsch 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 7, for your boldness in protecting it. S.G. _ping! 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a few ages that the IP has been attacking seems wise. However, semi-protecting an AfD two days into it seems to be very unwise, especially in regard to prior discussions. Wouldn't it be better just to continue to mark the SPIs? AfDs shouldn't be limited just to autoconfirmed users. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at WP:PP again and can't see any rule against protecting XFDs which are being vandalized. I'll shorten the time for now, and if any other admin feels that protection was inappropriate please unprot without any need for consultation with me.  7  15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, ow he is angry what can we do about him, he is on a dynamic IP and is angry about his rubbish wikipedia BLP. Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile. How dare he rudely try and tell us wikipedia editors what to do with his rubbish BLP article, ,keep the rubbish BLP keep I say. I am a wikipedia editor, how dare he. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...eh? Did you just argue both ways? S.G. _ping! 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The first part is my position ... Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile... the rest is what I object to.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No part of me is carrying on in the way you suggest, I merely object to the idea that, if someone has done something notable, they can dictate through abuse and legal threat how their activities are recorded. If the article fits with WP:BLP, which is a matter of editing, not deleting, then it is a record taken from reliable sources that are all themselves accessible. If the subject doesn't want to be noted as existing in the wider world, then he should have thought about that before he went and did it. I couldn't care less what he says about it. S.G. _ping! 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Libel and no response from wiki. Let the AfD take its course. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Facepalm* Threaten Jimbo... Has someone blocked per WP:NLT? N419BH 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This section contains huge violations of WP:DOLT. There are multiple users who need to be quickly ushered away from bios of living persons here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not harp on forever about this, I don't want to piss off everyone on Misplaced Pages, but this I have to say. Along with the founding principles of Misplaced Pages, everyone edits, and so on and so forth, must surely be the idea that - if information is notable - a user should be able to come to Misplaced Pages and expect it to be found here. Therefore, notable content must be included. I will accept without question any delete argument that argues on the basis of notability criteria, however any arguement made for deletion revolving around the idea that the subject does not want the article on Misplaced Pages... well, I find that to be the opposite to what we are here to do. Delete the unreferenced BLP violations, of course, but if the subject is notable the article should stay. And I don't respond well the bullies, and from what I have seen this is what the IP is doing, bullying. None of us should have to put up with the kind of content he has added to talk pages and the like. I have a very real concern that one is at risk of being cowed by the legal and verbal threats and abuse of this person into making a choice which is not based on actual policy. That doesn't sit very well with me at all. But hey, it's only Misplaced Pages... I can drop my stick :) S.G. _ping! 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to note that I completely agree with what SGGH has written above. If we allow subjects to dictate encyclopedia content, as opposed to dealing reasonably with reasonable requests, we put the project in a very precarious place, where it can potentially be manipulated to its detriment. We have an obligation to our readers to provide accurate information about notable subjects, and any failure to do so based on bullying is malfeasance and a betrayal of that obligation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with both users! To give in to bullying can only set a dangerous precedent. If the subject isn't notable, then delete the article, but let's not do it (just or also) because we're fed up with coping with all the fuss and abuse he's been kicking up. Salvio ( ) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on several folks' talk pages, what I fear has happened is that Donny has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Misplaced Pages and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Misplaced Pages. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The closure read "the article is obviously causing the subject some distress" and at the base a user asked commenting users to consider the subjects feeling in this. I think this is the most worrying thing I have seen in four years of Misplaced Pages using. I hope other living persons with biographies don't think they can assault, abuse and manipulate their way into deleting or tailoring their articles. Misplaced Pages is not their personal biography site. I think I saw a serious step back today. Sad to see it. S.G. _ping! 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with SGGH entirely here. The individual refused to even tell us which statements he felt were libel; if the subject of an article can offer a legitimate concern then that's different to throwing a tantrum because the wikipedia article doesn't match his libellous blog. I am even more concerned by the fact that several users have opposed the ban proposal below on the grounds that mass-sockpuppetry, vandalism, libel, legal threats, and repeated personal attacks directed at many users, are apparently all completely justified if the individual has unspecified concerns with the article about him... and given that the behaviour continued after we deleted and salted his article, I fail to see how it can be claimed that that was the only reason, either. GiftigerWunsch 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

'New password request'

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to post this but this was the best I could find. I just this morning received from WP a notice that someone from IP address 199.126.144.121 attempted to change my password. Is there any way I can find out who that is? I have email enabled on my account so an email response would be welcome. User:Pedant (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore it, I get them all the time, but they have no effect other than the irritation unless the vandals manage to hack your email account, which is unlikely at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to find out who it is. Anyone could have clicked the "send me a new password" link. But it's harmless, and you can just ignore the email message you received. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You can however find the general location of where that IP 199.126.144.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is. Just use a WHOIS. Apprently it's coming from Edmonton, Canada, with an ISP of "TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC" and a domain of "TELUS.NET". (Links: 1 2) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I had the same thing happen to me too this morning. Except this IP geolocated to Mumbai, India. I've never had an email like this before. -- œ 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, unsure if it's related but the above IP originated from my geographical area. Burnaby, BC -- œ 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "George Reeves Person" does this all the time to users, and I think he's been using proxies as of late to send such requests. –MuZemike 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, don't worry about it. It's nothing. User:199.126.144.121 (talk) 05:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the input... this item can safely be deleted if it's appropriate to do so, I'm through with it, but don't really have the energy to devote to researching how this page works right now. I'd really like to get back to writing more, I can barely even find time to research the Rhythm Club fire -- which is a fascinating and rich subject itself, and plenty of work for me... when I can get back to it. I'll be 'away' for 3 weeks at least. I appreciate all the effort that's been spent on my trivial password issue, thanks again! User:Pedant (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Idle threats? Or worthy of concern

Please see:]. As a Baha'i, I am worried about the admittedly minuscule possibility that this is more than just some foolish prank. In my years of editing I have never seen a threat like this. Is there some way to inform the proper authorities? --Buster7 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, terrorists don't usually advertise their plans on wikipedia. I would simply revert it. GiftigerWunsch 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted prior to my concern. Would you be so glib if the Cologne Cathedral was the target? The edit violates WikiPedia standards and is evil-disposed and hostile. And, in todays world, IMHO, it is worthy of attention, and action. This may not be the place for that attention. --Buster7 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not being "glib", I was responding to the question and giving my advice; others are free to disagree, but I don't see that statement as a huge cause of concern; more of a very bad joke. And yes, I would respond in the exact same way if the target was Cologne Cathedral, Westminster Train Station or my home town, if it was written in a similar style to the threat being discussed. It would be a completely different matter if it had been more specific or better written, but as it stands it looks much more like something a kid scribbled thinking (s)he was being funny. GiftigerWunsch 10:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with Giftiger Wunsch that no sensible terrorist — if there's indeed such a thing as a sensible terrorist, but I digress — would ever publicize a terrorist act they were about to commit, I'd stick to the old adage "better safe than sorry" and inform the authorities. After all, if it's just a prank, it'll be quickly dismissed. Salvio ( ) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But not before some 13 year old just looking for lulz has to explain to his parents why a couple of Shin Bet MIBs just paid them a social call. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I like the way you think! ^____^ Salvio ( ) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a serious matter and the IP has been blocked. There should be ZERO tolerance for any kind of death threats or terrorism threats on Misplaced Pages, prank or not. -- œ 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist groups have been known to war of their attacks a few hours in advance (IRA for example). In this case the person appears to have enough ah mental issues for the threat to be somewhat credible. Likely need someone in isreal to inform the authorities.©Geni 23:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree that such a threat is at best a very bad joke, and if I'd seen it myself I personally would have reverted and issued a uw-joke-4im (assuming bad faith but not terrible faith); but I don't think a report to the authorities is necessary; it certainly didn't seem to me to be a particularly serious or official threat. GiftigerWunsch 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who may know how to inform the proper authorities, the IP geolocates to Tel Aviv. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the procedure for threats like that? Do we need to contact the WMF? It should be deleted once the authorities have been notified. N419BH 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been taken care of. Once this incident was brought to my attention I called the Baha'i Center in Haifa, and informed them about this deplorable edit. I instructed them how to retrieve the relevant information from Misplaced Pages if they want to file a complaint at the local police. Dror K, Holon, Israel. 109.65.9.126 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't take "Dror K"'s message as truth. "Dror K" is probably User:Drork, an indef blocked and banned user. I would recommend another Israel-based editor call the Baha'i Center and report it as well as any appropriate police departments there. I would also check the offending IP (the one that has been reported) and the one "Dror K" used, probably the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Quite possibly. The IPs (threat and 109.65.9.126 (above)) look different, but the ISP is the same. TFOWR 18:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • So we think a sock of User:Drork made this threat and then claimed to have reported it to the authorities? I think that's a +1 for the theory that this was a hoax then, fortunately. GiftigerWunsch 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I would still take it seriously, just to get the cops called on Drork. Nothing more I'd like to see than a banned/blocked socker getting the cops called on them for being a putz. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Per Ron Ritzman, above, I'm not sure it would be the cops... Am I bad for thinking this is good? TFOWR 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I was using a "wide" term as I am not sure what they call their version of the FBI over there. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Would that be dealt with by the Mossad perhaps? Also, maybe this is where the conversation should end... GiftigerWunsch 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  AFAIK the Mossad handles external threats like the US CIA. The Shin Bet is their version of the US FBI. Internal terrorist threats are their territory. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think you might be right there Giftiger, at least until a checkuser comes along and checks out those two edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input and research. I appreciate that some of you understood the serious quality of the threat--whether it was real or not, whether it is a hoax or not. I have informed the officials at the Shrine of the Bab and they will do whatever they decide. --Buster7 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• With Buster7's call to the Shrine of the Bab, I think this can be marked resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So they received two phone calls today. That's good, but please don't make further phone calls, because it might become a nuisance. On another subject, I'm quite flattered to see I cause so much paranoia among editors here, but if you calm down for a moment and think seriously, unless it were a possibly serious matter, I wouldn't have bothered to make the phone call and publish this fact here with my real name. If anyone here thinks I'm a criminal, he can make a call the WMF, Wikimedia Israel or any other Wikimedia chapter. They all know me quite well. The name is Dror Kamir. 109.65.9.126 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stupid sock is stupid. DUCK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#That_may_have_been_the_most_ham-handed_thing_I.27ve_ever_seen...

I'm getting the feeling that our rules don't matter, but could someone apply our rules to this (I guess they require a wheel war, or else you're part of the silent majority who agree. Which is the part that makes me think they need opposition)? Or, if someone knows how to get admins to follow their rules, drop me a line. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alison and GWH. Full-protection was necessary here to stop the imminent edit war Peregrine Fisher was going to engage in. You are supposed to discuss on the talk page and not through edit summaries on the main page. –MuZemike 07:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...and this is coming from an administrator who has full-protected The Wrong Version of WP:AN. –MuZemike 07:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think the process we have for the creation of policy WP:PROPOSAL was even remotely followed? If not, should it be marked as policy? Do you think an admin involved in the discussion should protect a version he's been arguing for? I know a lot of people want this to be policy, but we are now in a place where arguing it shouldn't be policy can in theory get you blocked. Welcome to 1984 Hobit (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care how this came along, but not liking the circumstances behind the "now policy" (or not liking the proposed policy, as demonstrated in the past such as WP:NOT#PLOT, which is also currently undergoing review) does not give valid excuse to edit war over it. –MuZemike 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Erb? Are you claiming that if I create a policy, label it as such, edit war over it and then get an admin to protect it, I can claim it is "now policy" and everyone else needs to live with that? That's pretty much what has happened to this point. Policy creation requires a significant consensus. This has _no_ demonstrated consensus and should not be treated as policy. Heck, _our_ policy says exactly that. "Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy." That is policy, so this isn't, no matter how it's labeled at the moment... Hobit (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said one bit. That being said, if I had to full-protect the page because of an edit war, I probably would have chosen more neutral wording than what GWH had used (such as "edit warring"). Problem here is that so many people in that flame war discussion are so emotionally enraged they are not able to think rationally. –MuZemike 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then do you disagree with any of A) WP:PROPOSAL wasn't followed in this case B) the protecting admin protect the version he'd been arguing for C) A&B are something of a problem. The net effect is that scenario I described is exactly what happened--someone labeled something as policy without following the normal protocol for doing so, people edit warred over it and an involved admin protected his preferred version (with an edit summary that made it plain he'd done so on purpose). I'd love to hear why that's acceptable or why people thing that's not what happened. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy as it is was not enacted by the community following the community policy process. There is no disagreement about that point. It came from the external policy mechanism we've had established for some time. The internal policy development process doesn't apply here. This is what it is. It's there, it has been for years, and that's the way it is.

With that said - the community has every right to discuss the policy and propose alternatives or come to a consensus to overturn the existing externally developed policy, within the internal community policy process. I don't know what outcome we'd see if there were such a community consensus - we haven't really got a tiebreaker in our policy or precedent for "community policy" vs "external policy".

If someone wants to create a new header tag for labeling policies which came from outside rather than via community policy development process that's fine. Nobody is disagreeing with a truth-in-labeling effort.

But conversely, it's false advertising to claim it's not a policy. It's the rule. It's what admins will do, Jimbo will do, Arbcom will do, the Foundation will do. We finally have it written out for all to see, but it's been a very consistent unwritten policy for many years now.

No, this didn't follow the normal protocol. I said it didn't when I did it. Nobody is disputing that. But if you believe that the normal protocol covers the totality of how Misplaced Pages works then you're wrong.

If you believe that my stabilizing the policy to accurately reflect the current and historical reality - outside of the normal policy process, but in line with what the rule has been for years - was an abuse of my power as an admin you should feel free to file a behavioral RFC or file an arbcom case. You could even convince a majority of other admins to simply unprotect the article. I don't think either is likely to succeed, but nobody's stopping you from trying. Nothing about what I did here is secret.

It would in my opinon be more productive to hold the conversations to see if community consensus has changed in the last nine or so months; last time we had this discussion the policy (not formally labeled as such at the time) was supported by a 90% plus majority of the community who bothered to comment. That could have changed. If it has changed then the community can act with its new consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I found it helpful. Could you A) point that that discussion from 9 months ago and B) explain what this "external policy" mechanism is? If it's going to exist, it should be at least documented. For the record, I still think protecting the page in this case was a pretty clear violation of WP:PROTECT. No it won't get you de-admined, but I do think asking for a neutral admin to do so would have been the proper thing to do. And in any case, explaining this clearly before it got labeled as policy would probably have been a good idea. Not sure I buy this should be policy at this point, but the explanation helped. Thanks Hobit (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a side note, WMF legal probably needs to look at this before it is accepted as a policy. If you ban someone as a pedophile without solid, beyond all doubt evidence, you are looking at a defamation lawsuit AND it is not limited to the laws of Florida. In other words, if the banned editor lives in Texas, a Texas court will hear the case, New York, etc. Not only is WMF at risk, but each and every editor that supported the ban could be brought into the case as a party. This is extremely ill-advised. Figure out another way to ban 'em, but you don't want to go down the road of calling them a pedophile - in all 50 states that would be per se defamation. (Note, this is not a legal threat - it is pointing out possible liabilities only). GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bender235 and AWB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved – no widespread support to issue any sanctions to Bender235; no general consensus that his actions are even disruptive. All users are reminded to avoid edit warring and to leave fully descriptive edit summaries. Please continue civil discussion over these issues in other venues, there appears to be no need for any admin action or even AWB removal at this time --Jayron32 06:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed an edit by User:Bender235 on my watchlist that led me to look at his contributions. I noticed that, contrary to our guidelines, he was using AWB to change a large number of articles from using <references/> to using {{reflist}}. I left a detailed note explaining exactly how this violates our guidelines . His responses are visible at User_talk:Bender235#reflist. He re-did his edits after I reverted them, and has expressed his refusal to follow the guidelines on this matter.

My desired administrative action is for an uninvolved administrator to:

• Caution Bender235 about re-doing bold edits after they have been reverted. Making a bold edit is fine, but once it is reverted, the issue must be discussed.
• Disable Bender235's AWB access. The AWB rules of use prohibit doing anything controversial with AWB.

Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I changed <references /> to {{Reflist}} manually, but anyway I don't see why this is controversial at all. No guideline, let alone rule, says "you're not allowed to replace <references />". And by the way, I asked some of the so-called "first editors" (who according to WP:CITEHOW seem to have some sort of veto against style changes since they "established" the reference style), and will revert my ref modification whereever there's opposition. --bender235 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits had the edit summary "typo fixing with AWB": . This makes it quite clear you were using AWB when you did these edits (although changing from references to reflist is not a "typo fix"). Clearly, there is opposition to your changes – I reverted them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was using AWB while making those changes, but I made them manually (not automatically). The only one opposing thus far is you, citing a rule that doesn't apply to you (since you weren't the first editor of any of those articles). --bender235 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that whenever the is disagreement, even between later editors, the original style should remain unless there is strong consensus for a change on the individual article. In this case, there is an explicit guideline, WP:FOOT, which says, "The choice between {{Reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Misplaced Pages does not have a general rule." The present situation is not much different than if you were using AWB to change the word "color" to "colour" in dozens of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the rule says, in my opinion. And if it was, this would hold up people from improving Misplaced Pages, and should therefore rightfully be ignored. From your point of view, I would've had to ask a couple of dozens editors to issue the blessing for edits like this or this. That would put the improvement of Misplaced Pages in a stranglehold. --bender235 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IAR isn't a shield to do whatever you want, otherwise we could all invoke IAR, and do what ever we want. The concensus with AWB is that you shouldn't be making mass trivial changes that don't change the appearance of the page unless you're also making other legitimate changes. This is the same reason we don't fix unambiguous redirects en masse. There is also an issue of misleading edit summaries which is against policy as well, and which you clearly did. I'd support a removal of AWB until the user can demonstrate a clear understanding of the guidelines and policies regarding it's use, as well as general editing and especially WP:BRD.--Crossmr (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused what the actual problem is right now: that I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or that I did it while using AWB? --bender235 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are problems. Large-scale style changes are strongly disfavored. And if you don't agree with the AWB rules of use or the general BRD editing method, you shouldn't use AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I made over 100,000 edits, so don't act like I was a stupid newbie. I do understand the AWB rules, but I did not consider replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} as controversial, whatsoever. If you don't want me to do those edits with AWB, okay, I'm fine with that. But I certainly won't refrain from making (citation) style improvements in general. And stop threatening me with stripping my AWB rights just because I made an edit you don't like on an article you presume to own. --bender235 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you using multiple accounts, Bender? You don't appear to have made over 100,000 edits. GiftigerWunsch 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually made 80,000 on the English Misplaced Pages, but another 20,000+ on German Misplaced Pages. JFYI. --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. GiftigerWunsch 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bender235: WP:CITE is very clear that you should not change from one style to another simply because you prefer the other style: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Occasional changes and improvements are usually noncontroversial. But large-scale changes made for stylistic reasons are completely inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is that a "large-scale change"? {{Reflist}} essentially only reduces the font size of the references. So what is your problem with this template? --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, the issue is that once a style is set, it shouldn't be changed without good reason; that's a policy you should be familiar with given that you've pointed out you've made >100,000 edits. I wouldn't call it a massive violation worthy of reporting to AN/I, but it's still against policy, and my recommendation is that you self-revert these changes. GiftigerWunsch 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is there a consensus in any of these articles that <references /> is prefered? --bender235 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the reverts: As I suggested in the past, only the issue that is in question must be reverted and not the whole edit. Some of reverts revived problems that the editor and/or AWB fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that other editors, cleaning up after AWB mistakes, must manually separate the good and the bad parts of the broken edits. That would make administration extremely burdensome. It's trivial for someone to run AWB against the articles again to redo any valid changes. I'm not the only person who feels this way . However, I did limit my reverts to only the bad edits, and left all the ones that didn't make the change in question. That much is reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's unconstructive to revert a good clean-up edit on the basis of a controversial change which you disagree with. By all means revert the change from <references/> to {{reflist}} and discuss with the user, but don't take the lazy route and knock out positive contributions along with it. In any case, unless specifically argued/reverted by the user who first established the use of <references/>, what's the problem? Leave it as it is and inform the user that it's not per-policy to make such changes since they should leave it in the style already established. If the original editor has an issue with it, they can revert it themselves. It's a small change and it's really not worth all this fuss. GiftigerWunsch 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the <references/> style (it has a more appropriate font size). So I have a reason beyond just formalities to undo the changes. Now you could ask why I don't change other articles: because I respect the rule that we should leave them as they are. But that rule goes both ways.

However, in this case, Bender235 still claims he will continue to flout the rule against changing styles (that was also his response to my original note; see his talk page). That's why I brought this here; it will apparently require other administrators to intervene to induce him to follow community norms. And editors who are unwilling to follow such norms should not be using AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support withdrawal of AWB use until Bender can demonstrate that he will use it in an appropriate way. GiftigerWunsch 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the way that this is done is by removing his name from Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Any administrator can edit that page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to post my comment about the use of Reflist over <references />. Since Reflist is a template it is easy to run a "search" to find out which articles have references, which is not so easily done using the HTML code version of references!. My personal preference is Reflist and I ran into this same problem in the past myself when I tried to make a similar change to several articles years ago. The real problem I see here is using an incorrect edit summery. I have apossible comprimise solution to this problem. Since the primary argument I have seen in the past is the reduced font that the Reflist template generates, perhaps the standard codeing of the Reflist template should be modified to match the references HTML coding. Since there are multiple reflist templates that allow for smaller font or multiple columns due to the number of references on the page then the one of the other reflist templates could be used if needed as the exception. That way if someone adds the Reflist template as a "minor edit" along with other more significant changes there is not harm done. This would also allow better tracking of what articles use references than we currently have. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with my AWB rights, anyway? I prefer {{Reflist}} over <references />, and now you're "supporting" to downgrade my user status? WTF? What's next? Am I going to get blocked indefinitely from Misplaced Pages for questioning CBM's ownership over certain articles? --bender235 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I too prefer Reflist over /references, and I always use it when adding a reference section. But it's a matter of style, and not "a good clean-up edit." It's an inappropriate change, even if done to a single article. The reason that it is inappropriate is that it leads to un-necessary debates over trivial article characteristics, which serve no purpose and reach no conclusion. There are more than enough things about which everyone agrees that they need fixing. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DGG on all counts (I like reflist too, but don't go changing it on established articles); also I believe I was the one who used the term "good clean-up edit" DGG, and you're misquoting it slightly; I was talking about other positive changes which were introduced in the same edit as the rather less positive reflist change. GiftigerWunsch 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, what on Misplaced Pages is an established article? On which of those I edited (#1, #2, #3, and #4, for example) qualifies as such? In my estimation, Misplaced Pages is an ever-evolving project. You spot a typo? Fix it! You find a badly structured article? Improve it! You see an awkward HTML table? Replace it with a wikitable! That was my approach over the last six years. I still don't think it was wrong after all. --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has been showing up on my watchlist for over a year making good edits to economic articles, so I oppose any sanctions against them at this point. On the other hand I agree with Carl its best to defer to the primary contributors if they dont appreaciate style and format changes, so once they object you shouldnt re-add changes to the articles in question unless you can gain concensus first. Reading DGGs comments maybe you should take a break from or at least slow down on upgrading to reflist, even though it seems a useful improvement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The precise point is that it's neither an upgrade or a useful improvement; it's a matter of personal preference and there's no reason why Bender's preference should override an established style. GiftigerWunsch 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I oppose sanctions as well, as references-to-reflist is a change I make without thinking twice. Now that we've established that there are policy-based reasons for thinking twice after all, we should look at behavior going forward, not back at something that seemed uncontroversial at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Revocation of Bender's AWB rights, based upon the fact that the editor feels they are right in changes the style of references from one to another, when it was clearly stated above that when one style is implemented on a page, it should not be changed. The fact that Bender has flatly ignored this is my reasoning for the "demotion".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe every user has the right to improve citation styles on any article. But again, what does this have to do with my right to use AWB? By the way, let me complete my rap sheet: I also frequently replace hyphens with en dashes where appropriate w/out asking for permission from the article's owner, I use to replace URIs to scientific journals with DOIs w/out contacting the person who added the references, and I often add infoboxes to articles despite the very fact that the initial author did not add one. Now you might as well revoke my autoreviewer right as well, don't you? --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you're still completely missing the point. Policy dictates that changing <references/> to {{reflist}} is a stylistic change and that existing styles should remain on the article unless you have a reason for changing it that goes beyond you thinking it looks better. Adding infoboxes, cleaning up references, these are the "good edits" I mentioned before which I felt that CBM should not have reverted. I do not want you to lose your right to use AWB, I want you to accept that these edits are against policy, agree to stop making them, and continue your otherwise constructive work with AWB. GiftigerWunsch 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - recently the cries of block him and ban him and remove his tools seems to have hit plague conditions, have a quiet word with him and move on. I also routinely replace references with reflist whenever I see it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I oppose provided that Bender235 stop making this particular change as requested. To Bender I personally like the reflist but for now, the concensus is to not make that particular change. My suggestion is to take it off the list of changes you perform and continue on. You have made a lot of contributions and this is a bad way to loose a good contributor over a petty change. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't have anything better to do? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and change the policy/guideline to say reflist is preferred. It is a good clean up edit, per Rob and Arek etc. Verbal chat 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Even if it is, we don't do clean-up on articles unless things are actually changed in the article. We also don't do them en masse which is what he's done, then ignored WP:BRD to edit war over a style change and has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Misplaced Pages is evolving and many article which have <references /> rather than {{Reflist}} were simply written before the latter was available. I see no problem with changing it, though if the change is reverted it obviously should not be edit warred over. But that's not what this editor was doing. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Bender's been a hugely productive editor for some time. Don't take away a tool that helps him improve the encyclopedia. We must simply come to an understanding here. Dawnseeker2000 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Which he refuses to do, hence why this was brought up.--Crossmr (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per others. Completely ridiculous. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's excessively strongly worded. The only thing that might be "ridiculous" is an established editor who continues with an "I didn't hear that" argument after several others have reminded him of our extremely well-established prejudice against making stylistic changes to articles based on personal preference. Editors making such claims should not be trusted with tools such as AWB which require discretion in their use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no point in removing AWB access, as Bender is a very useful constructive editor. Just a word of caution about not changing <references /> to {{reflist}} using AWB should be fine. (I also routinely change to {{reflist}} as well.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good edits, infraction (if any) is extremely minor, request is complete overreaction. Stop this crap and edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Veteran Good Faith editor commits minor infraction. In the words of Obi Wan: "This is not the droid you are looking for."--Buster7 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  The good faith was gone when he ignored WP:BRD. Misleading edit summaries and ignoring a consensus achieved dispute resolution process isn't minor.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose That an editor has been dragged here over a good faith edit should be enough of a dissuasion from doing it again. Removing AWB access would be Punitive, not Preventative. N419BH 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I have a problem with undoing a good cleanup based on a small change. That is at least as disruptive as anything bender's accused of doing. I prefer reflist too (but references / won't display an error message if their are no references making it preferred for new articles; it makes since it should switch once the article has references). It also appears that few of bender's changes actually involved this, most were basic cleanup. This is just baffling to me. If this was some ongoing thing, fine, but you've turned a friendly note into a ridiculous project to remove a productive member for a small, wikilawyering, and quite possibly bad rule. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  What's bad about requiring editors use proper edit summaries or that they don't edit war of style changes per existing policy?--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Emails at the Help Desk?

There is something really strange going on at the Help Desk. Starting here there are 4 different threads by anonymous editors who claim they are receiving emails that state someone has registered an account with their email. Any Ideas what is going on, and why they are all appearing at the help desk, as I cant find these claims anywhere else? wiooiw (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They're phishing, pure and simple. I got one (on an email alias that no Wikimedia server has ever seen), and while it's very well done, the urls are all faked (to an internet pharma site). The ones I've seen really come from an IP in the Russian Federation, but as it's almost certainly from a botnet, that means little. Tell people they're nothing to do with us, that they shouldn't click on the links, but that they should delete the email altogether. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written the information page WP:PHISHING, to which people receiving such mails can be directed (also from WP:OTRS).  Sandstein  20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have linked it from Misplaced Pages:Contact us/other#You received a mysterious email from us or you think you have been subscribed to a mailing-list without asking so. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Thisisaniceusername

User:Thisisaniceusername currently has an article at AfD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Animal protection. He is repeatedly removing other people's valid comments from the AfD and accusing them of harrassment - see , , and . This is despite several warnings, even from an admin or two, on User talk:Thisisaniceusername. Please note that he has also already been blocked once for WP:3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that - just went to deliver a {{ANI-notice}} and I see he's already been blocked. That was quick work folks, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely typed up though. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 13:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear he's contesting the block. N419BH 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request was turned down. Last I saw there was further contesting occurring. I believe Thisisaniceusername may suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. TFOWR 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I expect more unblock requests and demands to be pointed to the exact letter of policy as well. – B.hotep •talk• 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's there now. The AfD is a bit of a mess, quite a few unsigned edits and he's edited it with an IP and two usernames. No socking, just not logged in and he had to change usernames. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no socking. He started with an IP, then when he and I had a disagreement he registered as "Youdontownwiki". That was blocked as an unsuitable name, so he changed it to "Thisisaniceusername". And he might have forgotten to log in once or twice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFER for User:Aaronpon

• Aaronpon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been indef blocked since December of 2007. I cannot find any evidence of block evasion or sockpuppetry since then. Therefore I'd like to propose an unblock per WP:OFFER, with very close monitoring. --Chris (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the original block, but that's a long time to be blocked; I see no reason not to give this user another chance. GiftigerWunsch 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Before my time, too, but the block was for sock puppetry (and vandalism). If there's no evidence of sock puppetry in >2 years I'd say the risk of disruption is minimal - so I agree: give them a chance. TFOWR 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Heck, that's 2.5 years. That's a lifetime for some people...especially if he is/was a teenager (no evidence of this). I'd support an unblock, let him know he's on a short leash, though... --Smashville 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support WP:OFFER unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock on the condition that a suitable mentor be found. N419BH 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd make sure that he understands that any indication that he is becoming disruptive again will result in an immediate block, but other than that I'd support a return. I think he'll have enough eyes on him that a mentor wouldn't be necessary. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, conditional statement removed. Now full support. N419BH 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have they been notified of this good news? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an unblock notice on the talk page. N419BH 20:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I mean has the user been e-mailed? Not all of use have notifications by e-mail when our talk page changes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

oppose I don't support offer, never have, never will. I also oppose this extremely short discussion. Claiming no evidence of sockpuppetry is like asking to prove you can't do something. If he's been successful, no one would know.--Crossmr (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on the discussion. I think any unblock discussion needs to run at least a day, probably a little more, to ensure any problems with the user can be brought up. Sodam Yat (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick

Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jersay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay. However based on the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since the block being a duck match for Ryan kirkpatrick that would seem to suggest Ryan kirkpatrick is not a sockpuppet of Jersay, unless he happens to have moved several thousands miles. I have discussed this with the blocking administrator and this discussion is not a cricitism of his good faith block based on the evidence at the time, and he has no 6objections to a wider discussion about what should be done with this editor.

Traditionally block evasion has done no favours to the blocked editor responsible, however I ask that the block evasion itself is not used against Ryan kirkpatrick. If you look at his talk page and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick you will see a history of cluelessness, so I doubt he would have been aware of the consequences of block evasion, particularly when the (good-faith) block was in error to begin with. So while Ryan kirkpatrick's general cluelessness should be taken into account, the block evasion is the least of his "crimes".

The request for comment linked above shows zero support for Ryan and there is plenty of questioning about whether he should be allowed to continue to edit, and I was planning to propose a topic ban prior to his block.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this block is a good block but for the the wrong reason and should be maintained, or whether Ryan kirkpatrick should be unblocked with editing restrictions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a discussion not a vote, and the simple "support unblocking" does not take into account what should be done about this editor. O Fenian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, it is simple. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. He did not do that. He should be unblocked. Any other issues can be dealt with, but keeping him blocked for something that he did not do is wrong. Unblock him, and if there are topic bans or whatever needed for other conduct, those can be discussed and decided on. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the RfC is lacking in support for the subject, but it usually takes some effort to get from there to an indefinite block. An editing restriction should be easy enough to frame: edit nothing which has to do with terrorism and add no mentions of terrorism to things which don't already mention it. Or is there something I'm missing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with that as a restriction. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking the user with an editing restriction of no edits relating to terrorism. Let's assume good faith and hope the user does not sock. If he does, we will be forced to reblock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - but on a short leash. I'd rather have editors be monitored and mentored rather than resorting to new accounts. But if problems continue then blocks may be appropriate for an extended period. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Ten Commandments

There are three lists of Ten Commandments in the OT; the TC article has listed them side-by-side for comparison for the last 18 months. There's now an edit war starting up on deleting one of the three as inappropriate, and that somehow acceptance for a year and a half does not count as consensus. That list does have its own article, but IMO the main article should include all POV's for comparison, even if one is mostly covered elsewhere. Anyway, the point is obtaining consensus to change a stable article, not demanding a new consensus to restore it to its stable state. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask God to add commandment 11: Don't edit war. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Pharoah edit war with Moses, and that ended with an indef block for him?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thou shalt not edit war. –MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like this is something set in stone. Oh, wait... Anyway, why is a content dispute being posted here? To the extent there may be an edit war problem, the original poster who is reverting with edits marked as minor doesn't appear to hold the high ground. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, take two tablets and pray to me in the morning. And evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, weren't the Ten Commandments written on two tablets? –MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Errm, weren't there Fifteen Commandments on three tablets, but Moses dropped one and smashed it to smithereens? Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quiet, you. –MuZemike 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Send it over to WP:3RN unless for some reason (that I don't see) there's something egregiously bad or urgent about what's going on with it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Jonathan Kane: The Protector

• Misplaced Pages is really being cruel now-a-days.As An administrator has deleted the article.I created article three months ago.It was tagged for deletion under criteria G11 after two days of creation.I put hangon template on it and major cleanup was done then.User:DGG checked it and removed the template and told that the article was not an advertisement.It was just written like any other video game article.Now, Yesterday User:Orangemike deleted the article without even informing me or giving me the chance to oppose the deletion.This is the worst thing on Misplaced Pages.I am experienced user with over 900 edits.I know Misplaced Pages policies.Though, the article was treated like a pure advertisement.I agree that the article was stub.but, that isn't the reason to delete the article.This is truly unfair.I need justice.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I'd be prepared to restore part of the article, though I'd want to run it past Orangemike first. However, there are a few other comments to make first:

  • The article was not deleted because it was an advertisement: it was deleted as a {{db-g12}} because there was a serious WP:COPYVIO: the "Story" section appears to be a copy-and-paste from the "Features" section of this webpage.
  • The article was tagged as {{db-g12}} on 30 June by OlEnglish (talk · contribs · count).

  I'm not sure why you weren't notified about the {{db-g12}}. Sometimes things like this slip past. I think OlEnglish should have let you know, but I also think you should have known better than to copy-and-paste from websites that state "Copyright 2008 - www.ourpcgame.blogspot.com".

  Assuming that the section I've identified is the only copyvio, as confirmed by the deleting admin, and there were no other reasons for the deletion, I'd be prepared to restore it. But watch those WP:COPYVIOs!

  TFOWR 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't tag it as G12, I didn't even tag it for speedy at all. I put a {{copypaste}} tag on it. And Orangmike DID delete it as G11. -- œ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OlEnglish, my apologies, you're quite right. ({{copypaste}}, followed by G11). Too early for me, not enough coffee.

themaxviwe, I'd still want want to hear from OrangeMike first, and I'd still want the copy/paste issue to be addressed.

TFOWR 08:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) I'd recommend WP:REFUND for Themaxviwe if he's really that distressed over it. -- œ 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the webpage when I wrote the article and I wrote them in encyclopedic format.In Completely different style.I didn't knew that it would break copyright policy.User:OlEnglish should had to notify me about it.Admin had to delete only the section not the whole article.I'm very sorry for the copyright policy.because when I created the article I was very new(my second day on Misplaced Pages), so I wasn't aware of any Misplaced Pages Policy.After experience on Misplaced Pages I forgot to remove the material from the article.That's all what I had to say friends.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing it in your own words to be encyclopaedic while drawing information from a source is fine; just cite the source. But apparently at least one section was felt to be a copy-and-paste dump from the source, and wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Since OlEnglish marked it as a potential copy-and-paste, there was no need to inform you as he was not suggesting drastic action such as deletion, but OrangeMike decided there was enough reason to delete it as a copyright violation (G12). If the article is restored, just be careful not to introduce any more copyright violations and there shouldn't be an issue. GiftigerWunsch 12:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the article to User:Themaxviwe/Jonathan Kane: The Protector. Since nobody other than Themaxviwe himself has edited the article other than for vandalism, reverts, and tagging, I was able to do this without restoring the history (and thus the copyvio section). There, Themaxviwe can work on it peaceably taking care to make it an encyclopedic article that is well-sourced. --B (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, B. As other folks have said, we are pretty serious around here about copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much everybody.I'll improve article then move it to article space.Thanks again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've deleted the userfied version as well. The text was a straight copy from (More info section), the homepage of the publisher. Please, when restoring something alleged to be a copyright violation, check if the rest of the text isn't one. I'll no go and spotcheck some other conributions by themaxwive. Fram (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very annoying.I'm tired of this thing.I am telling everyone that this is the reason why Misplaced Pages is now-a-days being very bad.Now what??????I've told you that I'll improve the article and after all is OK I'll move it to Article Space then what's the problem with Fram.I have told up side that I wasn't aware of this policies when I created the article.(How many times I have to tell that I was only two days old on Misplaced Pages).Now,I am not a supercomputer that I'll improve the article in few minutes after restoration.It'll take me about one day to remove the copyrighted material and write the informative thing.Help me.This is extremely unfair.And Fram you want to check my contribution.OK?I want to tell you that I have created only two articles(except the moved articles).Other one is very stub type and I am sure that I have written it myself.Help meMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Max, copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately, not slowly edited out. By all means look at the source and write an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic in your own words, but you shouldn't introduce a copyright violation into any page, for any length of time. I suggest rewriting the article as your own work, and we can then see about moving it back to mainspace if it meets policy. I understand that you're new to wikipedia and you're not aware of our policies, but I'd recommend at least skimming them before attempting to write your own article, and especially understand that we cannot accept copyright violations. GiftigerWunsch 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK,I agree with all of you but would you please restore the Infobox of video gaming article to my user space?It's not copyrighted material at all.It'll also reduce my load when I'll create article again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable request; I'm not an admin so I can't do this myself though, you'll have to wait for an admin to see this. By the way, please only leave me a talkback message if it's something with specifically demands my attention; anything which could just as easily (or in this case, only) be handled by another editor isn't worth leaving a talkback note for, and since I have this page on my watchlist I probably would have replied anyway. GiftigerWunsch 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done The infobox is restored to the same location. --B (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by 212.85.12.187

I many of the edits today by 212.85.12.187 as personal attacks, including this one at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. I will notify the user of this ANI request within the next few minutes. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, I would like to mention Chris Bennett's description of me "all pretence of reason is cast aside and the pitiful, naked troll beneath is revealed". 212.85.12.187 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Duck reblocked 6 months. Elockid 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Contentious allegations - Al Gore bio

There has been a persistent effort to include sexual assault allegations against Al Gore connected with a massage he had in 2006. Material has been added and deleted repeatedly to the article., , , , - and there are many more incidents of this material being added and removed. Repeated discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Al_Gore#Recent_allegations is seemingly resolved, then brought up again minutes later, going round and round. Al Gore's spokeswoman has said the allegations are "defamatory", and Gore reportedly strenously denies them. There are no witnesses other than Gore and the masseuse. She did not contact the police for more than 2 months after the alleged incident, then failed to meet with police for an interview for nearly 2 years. A police investigation was closed twice for lack of evidence, (in 2007 and 2009), and is now reopened for the "procedural" reason that a supervisor did not sign off on the closing of the complaint previously. The masseuse has sold her story to the National Enquirer for as much as $1 million, and charged Gore $560 for the massage. These facts, (especially the payment by the tabloid), make a prosecution unlikely. In any event, the complaint has not been brought to a prosecutor for charges; it is still at the level of a police report/investigation after nearly 4 years. The question is - should her allegations be in Al Gore's bio? My position is no, not unless and until a prosecutor brings charges. I think the allegations is "poorly sourced", contentious at this point, though they have been repeated now in numerous RSs. There are Wiki users on both sides of this issue, repeated removals and re-adds and unresolved repeating arguments on the talk page. A ruling is needed - the content dispute cannot be resolved by the many involved editors. KeptSouth (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you trying to resolve an issue or just push your POV? Sumbuddi (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page is already configured for pending changes, so unless someone is requesting a block for edit warring or blatant blp vio I'm not sure admin action is necessary here. This looks like a content dispute for the BLP noticeboard, followed by possible an WP:RFC on the matter. -- œ 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While I am in agreement with the pretense that the article is in dire need of attention by those in higher authority than the editors and writers who add content and then find it deleted by another editor or writer, I stand on the opposite side of the fence of KeptSouth. with the Portland police Department officially repoening said case, as well as the multiple arguments between supporters of inclusion in the article and those that seem to wish to keep this news off the article. Relevance has been met, it is a matter of public record, the name of the accuser has been released and it has been the subject of newspapers and magazines across the nation. This event even if it falls flat on its face and is found to be completely groundless will remain a significant historical highlight of the political history of 2010. At stake is Misplaced Pages's reputation for being unbiased. This matter has gone beyond a flash in the pan event, yet those that wish for it not to be included refute every attempt at logical and precedent setting examples of other living person biography articles that do include similar allegations of sexual wrongdoings. Now that the case has been re-opened by the Portland Police Bureau, it is only logical to include a section with a paragraph or two recording the case for future reference. After reading his letter, I must ask - what would Jimmy Wales do? I think he said to BE BOLD! With that we are trying, but as KeptSouth explains, the discussion is turning into a war room full of too many little chiefs arguing the point incessantly and not allowing edits to be posted. BGinOC (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Administrator action required here, as User OlEnglish already suggested, start a RFC on the talkpage or open a thread on the WP:BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson - attacks, talk page blankings, etc.

Problems with this user, mostly around the articles Al Gore and the afd about a new article. Lots of WP:NPA, despite warnings on her user talk page, and even blanked statements on a talk page. Maybe a ban/block is inappropriate and this person is just wound up right now, but someone should really figure out a way to slow her down. — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has carried over from the content dispute above. Definite personal attack, no question about it. I've left a handwritten final warning on TruthfulPerson's talk page. Just so you know, we are supposed to notify any user we discuss here. I included this notification on the talk page, with a warning that any personal attacks here will probably be met with a block. N419BH 16:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about non-notification. Didn't know. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Happens all the time when a new editor comes to this page. Next time there's an issue that needs to be brought here, you'll know. N419BH 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned the user about deleting others' comments from a talk page (the actual diff of which is here). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

YAWWWN. Steven, are you referring to your warning to Brendan Frye after he blanked the section I added? Oh -- you somehow overlooked that, didn't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs)

Here's another example of modifying other users' comment. — Timneu22 · talk 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to wake you, TP. Please post a diff showing where Brendan altered your talk page comments and I'll give him a warning, too. Unless you're just lying again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's entire contrib history shows that he has a large "I'm here to fight the censorship of the liberal agenda!" axe to grind. From this topic to the Obama affair allegations, POV-pushing at Coffee Party USA, and WP:OR dribble like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neo-birtherism. He began his editing career pushing some of the weakest of the birther arguments as well. This is inevitably heading for some sort of block or topic ban, we've seen this pattern far, far too many times. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that also. He has a long list of warnings. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"She", not "he", right? — Timneu22 · talk 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, I am a bit old-fashioned and probably slightly un-PC in that I default to male pronouns when a gender is not known, rather than to some New Age xe/xhe junk. But anyways... Tarc (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I got the impression the user was a woman, and this edit sort of led me further that way. None of this really matters anyway! — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Truthinyourface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is going to spiral out of control quickly as this user finds ancillary articles such as the Portland Police Bureau (Oregon) to add a history section to. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

twice.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user needs to be blocked now, for at least a couple hours. Every edit of hers is a revert, and everything she does is reverted. It's an all-out war on multiple pages. — Timneu22 · talk 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I just had a look. They're at 3 reverts at Portland Police Bureau (Oregon), and they've been warned about 3RR. A block now, and they'd complain they didn't know until too late. Misplaced Pages:Give 'em enough rope... TFOWR 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 12 hours; however, I believe we could start discussing a topic ban from all articles dealing with American politics broadly construed. Salvio ( ) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just some additional info: As noted by Steven J. Anderson above, User:Truthinyourface is similar. User:TruthfulPerson also edits from User:207.29.40.2, as evidenced here and here. This is not an accusation of abusive sockpuppeteering, just an attempt to gather all editing histories together if a review of editing behavior is to be done as suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The name says it all. Call me hard-liner, but here is yet another case that is unable to understand WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and thereby eats up the time of those who do. A topic ban is logical, and pending further investigation I'd be willing to look at a full ban if abusive behavior can be established via socks. Jusdafax 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

List of offensive images posted on Jimbo Wales talk page

Someone has listed a large number of images which may have serious legal issues, even if they do not they are deeply disturbing and more admin attention is needed. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Nude_children_photo_in_Commons BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do. The images are on Commons. The Commons equivalent of this noticeboard is commons:Commons:AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While the images are pretty controversial, I would say that "offensive" is very subjective in this case. They are certainly not pornography, and many would argue that they are artistic (though it has to be said that I'm not one of them). I don't particularly want to look at them, but as far as I can tell they are neither legally nor morally objectionable. GiftigerWunsch 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Geiremann

This editor is pushing the "Obama is the Antichrist" theme pretty heavily. He's also taking his Wiki-rants off-wiki and into a fringe news outlet indexed by Google News. It's not a subject I particularly care about one way or another, but since it's indexed by Google News, and since he's making all the usual accusations, it's worth bringing to admin attention. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He continues to edit war. He might be happy to be a martyr, but this is one time I'm willing to please him. He is not here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push his viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The off-wiki rants don't seem to have drawn any edits yet. That said, the edits are problematic in numerous ways. Yes, the editor is determined to get their viewpoint in somewhere (see their edit history, including the deleted article, Illinois Lottery 666). More to the point, the editor been repeatedly told that their edits simply don't belong where they have been adding them (for example, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories: it hits Barack Obama, religion and theories, but misses the boat on "conspiracy" (as does the currenly included bit about Victoria Jackson...)). Also, they have yet to recognize that the lone source doesn't say what they claim it says. The source says someone contacted a fringe group with the theory, not that the fringe group supports the theory. Long story short (too late), the bit the editor is extracting from the source is one anonymous person's theory. I don't expect the editor in question to recognize that anytime soon... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Several other editors, as well as myself, have tried talking to G in good faith, but it's now obvious that's not going to help. He's here to push one insane viewpoint, regardless of any consensus or policy. He has not helped this encyclopedia in any way in his time here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm a demonic minion! Finally! Man, my parents are going to be so proud of me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Geiremann

I propose a topic ban on posting to any articles or talk pages dealing with Obama or 666. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely correct, and I cannot see a situation coming from this that doesn't wind up with a ban or block. This isn't much doubt that the editor is not here to improve the project, but is here to push this fringe "anti-Christ" stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban if that's what everyone wants, but that amounts to a full ban since he doesn't seem interested in building an encyclopedia. He's placed his little post-it notes of truth on at least four different pages by now. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - full ban. This account is an obvious example of a WP:SPA with all edits aimed at promoting a made up conspiracy theory. He doesn't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is all about - or our five pillars. I'm neutral in this matter. The editor's off-wiki rants indexed by Google News were what first drew my attention to this matter, and I don't think I've ever edited any of the articles he's touched. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. This is completely ridiculous; a topic ban seems useless here, as Geiremann does not wish to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Reading his off-wiki "articles", he seems intent on disrupting Misplaced Pages. We do not need Geiremann disrupting Misplaced Pages with some "anti-Christ" theories about Obama. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a full ban per WP:SOAP. We need to give this dude the boot asap. Topic ban is not the answer as it seems clear this person will keep looking for ways to push an agenda. Looking through the edit history and talk page is convincing. Jusdafax 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

X-romix

User X-romix (talk · contribs), who was previously banned from Russian Misplaced Pages for pushing different fringe theories and harassment of different users, now came to Jimbo's talk page complaining about reverts of his image nominations for deletion on Commons. In his complain he accused putnik (SUL) and me (SUL) of being "gay activists" and being "controlled" by another user. He also linked to a LiveJournal community where libelous and offensive statements are regularly published (it was blacklisted locally for that reason). Besides, he started totally off-topic advocacy of himself being "unfairly blocked" on Russian Misplaced Pages. I find claims of me being gay activist and controlled by some other user totally inacceptable; I also believe his behvior on Jimbo's talk page should be regarded as disruptive. vvv 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you discuss someone on this noticeboard, you must inform them that they are being discussed here. I have done this for you in this case, but in the future, you must make certain to do it yourself. I haven't looked at the actual issue you raised; I am just making certain you understand this requirement. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that fact. Thanks anyway. vvv 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting sensitive personal information about Misplaced Pages users without their consent on Misplaced Pages pages is a blockable offence regardless of whether this information is true or false. One of those users is actually a minor, which makes this case much more serious. I am inclined to indefblock X-romix. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that would be an excellent idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was following the discussion on Jimbo's page and agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at most of it, and agree also; in addition to it being an WP:OUTING, I found some of the comments homophobic and generally offensive. GiftigerWunsch 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal; I confirm that X-romix keeps slandering these two and other ru.wp users in Russian LiveJournal community (consisting mostly of banned ru.wp users), this time he simply "extended" this into en.wp. — AlexSm 22:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with move

I just moved the page Srv school to Sri Raasi Vinayaga school, and it's intermittently showing the new page as a red link and acting as if it doesn't exist. I'm not sure what the problem is, but perhaps an admin could look at the move log and figure it out. Thanks. —Torchiest /_contribs 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me; try bypassing your browser's cache. GiftigerWunsch 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, intermittently? Ah, I see. It just did the same for me; interesting. GiftigerWunsch 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here; the links are all blue, and even popups shows the content of the second article when you hover over it, and shows the first article as a redirect of the second article. The move log shows that the page has been moved, so I do not know what is the problem with the page. Perhaps one server hasn't been updated yet? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Purging the cache worked. Now try viewing the page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Never had that happen with a move before. —Torchiest /_contribs 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User Mo ainm's alternate account status

Mo ainm (talk · contribs) states on his user page he is a legitimate alternate account of an established user, but as far as I can see, he has not declared the name of the previous account. There's no harm in that I hear you cry...but I have my doubts over the truthfulness of this statement. But this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI. So I recently queried the situation as to whether this lack of disclosure was intentional, and whether he knew the conditions under which this was and was not allowed. He responded by stating he is invoking WP:CLEANSTART, and asserted his previous account had no blocks or bans, and that he had informed at least one admin what his previous account was. So I decided just to ask who this admin was to see if I could verify this claim for myself, however, I had missed the fact that in his reply he told me to stay off his talk page, for what reason I have no idea, so he simply reverted this question restating his desire to have no contact with me. I've no wish to contact him further if he doesn't want me to, but I think it is a fair question to ask who this admin is, and whether it can or cannot be verified if this is a legitimate alternate account. So, some advice please, on where to next, if at all. Or, if the admin in question is reading, please make yourself known. I've no wish to know the name of his previous account if it is not the one I am thinking of, which is declared as retired, but if it is, then it would most definitely not be the case that this is a legitimate CLEANSTART. I've also no wish to sully Mo ainm's reputation here by stating who that account was, if it is not him, but without confirmation from this admin...well, I will then probably have to reveal it to see if anyone else agrees with my suspicions. Yes, AGF and all that, but the topic area this previous editor was involved with was a highly charged one, and Mo ainm is also editing in this same area, although he's not doing anything disruptive or blockable at this time that I can see. That said, editors with records of having done so are not permitted to make a CLEANSTART, and then resume in the same area, whether the previous account is retired or not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Mo ainm of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me in doing so infact. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :( Basket of Puppies 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would highly suggest NOT revealing your suspicions per WP:OUTING. The admin they made aware of the previous account will be along shortly. N419BH 19:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope he is, because 'beware of OUTING' is always the most useless of cautions when you have no idea wtf is going on. It's almost as pointless as the old chestnut of 'don't reinstate this sourced material, per a complaint on OTRS', when you have no OTRS access. The previous account I'm thinking of did not retire because their identity was compromised that I'm aware of, but then again, if it was, it's hardly something you would announce is it? MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound rude. If I did, I apologize. I'm just saying caution is necessary. If they do in fact want to make a legitimate clean start, it wouldn't do much good to out their old identity. If however they're using WP:CLEANSTART as a cover for abusive sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion, of course that must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Perhaps they will tell us which administrator they told. N419BH 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I took your reply to mean you actualy knew what's going on, and you knew the particular admin was coming along shortly. Even if you don't know what's going on, as said, it's a bit of a useless caution to just say beware of outing, as the issue involves, as far as I'm aware, two anonymous accounts. I certainly didn't get the impression from Mo ainm that the restart was the result of having been outed on his old account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, it looks like he has no intention of contributing here. I will ask on his talk page who the admin was so we can make them aware of this thread and get it resolved. N419BH 20:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to be seen here; WP:Multiple Accounts makes it clear when you can use an alternate account. If you really believe it has been abused, then file an SPI, but as you conclude "this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI." then looks like you have to wait till such time as you have evidence that will stand up in a SPI or just leave it and carry on editing. Codf1977 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm well aware of what can and can't be done with alternate accounts, but the issue I had hoped would be addressed here is this claim that the use has been verified by an admin as legitimate already, which is starting to look suspect in of itself. Frankly, why have I got to fuck about filing an SPI if a user claims an admin has already verified he is not abusing the policy? Do admins just not care about this sort of evasion? Why have I got to fuck about stalking this guy's every single edit to get better evidence than what I have, when he presumably can with one word clear the issue up right here right now? MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to clear anything up. At all. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, (and I can see absolutely zero evidence of wrongdoing), then it isn't his problem that you are paranoid. Unless you have evidence of connection to a blocked account or other shenanigans, no one has to do anything, especially him. --Jayron32 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg L

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No one is going to be banned today. If needed, take this back to WP:WQA, but I, like Mazca, feel that the best thing to do is to mutually disengage and let the matter drop. Nothing for admins to do here except watch the two of your fight for entertainment value. --Jayron32 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Before an issue goes any further I thought I'd take it take it here first. Greg L comes to a page where I was attempting to get an image recognized as FP. He posts something about a sort of blindness and offers NO constructive criticism or anything relevant or of value, probably his first shot at me, then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility, his userpage even has profanity on it and a "non political correctness" userbox declaring he doesn't care about civility. He should be banned, even though I know this isn't the main board to discuss that.

The page in question: Misplaced Pages:Featured_picture_candidates/Auguste_Mayer's_"Battle_of_Trafalgar"#Lost-titled_painting_of_the_Battle_of_Trafalgar

His userpage (scroll down): User:Greg_L

--I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting IdLoveOne: probably his first shot at me: he confuses not liking a picture with a personal attack. Quoting him further: then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility. In fact, I wrote as follows:

• Quoting you: Too bad for you then. Please try to not take these things personally and react in that vein. Your post seems inappropriately combative and we don’t need that here. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote there was hostile so that allegation is not true. I was correctly pointed out that he shouldn’t be combative and personalize things in his posts when others don’t see things his way.

The user box does not endorse incivility so that is yet another thing that isn’t true.

My user page features a link to a sub-page treatise on a subject on which Misplaced Pages has an article: F*ck

IdLoveOne is simply misrepresenting every single fact and is wikilawyering here to exact some retribution while he/she escalates molehills into mountains. It’s just that simple. It seems petty and childish and IdLoveOne probably needs an enforced cooling off period if he/she can’t control his/her temper any better. Such silliness. Greg L (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Moved. This can't wait, this guy just won't stop, so I've moved it here. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• IdLoveOne started this as a Wikiquette alert and the editor moved the entire contents to here now. This editor is proving to be disruptive and might benefit from a 48-hour break. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day, so I moved this here in hopes of getting mediation since Wikiquette is slow and you just continue to harrass me. Two other people were able to politely and without hostility point out their problems and we have no disputes, but you're different. I've been using Misplaced Pages for 4 YEARS now, and have NEVER had to report another Misplaced Pages user or even an anonymous vandal's IP and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin, but you've called me blind, a liar and implied threats: "We don't need that here" like you're going to block me; and this userbox about about being "politically incorrect" is what that is. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Parsing this one:

• “All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day”: Writing that you should refrain from personal attacks isn’t “bullying”. Also, your “all day” is quite the exaggeration; your taking offense to my not liking your nomination started at 22:11 and you posted the Wikiquette at 22:36. Thus, it took a grand total of 25 minutes for you to spin up.

• “I've been using Misplaced Pages for 4 YEARS now”: That is irrelevant to what the facts are here.

• “you've called me blind”: No, I wrote that the muddy, near-black picture you nominated is better suited for illustrating Macular degeneration than Battle of Trafalgar.

• “ a liar”: No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true.

• “implied threats: ‘We don't need that here’ like you're going to block me”: Uhhm… no, it means we don’t need that here (personalizing things and getting combative).

• “and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin”: There’s a first time for everything and I suggest you stop wikilawyering and misrepresenting every single thing to which you take offense.

Note that WP:Civility, here states that it is uncivil to “mislead, including deliberately asserting false information”. Your allegations here are entirely untrue. You were very politely advised to not personalize things and refrain from using hostile language like “Too bad for you then”. Indeed, we don’t need that kind of thing over there. Rather than take that spot-on advise to heart, you spin out sideways over the course of 25 minutes and start a Wikiquette and then move it to here.

Maybe you’ve had a rotten day over on Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates because J Milburn reverted a whole bunch of pictures you recently added to some of Misplaced Pages’s articles. He had this comment on FPC: “hose articles are already very over-illustrated, and, having worked with editors on articles very like them (if not them, I don't remember) concerning images, I can assure you that every image is carefully chosen. Additionally, I am not wild about the EV in any of the uses.” I can’t help what J Milburn does but it’s clear that your tenor was getting increasingly combative and less collegial with each let-down on that thread. Now your behavior is simply disruptive. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be, at best, a minor civility issue - I see absolutely no evidence of any seriously disruptive behaviour or anything warranting immediate admin action. I'd strongly advice IdLoveOne to disengage - a disagreement over a featured picture candidacy is all this should be, and doesn't need to be personalised. ~ mazca 00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mazca. This is the last thing I have to say to you, Greg L, I know that it is probably pointless but I feel I must anyway:
1. I don't care if you don't like Auguste Mayer, he died over a century ago and I have no reason to defend him. The FPC and Misplaced Pages guidelines are clear, if you dislike a image or don't feel it is FP-worthy you have to post a valid reason why. I don't know much about Macular degeneration, but it has nothing to do with art, the quality guidelines of Misplaced Pages and no one in the section cares about it, but if you really felt it was an interesting fact somehow connected to the image you could've explained, and it's not about if you like the image or not, there are specific things that must be considered to decide what is feature-worthy, not just if you don't like a certain type of artwork - I'm not interested in portraits right now, so I don't comment on them and you could just as easily have passed over the image I suggested and we wouldn't be here.
2. You failed to follow policy and assume good faith and took an innocent comment out of proportion, that is why we're here and it is disruptive, ban-worthy behavior that needs no, as you put it, "Wikilawyering". Now my nomination is cluttered up with hostile notes and attacks on me that might scare people off from contributing valuable feedback that I could've used to develop my ability to understand what Misplaced Pages sees as feature-worthy and tips I could've used to fix up the image and possibly restore it to where it should be.
3. "'I've been using Misplaced Pages for 4 YEARS now': That is irrelevant to what the facts are here." Yes, it is, you've attacked my character, called it into question and are trying to spin a block on me, so I do think that 4 years good behavior shows that I have good character and wouldn't be doing this if I really didn't find it necessary.
4. "' a liar': No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true." *crickets* I don't have anything else to say, I'll let the administrators make their decisions. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mazca, I don't have a problem with a disagreement about the image, it's the fact that he turned something simple into an argument. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see the argument that developed absolutely resulted from both of you taking each other's comments more personally than they were initially intended. In neither case was anything seriously wrong done - nobody needs banning. ~ mazca 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IP user 184.59.77.102

This started when per wp:blp, I reverted some of the user's unsourced additions of contentious info to Jim Bowden and Gary Majewski , . After explaining the blp policy to user on my talk page and explaining why the content was removed, user argued but (after disruptive edit ) eventually added content back to article properly sourced with refs. I helped out and encouraged

You would think that would be the end of it. However, user has again continued the trend of disruptive edits with borderline personal attack edit summaries (, ), and keeps on un-archiving my talk page and removing info , , . User was warned before restoring archive on my talk page again. I'm not looking for drama, but the aggressive editing on my talk page/removal of article content/edit summaries led me to post here. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you report a user to ANI, you should notify said user. No problem, however; I've just notified them. Salvio ( ) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sorry, my bad. Salvio ( ) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who has say in any decisions to read the back and forth between omarcheesboro and myself. He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced.

I tried to discuss with omarcheeseboro on his talk page the idea that perhaps he had options in how he chose to enforce wikipedia's rules concerning unsourced material; specifically that he *could* have sourced the added content *himself* (thereby both adding to the completeness of the articles in question). Instead of acknowledging that the option was available to him, he repeatedly pasted in boilerplate or links concerning sourcing.

Instead of having a discussion with me, he chose to try to paint my argument as an argument against wikipedia policy. At no time did I criticize or say I disagreed with wikipedia's sourcing rules. I specifically and repeatedly said that my beef was with HIS choices on how to enforce them.

I don't like being treated the same as someone who is deliberately trying to defame a living person with unverifiable charges disguised as verified information.

This is what omarcheeseboro *should* have done:

He should have sourced and corrected the most potentially libelous addition: Jim Bowden arrested for DUI. You type "Jim Bowden dui" (without the quotes) into google and you get MANY returns.

Once he saw that this had been a good faith effort to contribute, he should have sent me a message directing my attention to what needed to be sourced and cited his correction to the Bowden DUI addition as an example of how to do it properly. Perhaps giving me a day or two before he was reluctantly forced to revert the additions.

I'm all about results - the result of omarcheeseboro's actions (while seemingly in line with wikipedia policy) was that accurate and contextually important information was removed from the pages of wikipedia whilst simultaneously putting off someone who was only trying to contribute.

He compounded this by taking a smug position that he was constrained by the rules and could do nothing else - even though that is clearly a load of bull.

Maybe omarcheeseboro doesn't think much of the effort involved; perhaps this is all very easy for him. For me it is not. I have been very ill for years and I simply have very little energy to completely dot every i and cross every t.

Considering the effort I have to muster to write this sort of material, it is infuriating when someone lazily wipes it away - not because it is wrong - but because some attention to proper etiquette was missed.

On top of that he went looking through all of my recent additions and reverted them all. For me to think this was done out of his concern for following the rules, I would only have to be shown that he was consistent in his fervor for the sourcing of all of wikipedia.

So, I just to the first article I could think of to check for the many sourcing errors I knew would be there. I randomly chose the Enola Gay article and immdiately found that of the 11 citations, 6 were broken, missing, or hopelessly vague.

I told omarcheeseboro of this and instead of deleting the sections he completely ignored the issue. If he had any real concern for the letter of the law that he is holding fast to - he would have wasted no time making the needed deletions. Instead he allowed the idea to for and take hold that perhaps a zealous attention to the rules was not his motivation - perhaps he had some personal reason to dig up all my edits and revert them.

There is no way to know because he refuses to explain himself; instead copying and pasting canned responses in a dismissive and offensive manner.

Personally I do not think that omarcheeseboro can really defend his actions in any other way than to claim his actions are by the rules. My attempts to discuss it with him (including undoing him deleting all conversations on his talk page) was my way of making him examine what his choices truly were. He side-stepped that quite nicely and he remains unexamined by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h, repeatedly deleting uncontroversial info in retaliation for someone else reverting his controversial additions is disruptive. ~ mazca 00:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per our policy — especially, when it comes to WP:BLPs —, all bits of info, especially if negative, must be sourced. Otherwise, they can be challenged and removed at any time. Any user can choose not to remove them and try to look for references, instead, but that's a matter of preference, as per WP:BURDEN. Salvio ( ) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but doing so in a way to disrupt is absolutely a pointy tactic. Deleting non-controversial information about when an NFL player was drafted just because there's no specific source there is just trying to get a rise out of another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I was referring to Omarcheeseboro's edits, but Mazca blocked him before I could type my answer. ^_^

I had warned the IP editor that he was heading for a block... Salvio ( ) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Caution: Zilla1126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no friend of ours, and unlikely to be a good-faith editor. He was one of a group of Freepers who trolled us in November 2005; it was quite unpleasant, and I deleted their nastiness from my talk page and from his (check the deletion history, as well as that of Misplaced Pages liberal bias, which gives the IPs he or his friends -- I believe "meatpuppets" is not inappropriate here -- used before he registered his account). Preferring to be lenient, I didn't block him. In dealing with these people, put on your thickest skin, and remember they already know our policies, and have known them for almost five years. See here (change the "x" to and "f") for a sample of their off-wiki coordination/comment.

On editing articles on sports figures, perhaps we can AGF and all shall be well -- and indeed maybe he's changed -- but I just needed to give a heads-up. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Emergency confirmation of user needed

Please confirm me or autoconfirm me so that I can give Misplaced Pages a picture. I promise that I am not a joker making trouble. The picture is electricity related. When I tried to, it said the function is limited to autoconfirmed and confirmed users. It also said that administrators can do it but I'm not asking to be that high ranking. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could e-mail the photo to an admin and see if it's acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very acceptable and better than some pictures I see. It is not porno, borderline porno, or dumb. It is electricity related. If I don't get an answer soon, I will not pursue the matter and you can close my account. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL... Just wait a few days for autoconfirmation. Adding a picture is not life-or-death. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

lol? Email it to me. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If it is a picture that you took yourself or is licensed under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license, you could instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. There is no autoconfirmed/confirmed requirement to upload images there, and images uploaded there can be used on Misplaced Pages. FunPika 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that adding a supposedly benign pic related to electricity is an emergency caused me to laugh out loud. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Funpika. You are a big help! Electricity Shocks (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x6 For future reference: Files for Upload. sonia 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusive comments

i've just deleted a pretty abusive comment from my user page from a Norwegian IP address. It came shortly after I had reverted another personal attack from a Norwegian editor here. I have no idea if they are the same but its a bit odd, especially as the time lapse between the two is short and well after midnight in Norway (i.e its not likely that any casual user would have come across the material. Is it possible for someone with the right user rights to check it out? Its not really an SPI report (although I am happy to be corrected). A suspicion is not an accusation but if it could be checked it might clear the air --Snowded 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked for that particularly egregious personal attack. --jpgordon 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking it up so quickly --Snowded 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, but aren't transclusion of signature templates banned? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)