Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 6 April 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 33 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 100 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 79 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 December 2024) Long, but the outcome is clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 8 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 27 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 27 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 15 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 15 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 113 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 79 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 19 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Peter Damian

In the middle of June 2011, User:Elen of the Roads, apparently on behalf of the ArbCom, removed all mentions of User:Peter Damian socks by blanking, protecting and deleting a lot of pages, thereby emptying the categories Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Peter Damian and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Peter Damian. In a discussion on Elen's talk page concerning these actions, she stated "The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Misplaced Pages - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim.".

Despite the agreement of Peter Damian to stop all attempts to edit Misplaced Pages, he continued doing this. I noted this at User talk:Elen of the Roads#PD socking, reminding her of her earlier promise quoted above. The reply was a bit wishy-washy, but made it clear that she agreed basically that the agreement was now void. When further socking happened a few months later from User:86.169.241.160, I proceeded to restore the cats, user pages, and user talk pages, to make it easier to spot further socks and to clarify parts of the history behind this account for any newer or unaware editors (keeping also in mind the regular "let's unblock Peter Damian threads).

This led to some protests: User talk:Fram#Please stop had User:Risker protesting, stating a.o. that "there is very good reason to believe that many of those accounts are not associated with him at all". As far as I can tell, only one was actually mistagged, not the "many" claimed in that post. User:Bishonen also questioned my actions, both at my user talk page and at User talk:Elen of the Roads#I mentioned you.., with some support for Bishonen by User:Volunteer Marek, and some opposition by User:Demiurge1000.

Meanwhile, User:Reaper Eternal felt the need to remove the sock tags from User:Peter Damian, and User:AGK re-removed the "banned" tag from User talk:Peter Damian. Some discussion about both actions can be found at User talk:AGK#PD and User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 21#Peter Damian.

So now I wonder: a banned editor gets a courtesy blanking and deletion of most information relating to his socking, on the condition that he stops socking: he violates that agreement repeatedly; why should we keep "our" side of the bargain and keep relevant information hidden? We don't do the same for other long-term banned socks. Note, as a bonus, that a courtesy blanking and deletion was already done in 2008 when the editor exercised his "right to vanish". These deletions were also not undone, and most deletions of that user page are deleted as well. Socks from this time, like User:Renamed user 5, have been silently removed from the socks categories as well.

Why are some people, including members of ArbCom, going to all this trouble to "protect" the user name of this account (which, for clarity, isn't his real name), even when the user shows no interest in respecting his own promises in return? Why are tags and notices which are standard for all banned socks c.s. suddenly unacceptable in this case? Fram (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is coming across as a bit petty and WP:DICKish, honestly. Courtesy blanking is just that; a courtesy that was extended to this person at the time. Later actions shouldn't be used as a reason to renege or rescind a courtesy, any more than one would demand gifts to be returned from a spouse once they become an ex-spouse. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What an utterly bizarre argument. If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely. The analogy with gifts to an ex-wife is just...unintelligable. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it suspected that Peter Damian is editing again?  Giano  16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From my initial reading of Fram's post (and I of course wait to hear from everyone else involved before making a final decision) it appears that members of ArbCom have conspired to 'protect' a banned user who (perhaps) continues to sock, for some inexplicable reason. Fram, can you provide evidence of recent socking please? GiantSnowman 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that he is being allowed to edit again, under any name. From what I remember, he cooked his books and burnt his bridges very well and truly. The Arbcom would never be so foolish.  Giano  16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The "bizarre statement" is yours Paul B. What evidence do you have that Peter Damien is continuing to sock? None? Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read: "If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely." What was bizarre was the "logic" of Fram's assertion. Whether PD is in fact socking is a separate question from what should be done if he is. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you can't understand what you read. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My point should clear to anyone who is not choosing to ignore it. If you wish to make another "ya boo" comment go ahead. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Arguing with an idiot makes me the bigger idiot. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "standard"; see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#RFC:_Concerning_banned_and_indeffed_users NE Ent 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Elen's actions suggest that she has access to Torchwood software. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Paul B, it isn't rocket science; just because someone is rude to you doesn't give you an automatic right to be rude in return. Going back to a banned user's page and re-tagging it years after the fact was utterly pointless, it was of no benefit to the project. My analogy was sound, your lack of understanding is not a concern of mine. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy was nonsensical. My 'lack of understanding' is because it did not make sense. No-one is being rude to anyone. Providing information is the issue. It isn't rocket science. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It was not nonsensical or unintelligible, but your responses thus far have been just that. Let's try this real simple-like; 1) something courteous (blanking) was done for Damian. 2) Damian is alleged to have done something discourteous (socking) at some point later on. 3) Fram contends that that the original blanking was a sort of quid pro quo (that's, like, Latin, and stuff) now rendered null and void since one end was not upheld. 4) I feel that something done as a "courtesy" is not something that one usually takes back down the road, regardless of the actions of the other party...and if one does try to take such a thing back, it is somewhat of a dick move, hence the gift analogy. Now if you're done with the strawman (that's, like, logic, and stuff) retorts, maybe we can discuss the actual matter at hand. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pointlesss, and a good indicator of one of Misplaced Pages's deepest problems; past indiscretions are never forgotten, or allowed to be laid to rest. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt there is an secret cabal of arbs and other admins that want to do nice things for Peter Damian or are protecting him. Tag warring over the content of banned user's pages is as tacky as it is pointless. WP:RBI, if there are any current socks at all, is a much better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop having little digs at one another? First things first, we need evidence of PD's socking - then we can discuss whether or not there has been any attempt to 'hide' it by those in a position of power. GiantSnowman 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if there was socking or not. Re-tagging an old account as a "banned user" is simply Scarlet Letter-ish, to borrow a recently-used term for this. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean gravedancing? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The evidence of the continued socking? User:Hestiaea is one (e.g. and User talk:Sue Gardner/5, where the editor claims to be writing a book about Misplaced Pages, something Damian is doing as well), and the IP User:86.169.241.160 self-identifies as Damian (using Damian's real name, which he had disclosed on Misplaced Pages earlier, so no outing here) here. There may be others (or not), these are just two that happened to cross my watchlist. Hestiaea is the kind of user that pretends to be a novice with innocent questions, wasting the time of editors, e.g. at Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Fram (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Damian is not writing that book alone, and in what sense is it "socking" if an IP reveals himself? Basically you have nothing but spiteful vengeance. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't claim that he was writing that book on his own; if an IP reveals itself, it is still socking by all definitions (you don't suddenly get permission to edit with an edit or account as long as you reveal which banned user you actually are); and vengeance for what actually? Anyway, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 116#Jagged 85 and Misplaced Pages accuracy has some more on Hestiaea, other IP socks, and Beeblebrox blocking the user. Fram (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "socking" by any rational definition of that term if an IP chooses to reveal him or herself. What an absurd idea. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Call it "accounts and IPs used to evade a ban" if you prefer, it hardly changes anything about the fundamental issues. And the Hestiaea account clearly was socking even in your definition. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram,

Alleging that Damian be socking was a serious accusation. You have acknowledged the falseness of your unsubstantiated falsehoods. Please strike your falsehoods, here, and work toward more self-control when you make accusations.

In the future, you should stick to alleging "disruptive editing", which is so vague that another unsubstantiated accusation will probably not cause you any trouble. It's worked better for you in the past, hasn't it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not "acknowledged the falseness of my unsubstantiated falsehoods", but thanks for the redundant redundancy in your comment. I have acknowledged that Malleus' definition differs from mine (and most everyone's elses), and indicated that even with his definition, there are plenty of socks remaining. So, as requested, I have struck all my falsehoods in this section. Happy? Fram (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter Damian seems like a good guy from the little I've talked to him (which was his sock), but he did implicitly acknowledge elsewhere that the sock was him, but the evidence involves WP:OUTING. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(Resp to Fram) If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What new socks? Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never witnessed so much apparently-clueless hypocrisy than I've just seen by reading this thread. If there's something everyone here should know by now, it's that people who want to edit the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" can't be stopped from doing so. Why anyone still cares is a mystery to me, I've long since stopped. If I left my front door wide open during the day, I shouldn't be surprised to come home and find my furniture gone and my beer supply reduced to empty bottles. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we are worrying needlessly. I'm quite sure Peter Damian manages to edit as an IP, but I am equally sure he will never again edit as an accepted named editor. Such as it is, I would stake my Misplaced Pages reputation on it - his history prevents that.  Giano  19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In otherwords, Misplaced Pages couldn't get rid of him, if it wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we want to get rid of people, per se, we just want to get rid of their endless egotistical fuckwittery. If PD was not such an attention whore, he'd be quietly editing away under a new account somewhere and nobody would mind at all. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

JzG (Guy), do you make such personal attacks all the time, or only when surrounded by AN hipocrites who don't enforce WP:NPA? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is another aftershock of the recent Wikipediocracy controversy. Let's wish that people would just stop looking for trouble, especially if they don't identify their vendettas when they continue the drama. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz

Can someone please ask this user to back off a bit? He first made incorrect claims about me, and then went on to change the section header to a completely incorrect and accusatory one. and edit warred over it with an uninvolved user. He then continued to make the same claims at my talk page, despite nothing in this discussion supporting his claims.

When I reinstated the original section header here (because the section is about what happened to and what to do with PD socks and the tags on them, not about what to do with Peter Damian, which would be a different discussion; and because the section header was linked to in multiple wikilinks, now all broken), he reverted me again, accusing me of editwarring (considering that this was his second revert of the section header, a bit rich coming from him), calling me in the edit summary a "cowboy administrator", and claiming a "consensus" when all that was done was that one editor tried to find a middle ground, giving essentially in to the shenanigans of Kiefer Wolfowitz. I have no idea why I (and others) get such a hostile overreaction from KW in this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fram,

You omitted your reverting Giant Snowman, in your edit warring, etc.

You hypocrites at this board have shown that you all let insults like "attention whore" stand, so forgive me for not consoling you at being called "cowboy".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"I reinstated the original section header here". I didn't omit anything. Fram (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Links fixed (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Peter_Damian_socks) with {{anchor}}. Anyway, any experienced editor who opens up a sketchy, nearly or entirely pointless thread -- especially one based on a false premise -- should anticipate the resulting blowback that will follow. If you can't stand the heat don't post on AN NE Ent 11:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What "false premise"? That you find it "sketchy" and "nearly or entirely pointless" is opinion, so while I don't agree, there is no need to explain those; but you seem to agree with KW that the section was based on a false premisse, even though he hasn't demonstrated any such thing; KW claims that no socking hsa occurred, which flies in the face of all evidence. But if he believes this to be true, instead of changing the section header and making some handwaving allegations, he should be taking the two sock cats to MfD, and try to get the SPIs about PD "corrected". Fram (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Fram

Please see the talk page of Fram for his insults to Carrite, etc. Would an honest conscientious administrator explain the duties of administrators, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And the relevance of this to the section "Peter Damian socks" is...? Oh wait, of course, if I make a subsection about your actions in this very dispute, you can start a general section on unrelated stuff just becaues it involves me. Right... Start a new section or whatever you prefer if you feels this needs action, but don't hijack a different discussion to continue your WP:POINT violations please. Fram (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I tell you what, Fram.

You strike your insults to Carrite, and then you can begin to think about instructing me in manners.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen to Fram, mate, if you have a problem with Fram, go to his talk page and discuss your issue with him there, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because hypocrites don't enforce policy against other administrators or their familiars? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we deal with 78.160.xxx.xx? Hundreds of disruptive edits per week

A long list of Misplaced Pages articles are currently under attack by an extremely persistent Turkish nationalist who edit wars, vandalizes and pushes an almost absurd POV. For just a fraction of the articles targeted, see this list that only covers article vandalised today. What this user does is to try to make the whole world Turkish. Virtually any person that ever lived in an area covering almost all of Eurasia can be claimed as Turkish by this user. It is of course utter nonsense, and we are a small army of users reverting this POV-warrior, but the fact that they constantly change IP makes it well nigh impossible to deal with them. As far as I can tell, there are two possible solutions:

• 1. We semi-protect all articles they target. That is what we have been doing this far, a long list of articles was semi-protected a few days ago, and I hope an admin can deal with this list very soon. There are two problems to this approch: we are constantly one step behind, and over time we will end up with hundreds of semi-protected articles just because of any exceptionally disruptive user.
• 2. We block the range 78.160.xxx.xx. I was first against that approach, but I'm starting to think it's the best. Yes, it's a large range, but there is no reason users within that range could not register accounts and edit. Within this range are at least 20-30 IPs the user has been using, and I would estimate at least 200-300 disuptions only in the last week. It's never the same IP, none of the IPs involved in the attacks a few days ago are involved now.
  

This is a rather troublesome situation, and it has already taken up quite a lot of time for a large number of responsible editors (including User:Al Ameer son, User:Binksternet, User:Kansas Bear, User:Ahmetyal, User:Faizan Al-Badri, User:Zheek, User:Adam Bishop and myself) who all revert the POV-warrior Something needs to be done about this extreme user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition. I've notified the users mentioned in my post. I have no idea how to notify the POW-warrior with the dynamic IP but I left the AN-notice of one of the many IPs they've been using today.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend indefinite semi-protection for all targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an option. But then we need a system that makes it more automatic. As soon as we detect this user targeting new articles, it should be possible to report it and have the articles indefinitely semi-protected. It's been many hours since I reported the list of articles targeted today, about 20-30 articles. They haven't yet been semi-protected and all have since been targeted again and reverted by the same POV warrior.Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have begun with temporary semi-protections of this list but I need to log out now. Regarding the range block it should be noted that the 85.99.xx range has also been involved . De728631 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support both Solutions, but the second one is more appropriate! How many Articles would we semi-protect? These IPs should be banned, or a range-ban should be there, but account creation should remain enabled in the IP range to facilitate Misplaced Pages contributors. Faizan (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I suggest disable "anonymous editing/IP editing" and enable "account creation" for those range of IPs. Because those IPs are shared/dynamic addresses and maybe another user/editor needs to create an account. I also support Jeppiz's solutions to deal with this situation. Zheek (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

How frequently does his IP change? Every few days? Hours? Minutes? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP changes every few hours, I haven't counted but I think there were at least five different IPs yesterday, but obviously by the same user. Same thing a few days earlier, lots of different IPs in quick succession. Like Zheek and Faizan I think we should consider disabling editing from the range 78.160.xxx.xx as well as 85.99.xx but keep account creation enabled. In the end, it's a more convenient option that eventually semi-protecting hundreds of articles just because of one disruptive person.Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to use the edit filter, blocking IP editors from this address range from editing only those articles that contain specific keywords. It's a bit of a pain to implement, but has successfully stopped several similar incidents in the past. However, in the short run, I think rangeblocking anonymous editing from those address ranges while still allowing edits from logged-in users is the best way to go until a more nuanced solution can be developed. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. --John (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've now applied anon-only rangeblocks to both of those /16s, with account creation enabled, for a period of two weeks. Let's see what happens now. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And if they return? Zheek (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I unarchived the RFPP and {{tlx}}'ed anything that would get it re-archived, so the list will still be there for any admin who wants to provide a liberal dose of semi-protection (or pending changes if it becomes less frequent). Or, for broader solutions, there's always the option of blocking more ranges or, if the IP-hopper starts creating accounts, blocking account creation on the ranges that are already blocked (if that needs to happen, someone should file at WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests to check that they're still on the same ranges, and approximate the extent of the collateral damage.) — PinkAmpers& 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. It's better that editors and admins keep watching targeted articles and monitor those IPs' activities (maybe IP-hopper will use new range of IPs). I will report if I find similar activities and new targeted articles. Zheek (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not solved yet

This new IP 95.5.25.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is definitely the same user, continuing the quest of Turkifying most of the world.Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Targeted articles:

• Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century
• Touman, Uldin, Charaton, Octar, Rugila, Bleda, Ellac, Dengizich, and Ernakh (Hunnic rulers).

Please review Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century version history. He/She (currently 95.5.25.10) has used many IPs (different ranges). Compare those IPs' edits and edit summaries on that template and template talk. This IP-hopper will return. Zheek (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Returned with another IP: 95.5.20.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (95.5.X.X), diff. Zheek (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Range 95.5.16.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked). No one else is using this range right now, so I will block it for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna. Zheek (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• IP-hopper has not returned in the last/recent 24 hours. It seems that his/her most used IPs are blocked. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zheek. I am glad this has worked. At least two IP addresses are required to calculate a range block, but the more the better. If/when the problem resumes, please collect all the IPs they use so the tightest possible range block can be calculated. I'm not sure which board is the best one to post at, probably the highly-watched WP:ANI. I think it's now safe to mark as Declined the related page protection requests at WP:RFPP, so I have gone ahead and done that. -- Dianna (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Good, we keep watching all targeted articles. Thanks for your helpful suggestion. Zheek (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Turkifying" most of the world? That is a new word, but I believe that if/when this user reappears, he should be given a "block on sight" thing, doing it once is probably worthy of a warning and revert, doing it twice just proves that the user didn't learn anything and should be blocked. I'd say that perma-protection on the targeted articles would be in order, but weighing the risks would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock User:Kalki

I propose to unblock User:Kalki. Kalki has been indefblocked since October of 2010 for editing from an absurdly large number of accounts (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalki/Archive). However, so far as I can tell he neither engaged in vandalism, nor used those accounts to vote multiple times in discussions (although I believe there may have been some occasions where he contributed to a discussion using two different accounts). It seems, rather, that Kalki's sockpuppetry was motivated primarily by a quixotic desire on his part to do good deeds without taking credit for them. Following Kalki's block here, he was desysopped at English Wikiquote for basically the same reasons, but was allowed to continue editing, although clearly limited to one account. In the intervening two years, Kalki has consistently been one of the top contributors to Wikiquote, both as a content creator and as a vandal fighter. Although he certainly has some quirks in terms of his editing preferences, and we have had strong disagreements on issues of style and page arrangement, it is clear to me that Wikiquote benefits from his involvement. I believe that Misplaced Pages would also benefit from Kalki being able to edit here, and I his generally good behavior on Wikiquote leaves me with no reason to believe that he would repeat the sockpuppetry that got him in trouble in the first place. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we heard something from them, like, do they even care or want to be unblocked. they appear to have talk page access and can appeal this themselves whenever they wish. Unless and until they do that I see no need for a community discussion of the matter. Indeed, after such a long time it would probably be a fairly simple matter for them to just get unblocked by promising to limit themselves to one account in the future.apparently that is not the case, but it would be a start anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I notified Kalki of my proposal to unblock, and he certainly seems to want to be unblocked. I'll ask him to respond to your point. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would adamantly oppose an unblock, primarily on the basis of Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote, where he used multiple sockpuppets to essentially maintain single-handed control of that project. There was nothing there that was indicative of any desire to do good deeds without taking credit for it, Kalki routinely brought out the socks to back him up whenever another editor disagreed with him. His behavior, and unwillingness to compromise, drove me off that project before it was revealed that he was socking to an absurd extent - and it should be remembered that he was the sole bureaucrat there at the time.

Now, off-wiki behavior is not normally considered when determining on-Wiki decisions, but I feel that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, as it demonstrates that he is not beyond lying, deception, (that's what pretending to be someone else is) and misusing a Wiki for his own purposes. I see absolutely no reason why we should assume that this leopard has changed his spots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the Village Pump at en.wikiquote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kalki has made a statement as to this proposal on his talk page. I agree that Kalki's behavior both here and on Wikiquote was bad, but that was several years ago. I believe that, his occasionally overwrought contributions to discussions aside, he has basically been rehabilitated. We can always unblock him now, and reimpose the block if he actually engages in improper behavior. bd2412 T 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that any misbehavior would be under this account name, aren't you? But the basic problem with Kalki was his devious socking, and sockpuppetry does not come to light as easily as disruptive editing, and it is much easier for the master and the socks to argue against it, at least until a CU gets involved. Do we know that Kalki hasn't been socking since he's been blocked, has a CU run a scan? Has he taken responsibility for his malfeasance at Wikiquote, or, like DanielTom below, does he think that his blocking and desysoping there was "harrassment"?

It's not so easy to accept that someone has been "rehabilitated" when their misbehavior has been on the scale of Kalki's, who single-handedly controlled a Wikimedia Project for a long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to conditioning a removal of the block on a Checkuser review, both here and on Wikiquote. While I disagree with the assertion that Kalki's desysopping was "harassment", it has been abundantly clear since then that there is a single editor who was a strong advocate of that process, and who continues to take every opportunity to provoke Kalki. I must say, also, that I have been editing Wikiquote for eight years now, to the tune of over 65,000 edits, and although I have had numerous disagreements with Kalki over issues ranging from punctuation in citations to limitations on the number of quotes and images on a page, I have never felt like he controlled the outcome of those discussions. Despite his sockpuppetry (and his theoretical ability to overwhelm discussions with sockpuppet support) he was most often either on the losing side of the discussion, or on the side shared by a solid majority of the many editors who were not, and are not sockpuppets. In other words, Kalki did not, at any time that I witnessed, "maintain single-handed control of that project". bd2412 T 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, our Wikiquote experiences differed, fair enough. I have no interest in continuing to "prosecute" this, I think it's quite obvious that I do not consider Kalki to be trustworthy, and feel that an unblock is unwarranted, especially since no really good reason has been given for one -- simply having been blocked for X amount of time is no reason that one should be unblocked, and the hyperbolic hosannas expressed by DanielTom below are less than creditable. I guess, if you do decide to go ahead, a CU clearance would be a minimum step. I'll back away now and let others have their say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. However, I must point out that my basis for proposing this is not merely that X amount of time has passed, but that during that time, Kalki has continued to be an effective contributor on Wikiquote. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on one point, namely that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, but that is exactly why I give my strongest possible SUPPORT to this proposal to unblock Kalki, and I commend bd2412 for bringing this up.

Sorry to say, but Beyond My Ken completely misrepresents what actually happened on Wikiquote, and his assertions about Kalki are simply FALSE. Even those who in the past persecuted (or, in my opinion, harassed) and quite improperly blocked him, could not find compelling evidence that he ever made abusive edits with any of his many other accounts, on any project, discounting one or two minor incidents which Kalki maintains to have been unintentional mistakes; now contrast that with the 90 000 constructive edits that Kalki has made overall, over the past 10 years, on Wikiquote alone, and you can get some perspective.

Just for the record, the Wikiquote policy doesn't actually forbid the use of other, secondary, accounts, except when they are used for vandalism, which is something that Kalki has NEVER done. (A Wikiquote sock puppet is another account belonging to a user, used for causing trouble, vandalism or as a way to get around Wikiquote's policies — based on that definition, I should even object to calling Kalki a "sockpuppeteer".)

Now, I urge you, let's please, please keep in mind here that we are talking about one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence either on Wikiquote or Misplaced Pages (as well as in other projects), whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here. I think that it should be crystal-clear to anyone not blinded by intolerance that Misplaced Pages is losing a very valuable editor indeed. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Speaking for myself, and with the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind, I once again urge everyone here to consider doing the proper thing, which is to unlock Kalki — who is, after all, one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have — and I sincerely hope that one day everyone will come to realize how privileged we are to have him and to work along side him, in our joint effort to improve Misplaced Pages. Thanks... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that DanielTom's account dates from last October, and he has 214 edits, and yet he knows that Kalki is "one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have" and is "one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence...whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here". This, I think, is called "damning with great praise." If I didn't have gobs of AGF all the way down to my bones, I would be a might suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Those who wish to judge for themselves whether the removal of the sysop and bureaucrat flags from Kalki at en.Wikiquote was indeed "harrassment", as characterized by DanielTom above, should read Kalki's Vote of Confidence from their archive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would NEVER have thought that the opinions of users should be discounted just because of their supposedly low edit count... Just so you know, even though I edit on several different projects, my main work is at Wikiquote, where I have nearly 2500 constructive edits (for what it's worth). I must leave now, so don't be offended if I don't have the time to respond to other silly attacks of this nature. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually went outside for a while but, as I waited a long time for the bus, I eventually realized what you are actually trying to imply (I missed it because of my naïveté), so I just came back to give you a heads-up. There is, in fact, no mystery here about what I know — I have read pretty much all the archived discussions at Wikiquote regarding this issue, and many others, so I think I am within my rights to express my opinion here about Kalki. NEVERTHELESS, if you are suggesting — "I would be a might suspicious" — that I am another sock puppet of Kalki , that is no accusation that you should make so lightly, and if you are to express it then I think you should go ahead and request that a Checkuser confirm it. This is not a joke. I should of course warn you that you must, however, be prepared to say that Kalki has been committing the grave crime of impersonating myself (Daniel Tomé) and, moreover, that he also knows Portuguese — which I am very doubtful that he does — so I would suggest that you actually take the time to analyse my contributions (such as the ones I made to Meta, where I have translated several pages to Portuguese) before you embarrass yourself further or, even worse, make such vicious accusations again. Thanks for your understanding, and I'm off again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a side discussion altogether, but while I have 2500 edits on Wikiquote, you have 11 edits there, so your argument is really quite self-defeating... ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - This user is in my top rank of the untrustworthy here... a multiple sockmaster who abused our processes to push their viewpoints. Why invite a proven moral cheater back into the fold? Disturbing lack of common sense here, in my opinion. Jusdafax 00:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, again, my proposition is based on my experience with Kalki's continued positive contributions at Wikiquote. bd2412 T 03:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you please show us the evidence that he ever abused our processes to push their viewpoints? As far as I know, you won't be able to find any such evidence, but it would be very enlightening indeed if you could. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For the record, it strikes me as very odd that you should accuse those who have actually worked the longest with Kalki of lack of common sense, since it is they of all people who actually know him better and understand how unjust it is to keep him blocked. Despite the historical misrepresentations, as it all happened years ago, and given that, in the meantime (working with just one account), Kalki has continued to be one of the most valuable editors on Wikiquote, what truly strikes me as "lack of common sense" is saying that after all this time he still shouldn't be allowed to even edit here. Sincerely yours, DanielTom (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Kalki has been blocked for a long time, it seems to me that wp:offer should apply in this case. As long as we get a commitment that Kalki will now stick to one account I see no reason not to unblock. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. He's already agreed on his Talk page "to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account". ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for bringing up Misplaced Pages:Standard offer; the recommended "wait time" under that policy is six months; Kalki has remained silent for nearly two and a half years. As DanielTom indicates, Kalki has made a commitment to stick to one account. bd2412 T 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that the standard offer is definitely not a policy, it is an essay. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to unblocking. To the best of anyone's knowledge, Kalki has honored the commitment at Wikiquote to use only one account.

  I think some ongoing difficulties at Wikiquote to which BD2412 alludes are quite serious, such as "overwrought contributions to discussions" that I would call highly abusive ad hominem attacks; and though having "controlled the outcome of those discussions" is not really at issue, tendentiously editing with strident disregard for the outcome of those discussions is a real issue. However, these issues are unrelated to the reason for which Kalki was blocked at Misplaced Pages, and I suspect Kalki recognizes it would be imprudent to attempt to do at Misplaced Pages everything one can get away with at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Kalki is a very dedicated contributor to Wikiquote, and from what I read, deserves a second chance here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and is DanielTom (talk · contribs) a sock of Kalki (talk · contribs)??? — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Another baseless accusation. You should feel free to request a CheckUser search, Cirt, but either put up or shut up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's get the record straight.

The question "is DanielTom a sock of Kalki" is an extremely malicious one, not only because it is not based on any evidence, but also because it makes other good faith editors here doubt whether my praise of Kalki is genuine, and even suggests that Kalki is stupid enough to use a sock account in this very discussion.

Now, as the question has been brought up twice now, in order to prevent it coming up again just to distort this discussion even further, I will assume good faith and show just how silly the suggestion that I am Kalki really is. Fortunately, it is very easy for any editor here to understand that I am not Kalki, because I never tried to hide my identity online (quite the opposite, as can be seen from my old profile at Wikiquote). Indeed, I shall do so, given that apparently the users who shamelessly and willingly accuse me of sock puppetry do not dare to request a CheckUser search.

So, here are the facts:

I first started editing on Wikiquote in August 2012 in the Bertrand Russell article, actually showing my IP (please see those contributions here). After a while, I registered the "Daniel Tomé" account (my name) but continued making contributions to the same Wikiquote article, as you can see in its article history.

If you still aren't convinced that my IP edits show that I am Portuguese, please check, e.g., the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages "Pedro Cosme Vieira" (which is obviously written in Portuguese). It was my brother (Diogo Tomé) who created that article, but he asked for my help to improve it, which I did, as you can see here. (Incidentally, the article is about one of my professors at the University of Porto.)

Recently, I changed my username to "DanielTom" because that is the name I have used online since 2007, as you can see here. I created that account on KGS, when I was 14 years old, with the very same email that I used to create this Misplaced Pages account. KGS is a Go server, where I am famous (meh) as "DanielTom". You can also check the many articles about Go that I ("DanielTom") wrote for GoSensations.com here (though I strongly advise against it since they are terrible literature). As I participated in the last WAGC, you even get to see my angry face here, if you are curious (though again, I do advise against it). I played there as the representative of Portugal, my country.

Now ask yourself, and try not to laugh: is Kalki the Portuguese Go Champion, Daniel Tomé (me), a 19 year-old economics college student from Portugal? This ridiculous accusation may appear hilarious to an outsider, but it is very insulting.

Really not cool. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Cirt has requested that I be checked, which is great. Hopefully the results will be made public before too long; this joke has already gone too far as it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RESULTS of the investigation: This case has been discussed in mailing lists, and Kalki and DanielTom were found to be Unrelated. And this was based on the findings of three checkusers checking accounts across multiple projects. The consensus is that there is almost no possibility these two are the same editor. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment

Basic facts: The investigation in 2009 was done crosswiki by checkusers trying to understand who was creating a huge number of accounts on numerous WMF wikis. After Kalki was identified as the primary account, En Wikiquote checkusers were notified.Wikiquote checkuers Aphaia contacted Kalki and eventually a vote of confidence happened on Wikiquote because Kalki had 'crat and admin tools. At the time I was a semi-regular editor on Wikiquote and learned of the problematic accounts from the discussion on the Checkuser mailing list. Since no one else was doing it, I decided to evaluate Kalki's edits to look for problems beyond having an absurdly large number of accounts. The results of my investigation are here. It was my view at the time that Kalki was very opinionated topic of discussion and content on Wikiquote and instead of persuading the community of the opinion by speaking with one account, they used numerous accounts to express their view. On some occasions Kalki spoke with more than one account in the same discussion and engaged in what is clear cut abuse of accounts, and on many other occasions Kalki edited article and talk pages using many accounts which would cause someone to believe that numerous people supported the content or point of view....a more subtle form of controlling content and policy. When these concerns we brought to Kalki's attention, Kalki first blamed Checkuser Aphaia for bringing the discussion to Wikiquote. So, while it is true that Cirt has taken close notice of the situation and repeatedly pushed for sanctions, the original investigation was carried out by impartial checkusers and editors who had no prior disputes with Kalki. At this late date, I have no concern with Kalki getting unblocked and abusing multiple accounts. But I want to go on the record to say that the problems came squarely from Kalki's refusal to resolve the problem back in 2008 and 2009 when asked to stop using multiple accounts and the checkusers were forced to go on site and make it a large community distraction. Several years later bd2412 encouraged Kalki to apologize to me for the work and trouble of sorting out this mess and Kalki commented on my talk page. I was satisfied that Kalki understood that using the multiple accounts was not completely benign and needed to be investigated although I don't think Kalki ever truly appreciated the magnitude of the disruption and work that these accounts created. But that alone is not a reason to leave Kalki blocked on Misplaced Pages. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FloNight, for your thorough summary of the situation. As you have noted, I have worked to rehabilitate Kalki, and bring him to a greater level of self-awareness of the problems inherent to his conduct in that period. I think the situation can best be summed up with the observation that Kalki does not like the policy of prohibiting multiple accounts, but has come to conform his conduct to that policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

bd2414, my reason for looking into the situation back in 2009 was to determine if Kalki put himself at an advantage over other people from using the other accounts. Based on that determination, I made my decision back then that Kalki should not be permitted to use more than one account. (Remember, Wikiquote did not have a policy that out right stopped all use of multiple accounts so there were questions as to whether having hundreds of accounts was allowed. Kalki certainly felt it should be permitted.) It has been over 4 years so I have to review my notes to remember exactly what problems that I found. Kalki had been editing since the earliest days of Wikiquote but I focused on the more recent years because that would be the best indication what his future conduct would be with the accounts if he was permitted to continue to use them.

1) Classic using multiple account to team up against another editor. User:Lucifer, left template message for an ip editor, calling their removal of images vandalism. And after that editor objected, Kalki joined the discussed and made comments that left the impression that more than one person disagreed with the ip's editing.

2) Kalki using User:Neo account asked primary account 'crat User:Kalki for a name change to User:NEO with a deceptive onsite comment that indicated that User:Neo was not an active editor on Wikiquote. Kalki did the name change the same day.

3) In Sept. 2009 (just a few months before the abuse of account because public on wiki) using User: Achilles voted in a deletion discussion making heated comments. User:Achilles has edits dating back to 2003. And voted in at least one other deletion discussion using the Achilles account.

4) Also made comments with Achilles, Kalki, and Rumour accounts content dispute on Abortion article.

Keep in mind that I did not examine all of Kalki's edits. I stopped looking at them when I found ample evidence that Kalki made deceptive comments that would cause someone to believe Kalki was more than one person in instances where it would really matter to someone looking at the comments. So that people here on Misplaced Pages understand that it was not just a use of clever accounts names to express his style, I point out that these instances on Wikiquote where Kalki used having multiple accounts to advantage himself and was deceptive. A lot of time has passed since then and to the best of my knowledge Kalki stopped using other accounts so I'm hopeful that your rehabilitation has worked and don't object to him getting a second chance. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason that I'm documenting the past problems here is because of Kalki's comment on his Misplaced Pages talk page. "I agree to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account until such issues as might be involved can be openly resolved, and such restrictions removed. (bold is Kalki's). This seems to indicate that Kalki intends to seek to edit with more than one account at a later date. I would be opposed to it since I don't think that Kalki has ever acknowledged that he used the other accounts to mislead other editors. And his style of making long comments makes it difficult to wade through the text to review his edits so documenting it here for future reference. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We could try an experiment like the "Mike Garcia" user test pulled a few years ago, and see how it goes, if Kalki becomes a good editor, then we could let them regain our trust, and if the same disruptive behavior resumes, then we can just re-block and leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Above it is said: "I think the situation can best be summed up with the observation that Kalki does not like the policy of prohibiting multiple accounts" This perhaps maybe the reason for a lack of consensus here. To put it colloquially: 'what's not to like?' Or more formally, what are the nature of the User's objections? (on a side note, it appears from the above that wikiquote has a different approach, so that experience may not be transferable) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a consensus yet — I'm trying not to be biased here — but, it seems to me, of all the users who have expressed their opinions thus far, even if based on misinformation, only three (3) have opposed the unblock (Beyond My Ken, Jusdafax and Cirt); on the other side, five (5) users currently support the unblock (bd2412, me, ϢereSpielChequers, Ningauble and Mdd), and this doesn't include the (3) other users who also appear to be inclined towards supporting (Beeblebrox, FloNight and 173.58.59.121). (Of course, the quality of the arguments should be more important than just the number of votes, but I think that's where we are at this point.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect to those who object to lifting the ban on Kalki, I would like to know what conditions or circumstances would lead you to withdraw your objection. Do you think Kalki should never be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages again, no matter what? Or would you be satisfied with some degree of supervision, limitation, or the like? bd2412 T 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

For myself, I would prefer that Kalki not be unblocked at this time, but if unblocking is going to come about anyway, then I believe it should be dependent on a clean CU scan for socks, and, more importantly, an acknowledgment from Kalki that allowing multiple accounts is dangerous to this project. Note that this is different from promising to edit with one account, which I understand he has already done; I'm looking for some hard evidence that he has been "rehabilitated", as you claim. For me, "rehabilitation" would be the indication that he knows and understands the purpose of the sockpuppetry policy. Without that acknowledgement, I don't believe it is a good idea to return the franchise to him, since the temptation to sock will always be there with him.

While this may seem harsh, I believe it is justified by Kalki's previous actions on Wikiquote and his socking here as well. Looking at FloNight's list of Kalki's alternate accounts and the way in which he used them brought back to me the seriousness of his transgression. I think that completely justifies continuing the block, but as others feel differently, as least the two provisions above should be considered to protect the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What qualifies for personal attack?

calls me stubborn calls me a user with sectarian agenda calls me below common sense of illiterate Sunni --Kazemita1 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All of them. He wasn't recently warned, so I've given a {{uw-npa4im}} for all of them; one more such statement will be grounds for a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Kezemita you misquoted the last thing i supposedly called you. Read the context and it has nothing to do with you. I am merely stating that you have mispresented misyar as 1. Temporary marriage (clearly false) 2. As purely for sexual pleasure (clearly false since its permabent marriage. You want to keep adding this content even though it was already rehected by neutral editors on its talk page. So could you please tell me for once why you keep adding this?Suenahrme (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think an editor is pursuing an agenda, repeatedly accusing them of doing so is not going to help. Assume good faith, and try get more people involved in the discussions by request a third opinion WP:3O or by posting a neutral message at a related wikiproject page (wikiprojects are listed at the top of an articles talk page). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Suenahrme, I fail to see how insulting people a way to prove someone is pursuing an agenda. Plus saying "illiterate Sunni" is not exactly a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Fair Guy

Neutral Fair Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reverting several instances of insidious vandalism to seemingly unrelated pages on my watchlist, I blocked the above user as a vandalism-only account. However, a look at his contributions revealed a potentially more serious situation. I would appreciate it if an admin with more experience in this area would go over these edits more thoroughly and determine which may require reverting/whether this is a sock of a known abusive editor. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert in that area, but I looked quickly at the contribs before I read to the end of your post, and something cried out 'SOCK!' in a loud voice, even though I've no idea whose. Peridon (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing before I got to "After reverting" — the username itself is a problem. Why would someone pick such a username when deciding to edit for the first time? The name wouldn't be enough to block such an account immediately, but combined with this account's edits, both a block and a checkuser are warranted. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that a checkuser of this editor could return quite surprising results, if the established long-term editor behind it was a bit careless with their IP and user-agent. However, I'm just going on a couple of (striking) coincidences... bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Neutral Fair Guy has been opened. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling this SPI case will be fruitless, as you will likely be told " CheckUser is not for fishing".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As WP:NOTFISHING says, "For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." Fishing is saying "This guy's not nice; he's probably socking, so let's check"; it's completely different from "This indef-blocked user, who has a suspicious username, immediately showed familiarity with precise details and jumped into the middle of other users' disputes on a contentious and sock-ridden topic". Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some digging through the history of some of the articles NFG has edited and came up with a possible master. I noted this at the SPI linked above if anyone would care to comment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron? Really? Sinbad Barron has their own style (in a sense), it would be bizarre (but not impossible) for SB to take cues from another editor like Neutral Fair Guy did. But, still, if the sockpuppet account is blocked then it's blocked. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lodging a Standard instruction

Not sure, how to do this, but given past competence concerns, I'd like to lodge a standard instruction with the admins, that : "Until further notice and subsequent reviews by appropriate trusted contributors, any nominations for admin for User:Sfan00_IMG or User:ShakespeareFan00 may be speedily declined, without prejudice to the declining party."

I've had people ask on IRC, why I'm not already an admin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Strike above, apparently, RfA already needs candidate acceptance, but I'm more than happy to let admins decline in proxy without consulting me at the moment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

True. But, to save time and headache, you could just ask for Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sfan00 IMG to be protected from creation. A note in the protect log could point potential nominators to your talk page. If this is truly a concern, that might be the simplest and most automatic way to deal with it - and it's easily undone if you change your mind. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Or you could post {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} on your user page. That might reduce the number of inquiries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"You changed, man..."

I was recently addressing a point of vandalism in an article and I noticed that the choice of 'vandal revert' (or sth like that) was missing. Did something change? I am pretty sure my rollbacker and reviewer permissions remain intact, though I rarely use them.
(bonus cookie to can tell what movie the header line is from). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You dont have rollbacker. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, what Werieth said. Logs related to your account are available here. Your current user groups are . "Vandal revert" sounds like a Twinkle feature or a feature from some other custom JavaScript. It's certainly not part of the MediaWiki core interface. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh crap. That must be it - thanks. For some odd reason, i thought I had Rollbacker as well. Might I find out where to (re)request that permission? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Andrew 17:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your parenthesis, Jack, I'm hungry and could use a cookie. I wouldn't be surprised if the words occurred in a number of movies, but Eddie Murphy's drunk act in the strip club in Beverly Hills Cop certainly comes to mind. Deor (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

News for Twinkle users

Twinkle's admin-specific toolset has received further improvements.

• The protect (PP) module had a lingering bug: On an unprotected page, it was not possible to only apply edit protection without also applying move protection, and vice versa. Thanks to Jimmy Xu for finding and fixing this.
• The speedy deletion module will no longer fail to delete both the page and the talk page. The root cause of this problem was a MediaWiki bug, but a workaround has been put in place.
• Improvements to batch delete/undelete/protect/de-PROD are in the works. Do you use these tools? How could they be improved?

As usual, please direct any feedback, suggestions, or bug reports to WT:TW. Keep up the good mop-work, and remember, Twinkle now polishes floors better than ever! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, advertising. :-)—cyberpower _Online 02:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if people find that a Twinkle module is buggy, they will just abandon it, so when the bugs are fixed I feel I should advertise :) — This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Batch deletes are very helpful when dealing with a user request to delete all their subpages. I've never had occasion to use the other batch tools. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I had even realized Twinkle had an undelete module. I'm gonna go delete something so's I can test it out... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  My user page?—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about wikipedians who have died

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

Roger Ebert has passed away. Question: should his wikipedia account be locked or protected? He did not use it extensively, however he did use it and it was him, which I confirmed myself by contacting him some time ago. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly - of course - I am sorry to hear it.

Secondly, see Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines for helpful guidance. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, accounts aren't blocked unless the account appears to be compromised. You can place {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on their userpage and then an administrator should go and protect the userpage as is normal with all deceased Wikipedians. After that, it may be worth it to add an entry at Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians (pending whether or not he edited a lot). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the user name? User:Roger Ebert made one edit in 2006 that does not look like the sort of edit I would have expected Mr. Ebert to have made. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, found it: User:Rebert. I'm going to go ahead and redirect the user page of the fake Roger Ebert account to the real one since it was just a throwaway spam account that was only used once seven years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a kind of post mortem outing? I don't think we should link username and real name, unless they have done so themselves, either on Misplaced Pages or publicly. Iselilja (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

But he has...see The Master's OP. GiantSnowman 11:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the email exchange? Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, that's a somewhat moot point isn't it. It'd be kinda difficult to misread that Rebert is Roger ebert after checking out their user page and contributions. Redirecting the impostor account to the real account wouldn't be a big deal since the impostor account only has 1 edit. Think of it as WP:USURP. Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Figuring out" the name of a user is one thing, I still don't think we normally should post the real name at Misplaced Pages if they haven't explicitly done so themselves - or otherwise explicitly referred to their username publicly. Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here, a number of people already knew it was him and he didn't keep it a secret. I was just thinking that maybe the vandalism account that was created using his full name in 2006 should be renamed to something else, THEN the User:Roger Ebert page be redirected to his account? I wouldn't want anybody unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works to become confused and think that Roger Ebert created an account to post one-off spam/vandalism. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause more confusion? That Roger Ebert had an account he seemingly created not using his real name to post one-off spam/vandalism? I'd not link the accounts at all (because they're not related) and rename the spam one to avoid confusion. Kennedy 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've revdel'd the one edit by User:Roger Ebert. Now the only people who can still work out that there was anything out of the ordinary from that account should be experienced enough to know that it was an impersonation account. I don't think a rename is needed, tho if a Crat disagrees there's certainly no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That should work too and is easier, thank you. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That (redirection) seems to be totally out-of-policy. No idea why you're doing that. Do you think there is only 1 person in the world with the name "Roger Ebert"? I'm sure you don't normally go around redirecting old accounts to similar names. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As the one who did it I suppose it is up to me to answer these completely unexpected objections. I don't believe we have a specific policy regarding what to do when a user who also happens to be a very well known person has died, there was another user who registered using their real name for a throwaway spam account that has been blocked for seven years. As our Ayn Rand fan says above, I don't see the problem here. However, if you really want to make a big deal about something so very minor WP:RFD is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with redirecting the imposter account. An alternative would be simply deleting its userpage and talkpage, which had no substantial comment. I agree with Beeblebrox that we should not spend substantial time debating these non-issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the idea was, admins did what consensus had decided should be done.

What makes you convinced it was an imposter, and not just some random new user?

Of course there is no point in RFD; it's pretty much impossible to get any results over routine/trivial issues, when admins flagrantly ignore any due process. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of process for process' sake, but if you could direct me to whatever due process you believe I ignored I'd be happy to consider that possibility, even though I am an all-powerful admin whose actions have never, ever, ever been reversed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the User:Roger Ebert page. WP:OUTING is one of the stricter policies on Misplaced Pages and includes no exception for deceased individuals. I think creating a full legal name redirect for a user violate that policy, and policy calls for immediate removal. I realizes that Mr. Ebert made little attempt to disguise his role here, but he chose the name he used on Misplaced Pages and we should respect that choice until requested to do otherwise by his family. Maybe WP:OUTING should be modified for a situation like this, but that discussion and needed consensus should take place first before any such redirects are created.--agr (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Image problem

Hello, Can anyone explain me what I did wrong to have the comments below on my uploaded picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Braque_du_Bourbonnais.jpg

NOTE: "subject to disclaimers" below may not actually apply, this was tagged with Template:GFDL-user-en, and after May 2007, en:Template:GFDL-self did not require disclaimers. Please check the image description page on the English Misplaced Pages (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Misplaced Pages administrator). See Misplaced Pages:GFDL standardization for details.

Note: This tag should not be used. For images that were released on the English Misplaced Pages using either GFDL or GFDL-self with disclaimers, use Template:GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers. For images without disclaimers please use Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers instead. If you are the copyright holder of files that were released on Misplaced Pages, please consider removing the disclaimers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.221.74 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a file hosted at the Wikimedia Commons. Please raise your issues there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I might add that you did nothing wrong. This was the fallout of a bungle with one of our licensing templates. You can safely ignore it. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OSUHEY sock resurgence

After a few months in hibernation, another obvious OSUHEY sock has cropped up. I'm ready for this nonsense to be over. Unless you guys have a better idea, I am going to be contacting his boss at my earliest convenience. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

French intelligence agency pressures uninvolved admin to delete file or face prosecution

All administrators should read this. Philippe (WMF) (talk · contribs) recently posted a note at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Foundation statement regarding the situation in France. The permalink to the WMF announcement is at Wikimedia Foundation elaborates on recent demand by French governmental agency to remove Misplaced Pages content. and it's probably a good idea for all admins to be aware of the situation. I'll also include a link to meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Fees Assistance Program as it seems appropriate. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Acch! Cheese eating surrender monkeys! fp ;P Doc talk 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the quote from Wikimedia France.

  the DCRI summoned a Misplaced Pages volunteer in their offices on April 4th. This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Misplaced Pages works. He warned the other sysops that trying to undelete the article would engage their responsability before the law.
  
  This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable, given his regular promotional actions of Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects in France.
  — Christophe Henner, Wikimedia France

  Just thought admins would be interested. 64.40.54.111 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the most commonly used chart references on the site, chartarchive.org,

is now completely down and its sister site, chartstats.com, redirecting entirely there. What other site should be used instead and is there some bot program I could tap into to get it automatically fixed?--Launchballer 10:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 1042 links to *.chartarchive.org (linksearch). However, the first one I tried (http://chartarchive.org/a/deep+purple) gives a 404 error when replaced with http://chartstats.com/a/deep+purple so there may be nothing simple that can be done. In general, a request could be made at WP:BOTREQ, but a precise and reliable method would need to be provided. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That could probably be done by hand, except there is 8,989 links to chartstats.com, which to all intents and purposes is also down. As a result, over 10,000 links have suffered from linkrot in about 24 hours. I'll ask the Official Charts Company if they can do anything. In the meantime, I suggest we deal with just the top fourty hits.--Launchballer 11:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to nomiante the protected Template:Expert-subject for deletion

I cannot do it myself, as it is protected. Please nominate {{Expert-subject}} for deletion on my behalf. Here's my rationale: "This template is useselss, as it fails to provide specific instructions on what needs to be done. Which articles don't need expert help? Even Featured ones can use it. I am an "expert" in sociology (a professor in a sociology department). How many of the WikiProject Sociology articles need attention from "experts"? IMHO, all of them, even the Featured ones. In fact, this is even more useless than the (now finally deleted} {{Expand}}. There one could argue it was of use for short articles. This one is so generic and wish-washy that I cannot even think of a single use where it couldn't be replaced by a more precise one, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{confusing}}, {{technical}}, and others, that actually tell the readers and editors what the problem is, other than calling for some vague expert to save the day." Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't have said it better. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done. If I remember rightly, it's officially best to make such requests by posting your message on the talk page with an {{editprotected}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:Protected Page Editor

This one needs closers for early May. I'm in, for the main part at least. It took 3 or 4 weeks to get closers for WP:RFA2013 (and that's done now, btw, have a look), so I'll go ahead and ask for closers now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic & Minorview

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

I have two concerns about this block for sock puppetry.,

1. History2007 has announced Humanpublic's IP on a Talk page. It is true the case for saying that is HP's IP seems strong. But, is the policy on outing people that you can out an editor if it's obvious, or that you can't out an editor?
2. JamesBWatson has revoked Talk page access from Minorview without warning and without any clear abuse by Minorview that I can see.
3. Minorview is trying to get a second CU opinion, and stating that he and Humanpublic edited within an hour of each other while living far apart. Admins have been refusing a second CU opinion. Why? Strangesad (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP. Minorview's talk page access was revoked for the reason stated on his talk page. In any event, he can still appeal the block, but he has to do so by e-mail. I don't know who "refused" a second CU request; you don't provide a diff for that one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified History2007, JamesBWatson, and DoRD of this discussion; you didn't bother to notify any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just love these discussions. Just love them. No better way to spend one's life. He announced his own IP. It is there for everyone to see. And it is so very ironic that Strangesad directly advises him (really, really) to go and get sockpuppets, and is now outraged that there was an investigation. An utter waste of life. WP:OWB points 3 and 4 are so right... History2007 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me just ask one other question, because it is so funny. What is the "most frequent sentence" that Humanpublic has ever typed into Misplaced Pages? Less than 50 article edits, and that is his motto. Guess, before you click here. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the rest of this matter, I do think JamesBWatson should explain why talk-page access was removed. The reason says, inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked and I can't see any such thing. The reason on the talk page itself says "In line with WP:OWB point 3" - citing an essay as a reason for admin actions is not valid.

Note, there probably are good reasons for blocking - only a CU would know that. But why remove talk-page access? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If ever there was a case for a WP:BOOMERANG, this is it. As Bbb23 already pointed out, Strangesad seems to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of disrupting. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing as compared with getting involved in arguments is highly revealing.
  

I find it rather ironic that Strangesad is so upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly encouraged Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. . Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks , , Strangesad consistently refused again arguing for violating the policies . Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot . Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad , , . In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself.

(As for the matter at hand, Strangesad's report is false. There was both a first CU and a second CU, as both JamesBWatson and DoRD can confirm).Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

JBW said he's not a checkuser. So who was the second CU? Strangesad (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand what has happened properly, DoRD made "redundant checks", but I believe Strangesad wants another admin with CU privileges to do a check, essentially reviewing DoRD's work and conclusion. That seems to me like a complete waste of time, but then so is this thread. As for the IP above, whoever they are, it doesn't matter that it's an essay. It encapsulates James's basis for revoking talk page access. As Anthony said in the last decline, a CU block can't be overturned by another admin anyway. As I already stated, Minorview can appeal by e-mail; otherwise, there's no reason to give him a platform just to repeat "I didn't do it."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, somebody editing while not logged in is not "announcing his IP". As I said, I don't think the rule is that you can out someone if it's obvious; the rule is you should not out editors, regardless of how obvious the facts may be. Regarding Bb223's comment: Minorview didn't repeat "I didn't do it." He made a factual claim about his IP that can be checked, and that is relevant if true. And his comment was actually a response to History2007's comment. Admins have this fascinating habit of accusing people of disruption for responding to what is said to them. History2007 showed up on the Talk page, made a comment about editing time, Minorview responded, and JamesBWatson revoked his access merely for responding. At this point Bb23's bias in this case is well-established, and he should recuse himself from further admin action. Strangesad (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a checkuser block. Any review must be by the checkusers or the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposing indef block for Strangesad

If ever there was a case for a WP:BOOMERANG, the thread above is it. As Bbb23 already pointed out, Strangesad seems to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of disrupting and picking fights. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing compared with arguing is revealing. Her latest edits here consist of repeatedly reverting an admin's decision and bascially telling the admin to get lost , . Edit warring at AN, on top of all the other problems, it's just getting out of hand. For the record, Strangesad was duly warned about the edit warring by the admin . True to style, Strangesad chose to continue edit warring and reporting the admin for edit warring instead.
It's ironic that Strangesad is upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly encouraged Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. . Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks , , Strangesad consistently refused again arguing for violating the policies . Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot . Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad , , . In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself. Based on all the diffs above, I suggest it's time to indef Strangesad who wastes way too much time for way too many people. When Strangesad was last blocked, she came to ANI to explicitly state that the block would not change her behavior. She has then spent most of her time proving that she meant it. I already posted about this earlier in the discussion, pointing out that Strangesad only is on Misplaced Pages for fights of this kind. Her subsequent decission to open up the discussion after if was closed is just a bit too much, especially when it happens twice. Misplaced Pages is much better of without an exceptionally disruptive who encourages sockpuppetry and wastes everyone's time in tiresome fights.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that the admin is edit-warring, having made that revert 3 times. My objection is that he is taking action that requires an impartial party, when he had been arguing and taking sides in the very matter he was archiving. I don't think an editor should be able to to me ""As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP" and then archive the discussion as soon as I reply. And I don't think the rules on edit-warring should be different for admins. If I had archived the thread 3 times against Bbb23's wishes, I would be blocked right now. Are there equal standards here or not? Strangesad (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOTHERE is a strange thing to say when I just created an article and had it nominated..... Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've followed a few more of Jeppiz's links, I'd just like to note what he omitted . Strangesad (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again, I did not omit it. As anyone can see above, I wrote that you "retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later". Kindly stop making false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

But why do you even bother coming here Strangesad? From what I have seen, your personal mantra seems to be about admin abuse, admin powertrippig, etc. With that attitude, and your claimed disregard for Wikipolicy, what is the point?. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Editor is obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Encouraging others to sock would be enough to warrant this. Treating Misplaced Pages as a Battleground seals the deal. MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support How can someone who says traffic laws can be ignored at will be given a driving license? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose this step at this time. Although Strangesad has engaged in some problematic activity as noted above—such as urging another editor to sockpuppet around a sanction, which is is not acceptable—this editor also has created at least one legitimate article. During a recent request for arbitration, although Strangesad's participation was unduly argumentative, he or she did correctly identify a mistake I had made in my analysis and lead me to revise it. Strangesad would be well-served to change aspects of his or her approach to Misplaced Pages, and a long block is a likely result if that doesn't happen, but I don't know that we need to go as far as an indefinite block at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I took that into account. That's why I did not bring up this issue already when Strangesad encouraged HP to start a sockpuppet, and it's why I first only commented in the discussion above. But the edit warring with an admin over a closure was just too much on top of everything else. Quite simple, the time Strangesad spends in arguments and vendettas is (I believe) far too much compared to other activities. Not to mention the time Strangesad makes others spend.Jeppiz (talk)

• Support Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%). This editor appears to believe that Misplaced Pages is a debating society, and not a project to build an encyclopedia. Despite Brad's opposition, I see no reason for Strangesad to keep the franchise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I like hearing from you that a combative nature justifies a block, and then checking your Talk page to find

• "So, if you wanted to be CU'd, what the hell are you bitching about,"
• "No apology will be forthcoming... Next time, reign in your hyperbole and don't behave like an over-active cheerleader."
• "OK, if you're going to be dense about the obvious difference, clueless about the quality of your actions, and naive about the nature of identity on the Internet, then there's nothing to talk about and this discussion is over. Bye."

I do have to agree with History2007 and wonder what I'm doing in a place like this. History2007 and King of hearts, BTW, are involved in the disputes jeppiz cites in his complaint, and involved editors are not supposed to be part of a consensus to block. Strangesad (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Re Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%)

According to this, Newyorkbrad's percentage of article edits is about 11%. If you think 34% is 'weak', what do you think about that? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Incidentally, I think NYB is a great asset to the project. I just wanted to show how fucking stupid your statement was. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Does someone speak Turkish?

This page, written in Turkish, has been nominated for speedy deletion. Could someone who speaks the language take a look please? ItsZippy 21:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Victims of Thermal Akkus and Hilal-profit web site waiting for the right to search for, and no one has been established" according to Google Translate. GiantSnowman 21:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a complete nonsense page would be deleted even if it were in English. Actually, deleted much faster if it were in English. Nothing for AN to discuss.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it's gone. GiantSnowman 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I tend to be wary of Google Translate, especially when it comes to CSD, so thanks for dealing with it. ItsZippy 22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have mattered if the content were brillant, articles written in other languages should either be translated or deleted. This is English Misplaced Pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog