Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrL (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 3 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Outing

Please read WP:OUTING before continuing to edit Misplaced Pages. Your recent edits on Talk:Christopher Langan are completely unacceptable on Misplaced Pages -- you may not attempt to connect an editor to a real-life individual unless they have explicitly disclosed such a link themselves on Misplaced Pages. Do not reintroduce the information -- doing so will result in a block from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Please revert the page to the last neutral version by Johnnyyiu. Billinghurst used your decision to lock as validation of the version by these trolls. We've been dealing with them for two years - you can imagine how frustrating it's been. TIA DrL (talk)

Please see my comment/question at BLPN: . (Just trying to consolidate these conversations a bit). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please see the warnings above. You are not permitted to out other editors, nor to edit the talk page disruptively (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist#Remedies). Please comment on content, not contributors. – bradv🍁 18:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: I am trying to work out what is going on and I will ask other experienced editors what might be done. Meanwhile, I suggest you do not comment here or attempt to make any edit or email until the block expires. It is frustrating when an open platform such as Misplaced Pages is used to attack people but we have to live with it and respond wisely. I suggest not mentioning other editors at all unless at a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. Such mentions only stimulate trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Hi. You appear to have been blocked from editing Langan's page in the past for your antics, so I would suggest reining yourself in before your account is banned. I do not know your husband in real life, as you keep suggesting. I am from the UK, and have never once stepped foot on US soil. Furthermore, my edits have all been in compliance with Misplaced Pages's rules. I have been reading these rules very carefully to ensure that this is the case.

I have no grudge against your husband. Indeed, I admire him for his commitment to Truth. I, too, am committed to Truth, and my recent edits to Langan's page reflect that fact. Which of my edits do you take issue with, exactly? They are all backed up by reliable third party sources, so I don't understand what your grievance is. It is not my fault that these sources present Langan in a negative light. I am just a humble Misplaced Pages contributor.

Kind regards, and have a lovely day, EarlWhitehall (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Let's be friends!

EarlWhitehall (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And that's it? Cat got your tongue? ~ DrL (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You must forget about off-wiki problems and off-wiki procedures when at Misplaced Pages. Do not poke your opponents. You are welcome to delete the kitten (obviously intended as trolling) but you should not identify it as trolling, nor react in kind. At Misplaced Pages, it is the calm and meek who inherit everything (provided their edits are in accord with policies). By the way, please examine my reply to you at my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned at WP:AN

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan where I have mentioned you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 – bradv🍁 06:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

I have blocked you for violating our policy against outing other editors, for the second time in a week. – bradv🍁 13:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

DrL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances.

I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided.

I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again.

I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this.

You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here.

I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work.

I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs.

If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case.

Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ DrL (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Note: The offending revisions have been suppressed, but if any passing administrators need additional context in order to consider this request, please email me. This is not an oversight block.)

DrL, you were warned for this several times, and by your comment here it is clear you have still not read the policy on WP:OUTING. You may not post personal information about other editors, or links to personal information about other editors. In the words of the warning at the top of this page, you may not attempt to connect an editor to a real-life individual unless they have explicitly disclosed such a link themselves on Misplaced Pages. Now it is your job to convince another administrator that you understand and will comply with this policy. – bradv🍁 14:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your advice. I have edited my request above (I hope that's okay) ~ DrL (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Commenting, but noting to any reviewing admins for context that I am now WP:INVOLVED with this article as an editor (and was not when I suppressed outing/warned DrL above).

DrL, I warned you above about outing this same exact individual, and you told me you understood. Then you were blocked by Bradv for 31 hours for attempting to out this person again, only two days later. Now we're supposed to believe that you get it, after you've done it a third time? I understand that it is difficult to remain calm when there are contentious issues being discussed on an article about your husband, and certainly the various SPAs involved with this article have been making it worse. But it is appearing to me that you are no more able to edit constructively here than the SPAs. In my opinion, any unblock without a TBAN from the entire subject of Christopher Langan (including editing the talk page, or mentioning him/his theories at all) runs the risk of more outing being done. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I'd just like to point out that I made a different mistake each time and now I really studied the rules (just so busy, mea culpa). A lifetime block is a little extreme under the circumstances and in light of my contrition. This situation probably won't last forever. I'm not asking for an unblock - just a limited block. TIA ~ DrL (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you broke the single outing rule three different times. And you were linked to the policy in my original warning to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Totally understood - I just meant that I broke it in different ways. It's not an excuse by any means. As I said, I'm happy to take a break anyway and leave it to you guys. Considering the circumstances, and what I was replying to, a lifetime ban seems harsh. Best, DrL (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, the block (not ban) is indefinite, but it is not infinite. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, as I said. I don't mind, But Chris wanted to weigh in on the talk page - Jack Langan section - and he should be allowed so pls limit any blocks to DrL. I'll warn him not to talk about users and just stick to content. I'll just go feed the cats and take the dogs for a run. TIA ~ DrL (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You and Chris are two different people, so he will not be blocked for any edits you've made. If memory serves he already has an account and the username is his name; if I'm mistaken, he will need to identify himself per WP:DISCLOSE. I hope you enjoy your run :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect - thx. I don't think he cares so much about the article (just hoping things work their way out and better things in). But he may weigh in about his step-father. I thought I made a convincing case to remove the last part of that sentence and told him if he wanted to weigh in, do it there; make his case and I will use the template that you showed me from the talk page (thanks for that). I'm enjoying all the new free time I have now ;) Best, DrL (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock