Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:48, 18 April 2007

• 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)

Netsnipe's 6 Month School Blocks

Netsnipe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just reverted several of my 31 hour blocks of schools and switched them to 6 month blocks. Ordinarily this type of change wouldn't be a problem, but I just took the time to check Netsnipe's block log. Over the past few weeks, he has blocked many school IPs, many with only 3 or 4 edits, for 6 months. These are IPs with little or no prior block history. Check out the following examples:

• 204.129.152.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 3 edits total, blocked 6 months
• 206.110.32.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including vandalism reversion, 2 31 hour blocks, blocked 6 months

* 66.194.72.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including fixing grammar errors, no prior blocks, blocked 6 months _{My mistake, linked the wrong IP alphachimp 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

You can find many, many more such examples in Netsnipe's blocking log. This matter was discussed in some brevity on my talk page, where I decided to bring it here.

I realize that no consensus exists involving blocking schools. Some administrators believe in only blocking for 15 minutes until the vandalism abates, while others (myself included) increment blocks in a similar fashion as non-shared IPs. This length of block though, seems like a completely unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

That said, I'm willing to start blocking schools for 6 months if the community wants it. Do you? alphachimp 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has been little or no vandalism at an IP, then 6 months blocks on them are absolutely not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, before I start blocking schools for a month or longer, I like to see a history of vandalism from the IP. Chances are these are just kids in the library or classroom who had some spare time and decided to vandalize Misplaced Pages. Its the ones that come back time and again and continue to vandalize that are a problem. I think blocking a school IP (or any IP) for 6 months after only 3 contribs (2 obvious vandalism and 1 could be interpreted as a "test" edit) is a bit much.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx and Nmajdan, and with Alphachimp, who is hardly a soft touch with respect to vandals. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that duration should be made on a case by case basis and that 6 months for a school IP would be rarely appropriate. I also agree that Netsnipe needs to stop issuing 6 month blocks until we can resolve this. Rklawton 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested that Netsnipe stop until this can be discussed in detail. alphachimp 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Netsnipe would revert your blocks is pretty disturbing. John Reaves (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If Netsnipe "reverted" the blocks in the sense that he replaced the initial block with a longer block, there is nothing per se wrong with that, and it would be the right thing to do if in fact the longer blocks were appropriate for these IPs, which I believe is the sole issue here. It is not uncommon that someone will do a quick vandalism block and then someone else might later find that a longer one is warranted. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a major issue with other admins undoing my blocks and placing their own, particularly when they leave a message on my talk page (like Netsnipe did). I freely admit that I block a lot of users every day. There definitely are times when I miss some redeeming or damning characteristic of an IP. In this case, like Centrx said, I'm frustrated by the underlying assumption of bad faith. Rather than wheel warring, I'm bringing the issue here. alphachimp 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

66.194.72.243 (resnetplp1.seattleu.edu) isn't blocked at all. Are you sure you have the right example there? Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Misplaced Pages. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on that IP. I've striken it from my original post. alphachimp 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are educational institutions and do have useful, mature contributors. While your reasoning applies to an IP that is a long-term source of problems, there is no reason to block an IP for six months when it has one day of vandalism. What you are advocating is a blanket policy of ending anonymous editing from all schools; we have no such policy and we ought not have such a policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You do claim above that you make sure it is a school IP before you do such a block. While not true hunting, it is hunting within the set of WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe has criticised long-term blocks of mine on IP addresses. Anyway, my opinion is that six-month blocks on school IP addresses, provided they are anon-only, are appropriate in cases of repeat vandalism. I believe, for example, that if this is the fifth time that IP address has been blocked, it is appropriate to give it a six month block. Do I believe it appropriate for the very first block on that address? No, probably not. In the end, a great deal of our vandalism comes from school IP addresses and I believe it is reasonable that these people need to create an account in order to edit. Or to do so from outside of their schools. The unblock-en-l mailing list regularly creates accounts for people who don't have access to other IP addresses. --Yamla 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not heard from one person agreeing with the 6 month block on the first IP with only 3 contribs, I was bold and went ahead and lessened the block to 12 hours, which is more inline with the blocking policy regarding new IP vandals. If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the block again as it will not offend me.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. _InBC 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and if you look at my blocking log you'll see that I'm not hesitant about blocking school IPs with a long term history of vandalism and blocks. Here, however, we're talking about issuing a single 6 month block to IPs with no prior history of blocks (or a tiny history), some of which have legitimate contributions. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of school vandalism, I just think that we should be careful that we aren't pushing out any legitimate contributors (such as the next Nishkid64). That's what assuming good faith is all about. alphachimp 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with this 100%. Long blocks on repeat IP vandals is completely appropriate for repeat offenders or especially destructive offenders (such as a high risk template). But the IP in question has not established itself as a repeat vandal. Two vandal edits and one test edit in a 30 minute span is not deserving of a 6 month block.↔NMajdan•talk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that long, anon only, blocks that stop school vandalism, once shorter blocks have failed, and if there is a history of at least, oh, 2 dozen or so vandal edits, tend to make sense. I support these long blocks if account creation is possible. That said I think a nuanced approach is appropriate, going with a long block as the first thing to do (on this wiki... elsewhere is elsewhere) may not be the best first step. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If a school has a different IP for each computer, then a school block would not make sense. However, I have never heard of a school that does not share 1 or 2 ips. _InBC 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block: Southern Hills Middle School: 161.97.219.0/24 --  Netsnipe  ►  19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried a different approach last fall and got positive responses: when I encountered a school IP that had 11 blocks over 12 months I e-mailed the district's IT department. They got back to me promptly and a polite phone conversation followed. They hadn't been aware that a problem existed, took the situation seriously, and liked my suggestion to assign student vandals to improve a Misplaced Pages article under teacher supervision. I could understand a 6 month block if a school is hostile or unresponsive, but why not be proactive about turning these long term problems into assets? After all, the computers are usually only a few yards away from the bookshelves. Durova 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The converse is also true. unblock-en-l has been contacted on numberous occasions by school IT administrators after a schoolblock has notified them of the situation. But when you're blocking 2 vandals every minute on WP:AIV, you just don't have time to fire off an email for every case. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do schools still have bookshelves? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on something netsnipe wrote: "Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to?"

This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed plenty of long-term blocks on school systems from all over the place during my time, offering an administrator at the school to contact me to have the block removed. None have done so. I've seen, few, if any cases of school's in this country contributing constructively. Long term blocks = not necessarily as bad as an idea as you're all making it out to be. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In reading over the above, I wonder: Perhaps the solution is to set a guideline such as Netsnipe describes, but let's shorten the starter block length from 6 months to 2 months. I can see the POV of how block lengths of hours or even several days can be pretty much a waste of time in these cases. Would everyone find that to be amenable? - jc37 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We desperately need a uniform set of procedures and policies when it comes to identifying and blocking Shared IPs, especially schools. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the flag of Spain? Input requested

Over on Talk:Gibraltar, a Gibraltarian user is objecting to the inclusion of the template for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spain on the grounds that it's a "foreign project" and that it includes an unacceptable "nationalist symbol" (i.e. the Spanish flag). In conjunction with this, he is attempting to remove either the template or the flag from the template. Bearing in mind that Misplaced Pages is not censored to meet particular points of view, I'd be grateful if previously uninvolved admins could take a look and provide advice at Talk:Gibraltar#Flag. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an image of the map of Spain on the Commons, so maybe if the Spanish Wikiproject doesn't mind, they could change it from the flag to the map (which can easily be edited to have the flag pattern). As for the "foreigness" of a Wikiproject, Spain is still trying to assert its claim over Gibraltar, so it is relevant to keep the banner there. Since it would be useless to project the page, block the user when needed. User:Zscout370 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real purpose of these wikiproject templates is to save typing. If the flag is a problem, subst the template and remove the flag from the result. This won't affect the usefulness of the boilerplate text significantly. Anybody who wants to know what's up on the wikiproject can find out by visiting it. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Re your suggestion, Tony, the flag appears to be a problem specifically in relation to a Gibraltarian nationalist POV (in the same sort of way, I suppose, that Greek nationalists object to the term "Republic of Macedonia" or Chinese nationalists reject the existence of the Republic of Taiwan). I don't think we should be encouraging local POVs to dictate content in this way... -- ChrisO 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar nonsense? Might be Gibraltarian, but I don't have enough experience with the user to say yes or no. ~Crazytales 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its Gibnews (talk · contribs). Gibnews, however, is not entirely NPOV, though not as POV as Gibraltarian. --Iamunknown 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown. I had a small suspicion that Gibnews was the same user or had relations with Gibraltarian. Must be that he just had relations with him. ~Crazytales 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is still regularly attempting to edit (or deface) articles through anonymous IP addresses, often on a virtually daily basis. Considering he was blocked in 2005, he's certainly persistent. However, he's definitely not the same person as Gibnews. In my experience Gibnews is (or at any rate was, until his recent bout of Hispanophobia) considerably saner and more open to reason than Gibraltarian ever was. -- ChrisO 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA/RFA2 help

I think either my nominator or I has made a mistake in processing my RFA with respect to saving my old RFA. It seems the new one has been saved over the old one. Is there a way to properly archive the old one and move the new one. I have tried to correct it, but the edit history ended up with the wrong version. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemme get this one straight. You moved your RFA from December to ...2, then wrote the new RFA over it at ...2? Is that what Imm seeing here? Metros232 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Should all be sorted now. Looks like the nom overwrote the original and you then moved that to the 2 version, restoring the original as a copy of the final state of that. You should have just reverted the nom and got them to create the new page. I've done the appropriate move/delete shuffles to split them up, so the histories should be correct. --pgk 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There seems to be a vandal participating in my RFA. It is probably a procedural violation for me to remove votes from my own RFA, but someone has voted for and against and in the against he stated neutral and that he hates me. Is this vandalism? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you accusing El C of being a vandal?--VectorPotential 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke it appears. The way the formatting of the RFA is, it has "oppose neutral" rather than "oppose *BREAK* neutral". So I think he's joking that he "opposes neutral" because he hates him, him being "neutral." Metros232 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:El_C is a fairly well established editor not a vandal, a friendly question on his talk page asking about what he means would probably clear it up. It looks like a joke since the "oppose" and "neutral" headings appear to have been combined. His statement is that he opposes neutral (i.e. as if there were and editor "neutral") at it is "neutral" who he "hates"... --pgk 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There really is an editor called Neutral, although that editor has not edited since 2002. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, I didn't mean that user! Alas, at least one person found it funny, vs. the ten who found it lame. What do(n't) I win? El_C 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay.  : ) Given that the editor has been gone for the last 5 years, I doubt he or she will mind. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka should respect WP policies

Hi, can someone help to make admin User:Grandmasterka respecting WP policies? I think it is against WP policies to call someone who made a very normal statement a troll. Or is calling other people troll, now in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I see no need to get involved in this dispute. The complainant (Tobias Conradi) accused User:Danny of speaking rudely to him on the phone, and other users questioned the legitimacy of this accusation, and accused Tobias of trolling. Given the suspicious nature of the originial accusation against Danny, and the tone of the general discussion thread, I think the best thing to do is just to move on. YechielMan 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway calls the discussion rubbish , User:Newyorkbrad calls it trolling .... I do not understand how such way of talking helps WP. Also they should respect WP policies. Also admins should respect policies. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a provision of WP:DICK comes into play here. When multiple people call you the same thing, probably you should take a look at your own conduct instead of calling everyone else blind fools, hm? —physicq (c) 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutly right. And this belongs to section #Tobias Conradi. But here the talk is about admin conduct. Admins should respect the WP policies like others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and so should you, right? Following policies is a two-way street. —physicq (c) 21:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And do not tell me where to post. If you post here, your actions will also be under scrutiny here. —physicq (c) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like articles have sections for different topics, so it is usefull to seperate topics in other places. I do follow the WP written policies. The above metnioned admins should do so too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this guy? Did he not get that pony he wanted for his eighth birthday or something? HalfShadow 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Its time to reign in Tobias I think - see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 06:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:WikiLeon should respect WP policies

Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies? I received two threats of ban, latest here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a ban threat, it's a boilerplate warning suggesting that you may be blocked. There's a difference. Natalie 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See the diff, it says: "you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages". This for me looks like threatening. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, it's a template warning. Tobias, if you don't stop trolling and wasting people's time, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, threats inserted by a template are in line with WP policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd call that a promise, not a threat... -- ChrisO 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'Can someone help making User:WikiLeon respect WP policies?' *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough* HalfShadow 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Overt personal attack, name-calling, profanity, rudeness, incivility, blanking of WP:NPA warning notice by Harvardy - see this diffthis diff and this diff --Gene_poole 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing Harvardy of being a sockpuppet of Wik or Johnski, edit warring on said user's userpage for six months, tends to do that to people. hbdragon88 06:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Particularly if the accusations are well-founded. He wouldn't be issuing so many shrill denials otherwise. Aside from which WP policies apply to all editors, equally, not some editors when it suits them. Johnski / Harvardy has been actively harassing, making sockpuppet accusations about, posting personal abuse about me and other editors, and causing massive disruption to WP, for well over 6 months, and yet those affected have somehow managed to maintain their composure. Are you suggesting that I can start swearing and saying what I really think of him whenever it takes my fancy now? I didn't think so - so stop making excuses for him. --Gene_poole 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my view, based on just this conversation. If Harvardy really is a sockpuppet, I assume that you have already gone through the official channels (ArbCom enforcement, CheckUser) and had him checked out. If he was a sockpuppet, I know I would be seeing {{indefblocked}} on his user page and a ban in the block log. I do not. Therefore, I assume that he was proven innocent or there was not conclusive evidence that he is a sockpuppet, and that your repeated edit warring over the inclusion of the suspected sockpuppet templates on his user page is causing him stress. I am not making excuses for him, but I am just wondering why you're being so aggressive over these accusations. hbdragon88 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the block has been enacted, therefore my original assumptions were incorrect. hbdragon88 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. Sometimes, when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it really is a duck. After 4+ years at WP I've developed a good nose for ducks. --Gene_poole 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclosing real IP – something a checkuser should not do

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

I have referred Marius to the Checkuser ombudsman. There is nothing further to discuss here. Thatcher131 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary (later adition at request of some readers)

In this edit checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that this anonimous IP edit from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Detailed explanation

I have a concern with the fact that checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed not only my real-life name but also my IP – something I know is forbiden by Misplaced Pages policies.

I’ve made a proposal for community ban of sockpuppeteer User:William Mauco - see

One of the many abuses of William Mauco I listed in that discussion was that he made an attempt to disclose my real life name, that he suspected being Marius Mioc

I told at that above discussion that „I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not”.

Many other editors considered that attempt to disclose real life name is a serious offence, who will merit even a permaban.

I mention that I know exactly how my Wiki-enemy User:William Mauco made research about my real-life name, as I disclosed in Misplaced Pages some time ago my participation at http://forum.tiraspol.net and I knew he will search at that forum and will be able to see the nickname and e-mail address I used there, from where he can suspect my real-life name: "I am not sure that I am doing a good thing, as Mauco will be able to search for my e-mail address that, for privacy reasons, I chosed not to be available at Misplaced Pages. However, I take the risk and give here an example of forum.tiraspol.net democracy: deletion of an article that I copied from conflict.md in both English and Russian"

Mauco indeed did the research and wanted a confirmation: “What say you, Marius Mioc?”

As I am concern with my privacy, I didn’t want to give to my wiki-enemy William Mauco a confirmation about my real name: “Mauco, Marius Mioc is a person from Romania who write articles about politics but why you believe is me?”

He never replied at that question. The situation was: my wiki-enemy has some suspicions regarding my real-life name, however he has no clear confirmation.

My disputes with Mauco at Misplaced Pages were about a region named Transnistria, which is the main subject of my and Mauco’s edits at Misplaced Pages. For real-life person Marius Mioc the main subject of interest is Romanian revolution of 1989, he wrote 8 books about this subject (the titles are listed at Misplaced Pages article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989), but never wrote a book about Transnistria.

Thanks to checkuser Dmcdevit all my wiki-enemies can now have the confirmation they were expecting not only about my real-life name, but also about my real IP address.

During discussions on the subject of Mauco’s sockpuppetry, User:Dmcdevit made an intervention considering that disclosing my real life name was not something such bad, as I anyhow disclosed it by edits where I included refferences at books written by an author named “Marius Mioc”

There were other things of smaller importance (personal attacks, untrue facts) in Dmcdevit’s message to which I already answered at above page - see see “Answer to Dmcdevit’s comments”

I want to comment here only the diffs Dmcdevit provided as a proof about my real name: , , , ,

Despite Dmcdevit’s impression, above mentioned edits can not be considered a direct link to real-life person Marius Mioc. In the tiny word of researchers interested in Romanian Revolution of 1989 Marius Mioc is a well-known name. Nothing abnormal that in a Misplaced Pages article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, where I added around 100 books, between them were included also books written by Marius Mioc; I would say that anybody who will write a list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 will mention also Mioc’s books.

What I consider extremely unacceptable is that Dmcdevit provided an example of an edit made 8 months ago with an anonimous IP in Romanian Misplaced Pages, pointing it as one of my edits and evidence about my real life name. The edit is: 13 august 2006 02:29 (it was repeated twice in Dmcdevit’s message).

I mention that in 13 August 2006 no User:MariusM existed at Misplaced Pages. In Romanian Misplaced Pages MariusM registered in 19 August 2006 and in English Misplaced Pages in 21 August 2006.

How did User:Dmcdevit know that the anonimous IP who edited 8 months ago Romanian Misplaced Pages is my IP? I guess, using his checkuser tool. I am editing Misplaced Pages from my own home, probabily my IP is the same today as 8 months ago. What want Dmcdevit prove disclosing publicly my IP? That 8 months ago, when I was a newbie who didn’t even know how to register at Misplaced Pages, without knowledge about Misplaced Pages policies, I made an allegedly abusive edit? What is the relevance of this thing in the context of debates about Mauco’s sockpuppetries? Anyhow, this is a problem of Romanian Misplaced Pages (where nobody seems to care and nobody reverted that edit in 8 months).

In Transnistria-related articles at Misplaced Pages I had a lot of heated debates (see talk pages and archives) and I am one of the main hate-attractors. I am plenty aware about this (see ). One of the reasons I attracted so much hate is that I discovered some cases of sockpuppetry, like MarkStreet case, Mark us street case, Pernambuco case. As I am editing from my own home, I have the concern that after Dmcdevit’s revelations all my “enemies” I aquired at Misplaced Pages will be able to trace not only my real-life name but also my real-life address. Long time ago I expressed my concerns that some of my Wiki-enemies are conected with inteligence services with bad reputation. Considering the high levels of animosity in Transnistria talk page I am worried about this.

I am sure that my opponent User:William Mauco was not able to make any conection between my real life name and the inclusion, among many other (almost 100) books, of some books of Marius Mioc in the list of Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989. He had only some suspicions, only with help of Dmcdevit he obtained confirmation (and I am 100% sure he was following the debates about his proposed ban).

O.K., Mr. Dmcdevit, you gave to all my wiki-enemies not only the confirmation about my real-life name they were expecting, but even more – my exact IP. What’s next – giving them my photo and my phone number? And all this for what? To “unmask” an allegedly abusive edit done 8 months ago at Romanian Misplaced Pages, while nobody there considered the edit as abusive (it was not reverted in 8 months), the allegedly abusive edit being done when I was a newbie not even registered at Misplaced Pages, without any knowledge about Misplaced Pages’s policies?

I believe Dmcdevit’s conduct is unacceptable, a checkuser should never disclose real IP of a wikipedian without a real good reason. I wonder if Dmcdevit should keep with his checkuser status after such a behaviour.--MariusM 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Not to belittle your concern, there are two things I must mention: the possibility of a layperson or even more advanced computer user locating an address via an IP is very difficult. Also, check with your service provider, they may be able to assign you a new IP address and thus remove any further concern. CASCADIA/_Trail 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Although I haven't had the patience to read the whole thing properly, I picked up something about "intelligence agents" or something to that effect. If this is true, then they would be the people who probably have the expertise to pursue this thing. On a side note, I've left a note on the talk page of the admin in question. Harryboyles 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw Transnistria and instantly lost all interest. I notice you never considered asking Dmcdevit for an explanation before, quite frankly, rambling on here. I doubt there's a case to answer here, and it might be best if you contact Dmcdevit in future before making any accusations. -- Nick 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With all due respect - you may have a good complaint - it might behoove you to read the comments in bold at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Part Deux 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Dmcdevit stated that a certain anon edit made on the Romanian Misplaced Pages was made by MariusM. So now the whole world knows that that anon = MariusM. This is a clear breach of the m:CheckUser policy because a) a check was not warranted (if it was, how?), and b) release of information was not warranted (if it was, how?).--Domitius 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this fuss is about, but that IP MariusM mentions belongs to a Romanian dynamic pool. Furthermore, neither Dmcdevit nor any other English Misplaced Pages checkuser has checkuser rights on the Romanian Misplaced Pages. If Dmcdevit surmised that said edit was made by MariusM (and I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding it in your post above), he did so based on behavior evidence, not checkuser. Nothing to see here, move along. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusgood. CASCADIA/_Trail 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What allegedly happened was that Dmcdevit checked MariusM's IP on the English Misplaced Pages (something he allegedly had no business doing) and found it was xxx.yyy.zzz. Then he checked the anon edits it made on the Romanian Misplaced Pages by going here ro:Special:Contributions/xxx.yyy.zzz; checkuser rights on rowiki are unnecessary for this. This is what I understand from Marius's post on this page.--Domitius 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few allegedlys in there. You can reasonably surmise from the diffs MariusM has posted above that he's either Marius Mioc or someone posing as him. All you can tell from that IP address (on the Romanian Misplaced Pages) is that he's in Romania–something that MariusM claims on his own userpage. Again, all of this can be worked out from behavioral evidence. It's a reasonable connection to make. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess: The big majority of edits made at Romanian Misplaced Pages are from Romanian IP adresses. Romania is a big country - 22 millions inhabitants.--MariusM 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how. As far as I know, Dmcdevit is not a habitual editor of the Romanian Misplaced Pages; how else could have have come accross that edit? Just brainstorming...--Domitius 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could always try asking him. Mackensen (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the plan, I don't jump to conclusions. Hence the number of "allegedly"s above.--Domitius 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we get more eyes on Transnistria; I'm at the point of exasperation. El_C 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with CheckUser. That would have been easily resolved if you had asked me before posting a screed to ANI. Try searching Google, and then checking the history of the articles. Dmcdevit·t 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Try searching google not only in Misplaced Pages , is giving 1270 results for "Marius Mioc". Only 7 from Misplaced Pages, but nice to see that in Polish, Spanish, and Nederlandish Misplaced Pages I am also mentioned, while I never edited there. How did you point that this anonimous IP edit was made by me, while at that time (13 August 2006) no User:MariusM existed in Misplaced Pages?--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW: At Transnistria there is actually a staged edit-war to prove that even without User:William Mauco there are edit-wars on that article. I already pointed to User:Dmcdevit my suspicions about User:M-renewal. I would do checkusers for all those involved in current edit-war to check possible socks.--MariusM 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a habit of checkuser'ing everyone who happens to have a different opinion, Marius (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/William_Mauco#William_Mauco_.282.29, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alaexis). Stating that this edit war is staged to prove that there could be edit wars without Mauco is absurd. What about an edit war of 1-3 April, 2007? Mauco was already banned then. Was it also staged? And by whom? Alaexis 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I was also blocked in 1-3 April 2007, starting with 1 April 03:03. Check my block log.--MariusM 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this just be condensed?

This lengthy section has too much stuff that does not belong to this page. Let's condense it to the issues that really belong here. MariusM alleges that at some point user:Dmcdevit publicized the IP address obtained by checkusering MariusM. This is a very serious allegation. If MariusM seriously claims that this indeed is the case, please provide diffs and links that support such claim without lengthy list of unrelated grievances. If the accusation is false making this unsubstantiated claim is a serious offense. --Irpen 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased the summary at the begining of this thread, to keep it short and simple.--MariusM 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit checkuser Dmcdevit disclosed the fact that this anonimous IP edit from 8 months ago belong to the real life person "Marius Mioc" and to the wikipedian User:MariusM. In this way he showed not only a conection between a wikiname and real name, but also the real IP.--MariusM 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to stem from the fact that Dmcdevit is a checkuser. However, at no time did Dmcdevit claim to be acting as a checkuser, and as I'm demonstrated above you don't need to be a checkuser to make the connection. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MariusM, correct me if I am wrong, the info Dmcdevit provided in the diffs above can be obtained without the checkuseing you. While outing personal info obtained via the rigorous investigation of user's activity is frown upon, it is not the same as outing the information obtained via the checkuser run. The latter is the grievous violation and should result in an immediate revocation of the checkuser privileges. The former may or may not constitute a violation depending on the circumstances of the case, that is, how deeply the info was hidden, how much effort does it take to unearth it. In what I partially agree is that outing the personal info cannot be justified by how bad the user is. But if the user does not hide such info in the first place, there is no outing even to talk about. --Irpen 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and my point in making the post was that it took only a minute or two to see that Marius humself had made the connection, and then proposed banning William Mauco, at least in part, for using the name. He is being disingenuous. If you look at the history, you will see that Marius makes an edit 5 minutes after that group of IP edits , or I would not have had any basis for considering it was him. There is no need for CheckUser there. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we then can put safely the matter to rest. Just to be sure, could you me more explicit? You said "There is no need for CheckUser there." Could you just say "There was no CheckUser there" as well? --Irpen 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I didn't use CheckUser to discover this. How could I have, anyway? You can see from the multiple IPs in that article's history that it is a dynamic IP range. There is no way that I know of to check the contributions for a whole range of IPs. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with above comments and I want to show some points:

1. The fact that the anon IP is from Romania and I stated in my userpage that I am from Romania means nothing. Is normal that the big majority of edits in Romanian Misplaced Pages are from IPs from Romania. Also, is normal that for subjects like Romanian Revolution of 1989 or Laszlo Tokes (a person who played an important role in the begining of Romanian Revolution) the majority of interested people are from Romania, having Romanian IPs. Romania is a big country, 22 millions inhabitants.
2. I did hide my personal information at Misplaced Pages, I never made a clear statement in Misplaced Pages that my real life name is "Marius Mioc", even less I didn't made a statement about my IP. I explained the way Mauco was able to suspicion my real name but I told even when I reported him that "I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real life name is correct or not". This is a clear statement that I don't like to confirm suspicions about my real name.
3. Real life person Marius Mioc is not an unknown person in Romania for specialists interested in the subject "Romanian Revolution of 1989". A google test is showing 1290 hits , only few of them from Misplaced Pages, you may consider that in Romania internet is not as developped as in anglo-saxon world and the majority of Mioc's work is in Romanian language. I don't think that an anonimous Romanian IP adding a refference at one of Marius Mioc's books in Misplaced Pages is a clear indication that this anonimous IP belong to real person Marius Mioc. BTW, "Marius Mioc" appear also in Polish, Nederlandish, Spanish and Japanese Misplaced Pages, and in those cases it was not me who added refferences at my books there.
4. To summarize, I am convinced that Dmcdevit did use his checkuser tool to make the link between the edit in Romanian Misplaced Pages and my wikiname User:MariusM (and further to real name Marius Mioc)--MariusM 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

   MariusM, please make your complaint to the Checkuser ombudsman if you feel you must. There is a log of checkuser requests showing the date and time that users were checked and the person making the check. The ombudsman will be able to determine with complete precision whether Dmcdevit used the checkuser tool on your account. Since accusations of checkuser abuse are a matter for the Foundation, and there is nothing that admins can do here, this thread is closed. Thatcher131 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Complex Vandalism by User:Anacapa

User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.

• Project Gender studies,
  
• WP:GS again,
  
• on women's studies
  
• and on feminism
  

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2006 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago User:Cailil identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant.
See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Calil has put a lot of good effort into this report and I ask the participants at this board to give it an evaluation. Does this merit a community sanctions discussion? Durova 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the vandalism you (Cailil) wrote certainly shows a lot of disruptive editing by Anacapa (particularly attempting to unilaterally change the goals of a WikiProject). I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for here. Natalie 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To submitter--what exactly are you asking for? A cursory look makes me think a community ban is in order.Rlevse 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I am requesting a community sanction discussion for User:Anacapa. Apologies for not making that clear from the start--Cailil 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest reposting this to the community sanction noticeboard. Natalie 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature closings of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

This AFD has been prematurely closed twice, as I noted over on the incident board, but just in case that wasn't the right place, I decided to post here. The first time was by an admin who agreed to the revert, the second time by a nonadmin in violation of Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions which I have since reverted. To avoid this happening again, I ask that a non-involved neutral admin step up to take responsibility for closing this discussion at the appropriate time. Mister.Manticore 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe you were correct in reverting the early closure of that AfD. Secondly, an appropriate administrator will close that discussion at the end of the period, there is no need for a note here :-) --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, it happened not once, but twice, so I hoped to avoid it a third time, because frankly it's a bit of effort to go through. Just once, easily resolved, twice? Brings up some warning bells. Mister.Manticore 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This was crossposted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closings_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlekhine.27s_defense.2C_Modern_variation.2C_4...Bg4. --kingboyk 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

CAT:REFU needs help

We're getting on to a month of backlog there - I'm about to start on it, but we need a good number of admins acting there to get it done. Thanks, Martinp23 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May as well take this opportunity to mention NPWatcher, which can seriously help with orphaning these images. Martinp23 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request Admin Second Opinion on Unblock Request for User:The Behnam

The Behnam has been blocked by Dmcdevit for edit warring while dealing with attempts to insert material that, per The Behnam, were possible violations of WP:COI. The Behnam has requested unblocking, and this was turned down by Yamla. The Behnam has explaned the situation in detail on his talk page, the following is Copy/Paste quote from his talk page:

It is clear from the blocking reason above that I didn't actually violate any WP rules, such as 3RR. Furthermore, the reverts are completely sensible as the others were reintroducing non-RS, possibly COI sources, scriptural misquotes, and other OR into the article. Please see Talk:Iranian women for the discussions, which, by the way, the reintroducers haven't taken any constructive role in. They even introduce false references . The Iranica source says nothing about Iranian women. This kind of dishonest editing needs to be reverted to preserve the integrity of the articles. My reverts are what any objective and honest Wikipedian would do, and I didn't break any rules. These people blindly revert, saying 'seek consensus' but don't actually raise any specific objection. They ignore the edit summaries and talk page discussion. There is no justice in me being blocked. The Behnam 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance, The Behnam? (talk page watchlisted) CASCADIA/_Trail 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If he'd actually look into this situation he'd find that the reverts were completely justified. What is the point of setting a 3RR rule anyway if I'm going to be blocked on Dmcdevit's whim without any regard to the context? I see well-established editors (some admins) who revert like this all the time; the articles are compromised by the kind of dishonest editing seen from the other party. They work together to keep tripe in the articles. In any case he obviously messed up when it came to User:ParthianShot because somebody allowed that user to change user names and thus escape his past record. If anything that editor should have been blocked longer than me under Dmcdevit's personal blocking policy. Consider . There are serious issues put forth on that talk page that haven't been addressed by the restoring party, including possible COI. This block is ridiculous. Besides, if you look at my last (3rd) revert, I said that if they blindly revert again I will seek higher authority on the issue . Isn't that enough indication that I don't plan on keeping the revert fight going?

I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin please review the block, and subsequent denial of unblock. Thank you. CASCADIA/_Trail 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see a case for unblocking on this record, particularly in view of the edit summary for the last revert, as noted by the user. However, the blocking administrator should first be notified of this discussion and given an opportunity to comment. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see at a glance the opposite. COI issues aren't an exemption in WP:3RR, 3RR is quite explicit on it's intent and that 3 reverts aren't an entitlement. The final edit summary seems to be indicative of a willingness to just push the bounds of 3RR rather than actually work within the intent. --pgk 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There was at least soem attempt to discuss on the talk page. There was not an actual violation of the 3RR. There was at least soem indication in the 3rd revert of an intent to rpesume other emans, and not continue reverting, which is what The Behnam now indicates were his/her intentions. I support an unblock, perhaps with a limited time 1RR or 2RR parole. DES 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seemed that The Behnam was escalating the conflict to three reverts in quick succession. He ma very well have planned on stopping then, but this is problematic. As I said in my block message, this is the third time that I know of in a short while that The Behnam has made three reverts in 24 hours in an edit war. I agree with Pgk: "My 3 reverts are up, now I will report you if you continue"-type edit summaries are usually a point against you, not in your favor. Dmcdevit·t 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the user had written "everyone's reverts for today are used up and we end on my version so I win," but this was more along the lines of "I will seek wider attention if needed because I believe you are violating policy," which is quite different. I do acknowledge the prior block history, however. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a "Last defender of the wiki" problem. If there's a problem that you feel must be corrected, then communicate that problem to others. If you feel that you and you alone must insert yourself into the breach, you're almost certainly wrong and probably a couple of days' holiday from editing will be good for you and everybody else. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing everyone's comments, I have to second Pgk's remarks. Three reverts aren't an entitlement, and edit warring in itself is a blockable offense. However, I'd have given him a second chance (on the condition that he not revert the article until he has consensus), but while going through the edit history of Talk:Iranian women, I noticed The Behnam calling another editor a "hypocrite" in an edit summary (). IMHO, it's probably best that he sits this block out so he can cool down. Khoikhoi 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I ditto Tony Sidaway, in particular, in expressing my endorsement for the block. This user was being disruptive by not discussing the reverts on the talk page of the article and/or the user talk, and this was adversely affecting the project. Daniel Bryant 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Adversely affecting the project" is an exceptionally harsh judgment, but I defer to the consensus that the block stands. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just brought to my attention that ParthianShot, who was given a strong warning only, because I didn't see past blocks, is actually the new username of Surena, who has two blocks, the same as The Behnam. The warning was probably a mistake then. See Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Archive20#Surena_.E2.86.92_ParthianShot. Does anyone feel like blocking him as well? Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban discussion for Instantnood

Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on general probation by this arbitration case, for continued edit warring and misconduct, allowing a ban to be set upon agreement of three administrators. Since then, only more of the same has been happening, including the use of sockpuppets to duck the arbitration remedies and blocks placed for violating them (see the checkuser case), and has been blocked several times for repeated edit warring, stalking editors to edit war with them, and block evasion. Given his conduct and apparent lack of intent to change it, I believe it's time to set a ban. Seraphimblade 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been involved, but I reviewed what you have presented and I agree: the user seems more interested now in avoiding restrictions than in being a productive part of Misplaced Pages. We might as well make it official and set an indefinite ban. Mangojuice 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the circumstances, a ban would be a formality. Just up the block to indefinite, watch for socks, and ask the arbitrators to re-open the case if the block should ever be challenged. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the community sanction noticeboard? Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Figured it should go here given the circumstances (that admins would have to agree), it could go there too I suppose. Not sure what the exact procedure is for that, but it's not exactly a community ban. Seraphimblade 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this belongs over at WP:AE, not the AN. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Instantnood's general probation, under which he may be banned from wikipedia upon the agreement of 3 admins, he has been so banned, and the ban recorded here as required. Thatcher131 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AFD and conflict of interest?

Is it inherently a conflict of interest to relist an AFD and comment in it? Please discuss at WT:AFD#Relisting and conflict of interest. —Quarl 2007-04-16 01:07Z

Dispute at Shemale

Resolved – Actually a dispute resolution request... but resolved. Sancho 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. Would love a bit of insight from the admins and others here regarding a dispute at Shemale. User:Patrick80639 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a new editor and self-described pornographer) is seeking to establish that the term 'Shemale' is either not derogatory (or "not derogatory in a 'porn context'", whatever that means) and has edited the article to remove the reference to the term's derogatory nature.

It's been clearly established that the term is derogatory by numerous references (Wikidictionary and reference.com list the term as 'pejorative' and 'derogatory', respectively) but despite being relatively new to WP, User:Patrick80639 insists on reverting to a version 1, 2, 3 minimizing the derogatory nature of the term by trying to claim that the pornographic usage of the word is somehow 'not derogatory'. He avoids the Wikidictionary and reference.com links, pointing instead to 'WordWeb Online', which lists the term as 'sometimes derogatory', as justification for this artificial distinction. I don't edit war, would like to avoid edit warring on the article completely and so I would appreciate any and all insight into this area. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it 'resolved' per se (there's still an open issue or two) but I'm very grateful for Sanchom's help. Sanchom - can you chime in on the talk page regarding the issue I mentioned? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is a term of art (so to speak) involved. I.e. there is a pornographer's designation that isn't intended to offend the actors and actresses. Well, ok, but isn't, umm, pornography already pejorative? I.e. turning someone's body into a commercial venture seems to me to be already a bit, uh, disrespectful, and a tender hearted pornographer worried about his brand name being offensive to the performers is just plain weird. Imagine the maker of "Sluts in Heat" trying to argue that, well, yes, he did try to find the youngest looking women he could and did subject them to degrading on-camera acts, but "slut" isn't a bad word! If it's not a bad word, then the marketing fails. (In this case, can't the dude be satisfied with "pornographers employ the term when marketing their product" without any appeal to their desires to be nice or not?) Geogre 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Dmcdevit method

We'll be trying some of Dmcdevit's thoughts out on Global Warming.

We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)

Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.

--Kim Bruning 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Appreciate the help, and the attention. However, I assume no one here is going to do something radical like actually find some way to propose a real compromise, or try to ameliorate some of these issues.

weird how this article keeps going around in circles, and people keep proposing all kinds of actions, but no one proposes any sort of solution, or even offers some slight objective insight on what is causing all this. Just my two cents. I know people want to stay neutral. However, I think some objective guidance might be useful. My own personal request would be (in case you asked) can someone please tell the status quo faction to occasionally let some new sub-topics in? Does that seem like a valid compromise? Please feel free to comment, of course. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This didn't last long. I've already blocked Jacob Buerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for performing a mass reversion without discussing first on the talk page. Naconkantari 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, can Jacob's right to use TWINKLE please be revoked? --Iamunknown 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any administrator can remove a user's rollback scripts by editing their monobook.js file. Naconkantari 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator.  :-( Although a warning should probably be given first. --Iamunknown 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone noticing that the article was unprotected that fast was most likely following this thread and knew about the repercussions of edit warring. Naconkantari 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Striking this per an email I received. The editor has been unblocked. Naconkantari 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic at the moment. I don't even know if it is possible to stabilize the article, until the situation in the real world also stabilizes. --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have give one-hour blocks to Tjsynkral (talk · contribs) and Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. Admins should note that Nrcprm2026 has been banned from editing certain other articles by ArbCom (depleted uranium case) for disruptive behaviour. Physchim62 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A box-like message would be far better, a comment can be easily skipped by editing a determined section. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, I don't see any edit war like behaviour from Tjsynkral? He made a single edit this evening that doesn't even seem to have been challenged by anyone. Could we get some evidence of where he was "warring" cause I apparently have missed it? This block happiness NEEDS to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop. Naconkantari 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EW: "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article."

I did not revert. Not once. Are we blocking users for edit warring or are we blocking them for editing? --Tjsynkral 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, point me at the edit warring that has caused these blocks? I'm seeing VALID edits and editors being blocked without reason. The blocking without valid reasoning needs to stop. Kyaa the Catlord 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral's edit was on a bit of the lead that's been intensively fought over the last few days, and arguably involved a tendentious misreading of the cited material. I do think the block was a bit too fast, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these blocks are coming much too fast. This is not a good solution, especially since a number of the editors involved in the "war" are administrators and can now block anyone who edits in a way they don't agree with and have the "edit warrior" excuse to cover their behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above pair of blocks were reviewed by Naconkantari who declined both of them. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a third party become involved in this, cause I don't see that their edits were obvious edit warring and based on the previous false blocking by Nacon I do not believe he's weighing this from a neutral POV. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There's no comment on the talk page supporting that new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do: eventually only one POV will be reflected in the article. -- THF 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did say be careful. The article merely needs to be watched. Only block if people are clearly edit warring. --Kim Bruning 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna feel my way around here, and maybe I will make a mistake and get blocked because it seems kinda random. Sort of like Russian Roulette. But reading Dmcdevit's article, I think this is a good way to go. Even if I run into a fan blade, I agree with the decision. --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the Dmcdevit approach (so long as there is adequate notice that 0RR applies), but I do object to the way it is being applied in the article, and apparently without repercussion. THF 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that only a few can edit. ~ UBeR 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Skyemoor is back to his usual nonsense and undiscussed reverts. When will he be blocked? ~ UBeR 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd, you put in POV material you know will be reverted, and you do not seek discussion of controversial language. It's a case of "Physican, heal thyself", and "Thou protesteth much." Now that I've read the above, I realize you inserted previously removed material as apparently 'revert bait', hoping that editors would not have read the discussion in this thread. Almost seems like a clever tactic, if it weren't for your good faith. --Skyemoor 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing "hypotheses" to "tiny minority views" into text is reverting POV as opposed to inserting it? (And there's absolutely no talk-page discussion.) I have a real concern about the double-standard being exhibited here. If there's going to be a 0RR rule, it needs to be applied evenly, and what's happening is that it's not being applied at all to the politically correct while those who wish to apply NPOV are getting blocked simply for making edits. As a result a page that already violates NPOV is getting considerably worse. THF 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To you first question; yes. Say "other hypotheses" implies an unsupported significant minority that has not been established. Don't confuse political and pundit level of debate with the scientific process; even the sceptics admit to the overwhelming consensus. If you are attempting to establish a perception that climate change skeptic scientists are anything but a tiny minority, then you have your work cut out for you. Attempting to brand my edit as NPOV is wikilawyering, mr. attorney. --Skyemoor 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to demonstrate the double standard I'm complaining about by engaging in a personal attack on the AN page, you've succeeded. -- THF 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Some edit warring going on again at Global Warming. Would folks keep it in their watchlists and keep an eye on it? Thanks! --Kim Bruning 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming is an ongoing situation, so please keep watching that page! --Kim Bruning 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts, but global warming has been an "ongoing situation" at least since I joined Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Global warming article could act as a poster child for why the Wikipedian, any yahoo can edit the article, approach can never stabilise on certain hot-button political issues. No matter if the ratio of the science were 1000:1 favoring one direction or the other, if it serves the political and economic needs of certain folks to have the article fall the other way, then the article will be under constant editing as they try to drive its PoV in the direction favored by those who have political power or money at stake.

Short of having an actual authority-based structure in our editing process, there is no way this crisis will ever be permanently resolved as there's always a new yahoo arriving to take up where the old ones left off (or were forced to leave off).

I rather wish we had a template that said something like:

"This is an article about a politically-contentious subject and is likely to be

constantly whip-sawn between at least two irreconcilable points-of-view. In fact,

at any given moment, it may be nothing more than a complete pack of lies!"

It needn't be this way, but Misplaced Pages is far too tolerant of editors who make it this way.

Atlant 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this just a battle between the 1) scientists who insist that their ReliableSources should use the standard of "Verifiability, not truth" versus 2) others whose ReliableSources use a much weaker standard of mere "Attributability, not truth"? --Rednblu 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I estimate there might be ~3000 articles that have issues, while ~3M do not. If you look at it that way, you might think we could just ignore the problem pages. Unfortunately many of these pages often happen to be on some of the most visible issues.

We may need to work on a different set of guidelines for those ~3000 pages. (and that in turn might take some experimentation)

--Kim Bruning 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could work out some understanding among the different camps about the proper standard for ReliableSources on global warming? --Rednblu 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Update 2

One of the most regular edit warriors continues to do so unchecked diff diff. What happened to blocking edit warriors? Does that only apply to people who aren't pro-global warming? If we've gone back to a free for all up to 3RR a day, then let's make that clear so that both sides can all hit their 3RR and we can be right back where we started. --Tjsynkral 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born between 1995 and 1999

I haven't fully followed the whole "should we allow/disallow categories for children" debates, but I thought I'd bring this category to attention, as I recall similar categories being deleted in the past per related concerns. This category is specifically for 8-12 year olds. VegaDark 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honeslty, what's the point of these absurd range categories? 1990-94 and 1995-99? There's only about 10 users who have identified as being born in the 1990s. Just put them all into one category and let them state what year they were born on their userpage. hbdragon88 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, just delete the lot of those as they're not particularly useful to encyclopedia writing. Move everybody to Category:Wikipedians born between 1795 and 2199, problem solved. >Radiant< 10:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Gah, how often do we have to kill these things. These categories serve no use, except social networking. That in itself isn't a reason to delete ...perhaps. But the mere possibility that grouping child wikipedians might have a negative effect (on PR if not in reality) then the outcome must be kill kill kill. I can't find the diff, but I know Jimbo shared that response. Speedy delete and salt the earth - DRV has always endorsed that type of action, so we have a defacto policy here.--Doc 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kill with fire and salt the earth. El_C 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If the editors are living people and the information (age) is not sourced by a reliable published source then apply WP:BLP ? WAS 4.250 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply common sense. Dosen't matter if the the information (age) is sourced. El_C 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is common sense to me and you. But not common sense to those who are creating and populating categories like that. So what objective general rule can be agreed on that solves this and hopefully other cases as well? "Objective" so we are not merely replacing one subjective judgement for another and "general" so we have as few rules as possible rather than thousands of specific rules for specific cases. I believe that WP:BLP fills the bill. WAS 4.250 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply common sense. I don't think that WP:BLP applies here. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the US schooling system, but doesn't Category:Wikipedian high school freshmen raise the same issues? As might other subcats of Category:Wikipedian high school students... WjBscribe 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

High school freshmen (with notable exceptions) are usually at least 13 (in most cases in my area, 14 or 15). 8th grade or lower, or any cats abut middle schoolers would probably be worth deleting. Ral315 » 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Return of a blocked user

User:CarlKenner, who was banned several months ago (and whose user talk page is still locked), is back making edits. His most recent edits are to the article International Vietnamese Youth Conference, adding biased and false information. These edits are discussed in the talk page, but he could not produce any proof of his assertions. He's been re-adding this information to the page every time it's removed, and putting the summary "rvt vandalism". He's reverted the page 3 times in a 24-hour period now. In the talk page, he's twice removed comments from other users DHN 06:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 24 hours on 5th May. If you're requesting a further block, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Waggers 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

Over at WP:COIN I see a fair number of accounts that exist for no other purpose than to promote some person or company. A representative example is Uibs. This account exists to promote the Barcelona Business School, an instution of learning which the only independent source described as a one room campus that was founded by the same individual who created its accrediting body. This account blanked warnings from its user talk page repeatedly, removed advertising and COI tags from the article under the guise of rewriting, and left a rather disingenuous message at the article talk page, particularly in light of subsequent attempts to promote the institution at Misplaced Pages.

Another example is Jeffrey Babcock, whose sole contributions to Misplaced Pages since June 2006 have been self-promotional. This editor has deleted warnings to his user talk page during his block and, via e-mail, has both accused me of vandalism for reverting his spam and announced his intention to violate WP:MEAT. Excerpts of his messages follow:

Your deletion of links for Jeffrey Babcock is inconsistent. There are other former personalities on the sites where I am listed who have such links. Your deletions are vandalism. Please refrain from well intentioned but misguided vandalism.

I can of course have a third party make an edit. Kind of a waste of time. You seem to be caught in a form vs function trap.

The real waste of time is supposing that such people would develop into decent Wikipedians. In light of Brad Patrick's statement on COI accounts, I ask the community to support the following approach:

1. For obviously WP:COI-only accounts, first leave a message at the editor's talk page advising the person of site standards.

1. If the editor continues acting in a solely promotional manner, treat the account history as a sophisticated breach of WP:VANDAL and indef block.

Editors who doubt the need for such an approach are invited to spend a week tending either WP:COIN or WP:SOCK. Durova 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes please. I've been thinking we should have stronger shoot-vanity/promotion-on-sight policies for a while now. Moreschi 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe this will cut down on the # of vanicruftisements that people who are trying to build a better encyclopedia have to deal with. SirFozzie 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I would wholeheartedly support admin action on this front. I know that no area is immune but wine articles get targeted quite a bit with these spam-only accounts and it really does get tiring. Quite a few link to Wine Library TV, which I just discovered has a Misplaced Pages article possibly created by a COI-SPA. Agne/ 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I belive that this would require a policy change (or at least clarifiction) in WP:BLOCK but I would support such a change. DES 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Misplaced Pages, its volunteers, and its readership? Durova 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguably it does, but I think it is better to spell this one out. I have therefore proposed it on Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy. DES 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I doubt the need? By no means. But an indef block buys us at most 24 hours of autoblocked reprieve, and the spammer's back the next day with a less obvious username and no history of abuse. —Cryptic 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the single purpose soon shows itself. This is easier to spot and halt than garden variety trolling because the troll can be more flexible about methodology. We don't let the risk of future abuse deter us from necessary action. Durova 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but we should be taking the right necessary action. Indef blocks are only effective against accounts that try to integrate into the community. The net effect of blocking User:Spamsalot.com is that Spamsalot.com will be re-created by User:Innocuous in four days; for COIs inserted into other articles, we don't even get that long unless the article's semiprotected. After that, even the stupidest spammer will know to create accounts in advance. The only thing that blocking an unestablished user account does is delay, often indefinitely, use of our only effective tool: page protection. —Cryptic 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change proposed at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy DES 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this, but we should think about updating Template:uw-coi so it says something ominous like "Those who use Misplaced Pages for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warnings." Jehochman (/_contrib) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would generally support this too. In a lot of ways, spamming campaigns are worse than simple school-type vandalism, because they're tougher to detect. If someone's adding 20 lines of profanity to an article, it just gets reverted on sight, there's no valid reason for anyone to do that. There are a lot of valid reasons to add external links, so it requires more work to figure out if it's spam. Seraphimblade 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both proposals sound very good to me. Durova 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with teh template change, too. DES 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a simple rule that allows the blocking of COI-only accounts would give more teeth to our COI rules. Posting COI problems at WP:AN/I doesn't always give any concrete results because of the perceived complexity of these cases. If there's a simple rule, administrators would be more willing to take action. EdJohnston 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this. A reasonable idea which would, as others have said, add teeth to COI rules.--Alabamaboy 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A significant change like this should be proposed on WT:COI, not just here. Please keep in mind that such a proposal could have serious consequences in NPOV disputes. It is not uncommon for partisan editors, who may fall under the campaigning section of COI, to be involved in NPOV disputes with each other. Hopefully, both sides are more or less proportionately represented, and the article on a whole becomes neutral. WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes suggests conflicts of interest in NPOV disputes should not be brought up, in keeping with assume good faith and the principle of commenting on the content, not the editor. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. As proposed, this clarification will not be effective in such cases. Presumably these people are editing articles besides one about themselves or their organization. The statement only applies to single-purpose accounts that engage in blatant self-promotion. Jehochman (/_contrib) 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, the conversation has moved here. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre

I have applied the Dmcdevit solution to edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several editors have reverted at least 12 times over the last 4 days over the insertion of the term "ethnic cleansing." The first step of the Dmcdevit solution is protection for 3 days (the article has not been previously protected). If the edit warring resumes I will enforce a 1 revert limit, and if that doesn't stop it, a zero revert limit. I would appreciate extra eyes on this when the protection expires. Thatcher131 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it actually work? I've been the victim of this, but the other users involved weren't properly affected due to an oversight caused by a block log obscured after a user name change, so now the other guy is just going around to a bunch of articles and RV, usually calling legitimate edits "vandalism." He is restoring copyvios, OR, non-RS (and possibly COI) sources. His 'discussion' on the talk page is usually just insults against other users and Parsis. Also, on ANI I have asked whether or not I can transfer his sockpuppets from old user name to his new user name to prevent confusion. I'd like an answer on that . Applying the method doesn't make sense unless it is applied fairly.

Also, how is 0RR a good alternative to full protection? There has long been an editprotected mechanism for requesting simple improvements. I don't see what Dmcdevit's 'thoughts' are adding aside from yet another arbitrary dimension to the system and something of a trap (in my first experience I thought it was 1RR for some reason and got hurt). The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While I probably couldn't win any debate over the topic since I am not expert here, I think that these 'thoughts' deserve community discussion before being applied as policy to the articles. Editors aren't guinea pigs (I hope); an actionable rule needs community consensus. The Behnam 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The general idea that, if one person edit wars, block him; if several people edit war, protect the article, has a significant downside. Protecting the article harms all editors as it prevents anyone from editing the article. There are too many articles that undergo a constant cycle of edt war--protect--edit war--protect--edit war--protect. This helps no one. It rewards the edit warriors (or at least lets them off scot-free to edit, and possibly edit war, on other articles), while driving away reasonable editors who aren't interested in edit warring. Protecting the article is supposed to give the editors a chance to work out their differences on the talk page. If the editors go right back to edit warring, then they didn't use the time well, and need stronger measures to convince them to work within the system. 1929 Hebron massacre has been a problem for a while, and even after banning User:Zeq from the topic, at least 5 or 6 other editors are edit warring without using the talk page to discuss their dispute. Now they have a chance to do that. If they can't come to a reasonable compromise and continue edit warring (protection having failed its purpose), I see no reason to protect again. I have taken this approach before (applied 1RR to an article) with no complaint, and it actually seemed to work. Dmcdevit's essay is a formalization of an approach that many admins have used from time to time and it is not at all a new policy, simply a different approach to enforcing the same policies. Thatcher131 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have any problem with 1RR, but basically this is 0RR, and I think it encourages sockpuppetry. Back at Azerbaijan (Iran) when I mistakenly interpreted "Repeat edit warriors will be blocked from now on" (from edit summary) as 1RR and forgot about the more 0RR-like wording on the talk page, I reverted an IP that was a possible sock and ended up getting a day's block. I think it is more of a trap that will encourage sockpuppetry. Also, it seems apt to allow people to add tripe but not remove tripe. The Behnam 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting off with 1RR. Dmcdevit's essay is an essay, not an instruction manual, and every admin has to use his or her own discretion. I don't think it will lead to adding tripe unless there's a tripe pile-on; if one user adds crap twice, it can be reverted by two different editors once each and the crap adder gets blocked. Also, editors should use the talk page, if there is good discussion and consensus about an edit but actually making the edit would be a technical violation for someone, then of course I'll overlook it. Thatcher131 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I think 1RR is much more reasonable of you. But really this should go to community discussion if its going to start getting applied to articles, though I do agree that testing is necessary to see if there are loopholes or other possible problems. The Behnam 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User User:Alastair Haines moving articles incorrectly

User:Alastair Haines seems to be on a biot of a spree, moving articles by cut-and-paste. A lot of these are disambig articles that (IMHO) should take preference over his prefered article to begin with. I'd ask that someont give him a bit of a talking to, and that his changes be reverted for now. Artw 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I was hasty posting this to admn - the user has asked to see the relevant guidelines and I've given them to him. Still some help with the cleanup would be appreciated. Also it's possible that a firm indication as to whether moiving the articles in the first place was appropriate or not would probably be beneficial (my take would be No). Artw 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User Elsanaturk diverted a whole section into bombarding me with personal attacks and making POV and OR statements: He implies that I am uncivlized and uneducated, amongst other things, and also tries to dictate what pages people should and should not edit on Misplaced Pages.

Some lines of interest:

Les Absents ont toujours tort, they say in the civilized world, those absents are always wrong

He implies that I am uncivilized.

your imperial dreams which are and were only the dreams

can you ever make a good thing and contribute something positive to wikipedia that it would not create dispute?

and as i see you liked my previous comments, so i think you can also like my this one and i strongly appreciate to report me on civility, or something various, but remember that sometimes you must also know that that there is something called morality, for which wikipedia forgot to make an appropriate page.

Here he implies I am immoral and he is just asking for a ban or a block. This user clearly knew what he was doing, as he even knew that his comments would get reported to the admins noticeboard. This user clearly should get blocked for these comments and have some time to cool down, in fact, he is basically asking for it by asking me to report him for comments that he acknowledges are uncivil.Azerbaijani 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You should ask him to apologize, and forgive him. The Behnam 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted pages

Is there any reason that we shouldn't move these pages to Misplaced Pages:Protected titles? Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

None at all that I'm aware of. Feel free to go through the masses if you like. I think they still are there because there are or seem to be so many. --Iamunknown 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted categories should be moved over as well. VegaDark 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So is the transcluding way the preferred way to salt pages? WP:SALT isn't clear on whether there is a preferred method, or even why there are two methods. Natalie 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The category was the previous method, before this method was even possibly with the use of cascading protection. With the category method, the pages can be arrived at by Special:Random and are indexed by search engines. We normally do not want this for maintenance pages. Currently, there aren't any drawbacks to the Cascading solution, so it is the preferred way. Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on that all tomorrow... It'll be fun... a lot of stuff, but fun. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

75.84.156.180 and Fertility awareness

I was in a content dispute (if you can call an external link 'content') with 75.84.156.180 (talk • contribs) over at Fertility awareness. The editor has refused to talk things out and was edit warring (and I was reverting maybe a bit too much as well). That, however, is not why I am here. The editor has added a comment directed towards another user (a personal attack, if you will) that has inflammatory and racist language. I reverted it on sight and warned the user on talk. However, the user has simply reverted the questionable content. So I am asking for admin help in analyzing the situation, and recommending a course of action (if any is needed). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Golden (3RR) Rule and why it must stay

I see a number of people talking about blocking at one revert, of people deciding that "edit warring" is the crime, not 3RR violation, etc. Well, I sympathize, and I know no one will speak in favor of edit warring. However, the idea of reducing a complex issue beyond its already reductive state (the 3RR) is completely wrong headed.

1. We have operated for a while with the 3RR, on the assumption that there is no "right version" at a wiki, that no one may "own" an article, etc. This is a rule that all users with any experience are aware of. Trying to change away from this practice to "block on sight" with any "edit warring" is to change the rules while the game is underway.
2. Our goal is to stop edit warring. The 3RR itself is a simplistic way of saying, "If we can't tell you exactly what edit warring is, we can at least agree that anyone who reverts more than 3 times in 24 hours is engaging in it." In other words, it is an exasperated way of trying to give a least/most line. It is there only because it is impossible to coherently describe what "edit warring" is.
3. No one can stop edit warring at one revert, because one revert isn't edit warring. No one can stop it at two reverts, because two reverts may be vandalism prevention. No one can stop it at three reverts, because three reverts might well be preventing an edit war between two radically divergent editors who will fight with each other to avoid the compromise version established by an RFC. You cannot stop it at four, because that might be an effort at clearing out quickly created accounts who are gaming the 3RR. In other words, "edit warring" does not occur at one revert, at two, at three, at four, at five, or at any other number. It occurs when people who cannot or will not compromise and discuss matters simply use the bytes of Misplaced Pages to score against each other. It is when they fight ("war") with the edits rather than their words and arguments.
4. If a person is debating on the talk page, and if the persons are seeking additional input, they're not warring. They may be struggling with each other. They may be disagreeing, or arguing, but they're not warring.
5. Any attempt to stifle the necessary role of investigation and consideration in the assessment of what is and is not an edit war is wholly wrong.
6. Blocks are evil. Let's repeat this, all together in one voice: blocks are bad. Blocks are not the default state of editors. Blocks are not power. Blocks are not tools. Blocks are a last ditch measure. Anything, and I mean anything, that people do to try to make blocks more automatic, more binary, more unconsidered is a thing that is wrong in every possible way.

So no, I do not think "block immediately" is an answer to "edit warring." I am not likely to endorse or support anyone who moves that way, and I will be very likely to listen charitably to someone so blocked. Geogre 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I like hard rules and bright line tests. But I also like gentle enforcement, particularly at first. I do not believe in blocks for 3rr, unless it is egregious. Instead of 24 hour blocks I would advocate 2 day to 1 week bans from editing the article. --Blue Tie 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for putting this out. The excessive arbitrary nature of the 0RR rule was quite troubling in an environment already prone to arbitrary measures. The Behnam 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR is an electric fence. It is certainly not permissible to pass 3 reverts in 24 hours. However, note that our previous edit warring guidelines were never revoked. --Kim Bruning 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, if I could simplify, there is a middle way between the Geogre edit warring philosophy (blocks are evils) and the Dmcdevit one (protection is evil). While the latter articulates some interesting ideas and insights that are well worth our time examining, at the same time, we should be very careful about the implementation stage and ensure that sufficient input and discussion has taken place before anything seemingly new develops as a modus operandi. Certainly, the spirit of the law demands a certain flexibility, that isn't new and no one ever disagrees that being undogmatic is desirable. Note my recent reversion of a protected page on account that the party whose version I protected failed to engage the talk page. That probably breaks the letter of a host of rules (except for the trusted deus ex machina that is IAR), but it nonetheless makes perfect sense — although, I suppose I could have unprotected early and warned that, regardless of 3RR, if any user continues reverting without employing the talk page, they would be facing a block. That, arguably, also makes sense. El_C 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have before said that there were interesting things in the Dmcdevit position. 3RR has become an electric fence, as Kim says, when it emerged as a rough guide. In other words, people have been using it as though any reverts up to 3RR were ok and the 4th was an automatic 24 hr block. I agree that everyone knows that the 4th is a block. However, we don't correct the reductionism of 3RR is automatic by making an even less flexible and more reductive position. I have seen, above, more and more people lauding instant blocks -- missing the point again and heading away from deliberation and discussion again. This bugs me. Yes, all should remember that we're trying to stop edit wars, not living by the letter of a 3RR law. No, the answer is not to block more quickly. (I have, for the second time in 4 years, gone to 3R just today, so that's one of life's (or Misplaced Pages's) little ironies that this discussion would occur just at this time.) Geogre 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you are supposed to only block when people are *actually* edit warring, yes ;-) If people do two reverts a day for a week, well... maybe you should block them for a change? On the other hand, if they are constructively working on building a consensus on the actual article page, they should be left alone. --Kim Bruning 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (yes, we do have consensus building directly on articles, it's this strange wiki concept we started with, so many years ago, imagine that!)

As long as we're talking about the "Dmcdevit approach" (and can we not call it that?) I would note that "instant blocks" have no place in my approach. The idea is to stop enabling persistent edit warriors with chronic protection and repeated and punitive short blocks. It's not "block immediately" it is "block when protection would be fruitless due to a party's uncommunicativeness; block when an editor shows no propensity for understanding how collaborative editing works here, by edit warring in eh face of warnings and prior blocks". Er, that's not much of a slogan. The point about 3RR is that while I would not throw it out the window entirely (I make blocks based on 3RR occasionally) 3RR is a measure of edit warring, not the Form of edit warring itself. Admins are free to use their judgment when someone is edit warring within the 3RR boundary. Dmcdevit·t 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection is evil as well. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for Newbie X who really wants to edit Article Y only to find it's been protected due to the edit-warring of a bunch of jerks? Besides this, blocking the jerks for their disruption if they've done it before/should know better, seems positively enlightened, even if they haven't violated 3RR. Moreschi 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Misplaced Pages's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule." This is what the official edit-warring guidelines say. Dmcdevit's thoughts are interesting, respectable and his interest in fighting edit-warring is laudable. But no user's thoughts can replace official Misplaced Pages guidelines without prior consensus of the Misplaced Pages community. Do we have until now such a consensus? My answer is no, because this discussion hasn't yet opened (why not?).

My friends, the meaning of the above two lines I quote looks to me clear: Blocks of edit-warring are implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Where is it mentioned that with 1 or 2 reverts we can implement blocks? Nowhere! Do we want to change the current rules? Let's do it, but we do not have the right to implement rules we like but which are not yet officially approved by the Misplaced Pages community.

I will be straightforward here: I agree with George, and, though I laud Dmcevit's efforts, I regard his proposals concerning blockings for edit-warring as potentially dangerous, and not in accord with the current Misplaced Pages's policies concerning edit-warning and 3R rules. Maybe that is because I am a jurist, but I strongly believe that personal thoughts and unofficial IRC or user talk discussions cannot replace official Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

As a conclusion, I would say that, under the current Misplaced Pages policies, the only case I would accept a block for edit-warring without implementation of the 3R rule is when:

1)Edit-warring is extended in an article,

2)The edit-warring users have been warned,

3)The issue has been brought by the blockng adm to ANI, and broad consensus between the sysops has been reached. Unofficial discussion between some sysops in a sysop's userpage is not enough.

In any other case, I regard blocks without violation of the 3R rule as potentially arbitrary and unilateral actions. George, I believe that blocks are not necessarily evil, but when implemented, they should be in harmony with Misplaced Pages's guidelines.--Yannismarou 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good summary. I agree with Yannis' sentiment. Incidentally, I've been known to have experimented with such measures in some notorious hotspot articles myself (, ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when commenting, I had also that in mind.--Yannismarou 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add an important consideration: The fact that the administration of WP is in danger of losing its credibility with such methods. A user may be blocked out of the blue for following the rules. It is inconsistent, it allows for administrative abuse, it may result in POV-pushing if not excercised by God himself, and most of all, it makes users not trust the system. We may agree on 2RR, on 1RR or whatever, but there has to be a non-subjective limit. We could also have different RR levels per article, depending on the controversy, but still, a user must know in advance where their rights start and where they end. So must an admin. NikoSilver 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk deletions by admins, regarding Danny's behavior on the Foundation phone ongoing

How are the deletions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny justified?

• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-17 01:53
• User:Sean William 2007-04-16 22:33
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-16 12:40
• User:Newyorkbrad 2007-04-14 23:45
• User:Tony Sidaway 2007-04-13 18:43

02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) something wrong with my signature. re-sign Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the edit summaries, if you so wish to read them. —physicq (c) 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, you're beating a patch of ground which was previously occupied by a dead horse. The RFA is over. Can we let it go? // Sean William (PTO) 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In the thread in question, you described having called someone at his workplace without suggesting any purpose of legitimate communication. As such, the call presumptively constituted harassment, and it was inappropriate to publicize it further. I suggest, for the fourth time, that you drop this matter. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I called the office, which publicises a phone number on the net. I did not call Danny directly. I talked with a woman and Danny rushed in taking over the phone. Then he shouted, and hang up. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He rushed to grab the phone so he could tell you he couldn't speak English?? Newyorkbrad 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That was in another call. He took up the phone and said somethig in hebrew. I asked whether he could speak in English, he replied "Lo". Well, as far as my hebrew goes this means "no". When he said "No ingles" I replied in spanish, because spanish is fine with me. He connected me with someone else but no real talk happend. I do not remember the order, but in one call he took up the phone and whistled. The rushing was before. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its time to reign in Tobias - see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but perhaps a community sanction discussion is in order at the appropriate page. This just gets worse and worse and shows no sign of improving. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we only need that admins respect the written policies. My page is deleted and this deletion does not even show in the deletion logs. Censorship. Why are you all afraid of true and verifiable facts about yourself? Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. If the beaten record this, they delete it. And beat again. They invade Iraq. They kill the Indians. The aboriginans. The Africans. The Arabs. The Jews. They spread lies about weapons of massdestruction. They lie half the day. But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually wasn't sure about the speedy deletion, but with your last comments you have lost me extremely completely. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With that last comment, I think it's now come time for a community sanction. Harassing admins over the phone. Constantly ignoring community consensus. Making clear attacks against Americans in order to imply that any American admins cannot be objective. Part Deux 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What does your comment, "Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. (....) But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs.", refer to, Tobias Conradi? --Iamunknown 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSN, where potential community sanctions for Tobias are being discussed. Moreschi 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log glitch frequency

In amongst the Godwin's Law-esque comparisons to genocides and wars, there is 1 valid point that is exceedingly well hidden, there. Today's deletion of User:Tobias Conradi is not recorded in Special:Log/delete. I've noticed this occurring from time to time myself, and assumed an occasional database problem of some sort causing records not to be appended to the log. However, this incident prompts me to ask: Have other administrators also noticed their deletions not showing up in the deletion log? If this is a problem that is more frequent overall than we as individuals might realize, it is probably worth drawing a developer's attention to it. Uncle G 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

History dragging

I don't know if that's quite what it's called, but it's what's happened to nebular hypothesis. It was formerly a redirect to planetary formation, which is now a redirect to Nebular hypothesis. Planetary formation, in turn, was moved from solar nebula, which has since been reborn as a stub. That page has the history of the big, important page going back to 2003. Can an admin move the relevant history to Nebular hypothesis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenohockey (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Someone really made a mess of this. I reverted Nebular hypothesis back to 11th February and it's back as a redirect to Solar Nebula. Planetary formation was reverted to May 2006 and is back as a redirect to Protoplanetary disk. Solar Nebula was reverted to 18th February and is back as a full article with complete history. Sigh. – Steel 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chat "vandalism" advice

Can I get a view or two about this:

• Peaches1018, Mnkyfnky7, Spaz109

Three related user accounts that refer to one another, all consist entirely of User Talk "contributions" that are an ongoing chat among some kids in class. As "vandalism" goes, it isn't the highest priority, as they aren't wrecking the encyclopedia, but it is a misuse, and warnings were ignored. I blocked the accounts, but was wondering if going after the underlying IP to prevent account creation is warranted, ie a checkuser, to lead to some kind of schoolblock. Thanks, Kaisershatner 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the chat texts. YechielMan 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about the main issue? Kaisershatner 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not much we can do to stop someone creating an account and writing stuff on their user talk page. Like any other form of vandalism, we just have to be vigilant, revert or remove such edits and warn the vandalising users, going on to block them if necessary. This isn't really anything new. Waggers 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think we'd need a checkuser for just that, it's not a terribly hideous instance of vandalism, and there's no hint they've come back using sockpuppets. (If the school shares an IP, like a lot of them do, they'll very likely have gotten bored and moved on by the time the autoblock expires anyway.) I've run across that type of thing before-just first politely inform them that we're not a chatline, and if all they want to do is chat, they need to take it to email, IM, or some other venue. Everyone I've talked to has stopped at that point anyway (I think at least a couple of them were under the impression that their conversations were for the most part private, and left immediately upon finding out otherwise), but if they don't, I guess that'd be like any other vandal. Seraphimblade 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this is 22113itshouldsnow (talk · contribs), 22113letitsnow (talk · contribs), Itshouldsnow22113 (talk · contribs), Letit22113snow (talk · contribs), etc... I remember when they were first around using talk pages for chat rooms, and I was able to figure out which school they were at by googling combinations of the names of the teachers they talked about. Looking at one of these recent pages, and googling panasuk horn, the second result is a teacher page from the same school, Guerin Catholic. --Onorem 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Coltsfan8893 (talk · contribs) seems to be their latest. Still active as of an hour ago. --Onorem 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that Shortie1018 (talk · contribs) is also due for a block. one of theirs. --Onorem 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Googling, led to this:The IT Director of that school Kaisershatner 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Kaisershatner 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One IP address would seem to be 216.117.140.169 Kaisershatner 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

70.225.145.209 should be another, but that doesn't appear to fall into the range of that whois... --Onorem 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, see my req for checkuser, there are many accounts.Kaisershatner 17:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffshark (talk · contribs) may be one too. I saw him a couple of days ago on RC patrol when he blanked his talk page and I left him a note this morning. He deleted it a few moments ago. I spent 15 minutes of my life politely wording a "don't do that" message, and I even gave him the 'cookies' welcome template first. Sigh. I need chocolate. KrakatoaKatie 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sesto Rocchi

This article is suffering from WP:OWN issues, and a complete lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and how to write an encyclopedia article by User:Milliot. He considers non-contextual quotes to be cohesive information, and has pasted entire articles into the "external sources" section, among other things, which I removed and he has replaced twice (after its removal by others). He also claims the page is maintained by "those who knew Rocchi," which is COI I'm willing got overlook because the sources are there.

However, it has been explained to Milliot at least twice what the problems are with the article, and it hasn't really helped. For example, a user working on the article tagged it lehgitimately with a citation needed tag. said user changed his name, and Milliot apparently thinks that since the old user "is no longer valid", the tag isn't either. Could an admin take a look at this and take action if necessary? Apparently regular old users aren't having an effect. MSJapan 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary speedy delete by User:MacGyverMagic

Seeing as subpages of Tobias Conradi have been deleted because of soapboxing issues before, I've decided to speedy delete this page. If anyone wants to help him restore non-controversial material feel free to do so. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

--- no policy for this action is cited. The deletion was proposed 2007-04-17 06:39 by User:ShivaIdol.

The deletion log does not show when this deletion was carried out.

As of now it only shows:

• 05:22, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (229 revisions restored: finish undeleting accidentally deleted page)
• 05:17, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (1 revisions restored: oops--wrong page)
• 05:16, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi" (To undelete non-copyvio revisions)

A clique of admins tries to delete any evidence of their admin right abuses. Collections of such evidences are deleted. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

admins cant delete the proof of admin actions, check the logs they cant be deleted. Betacommand 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry this is false. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What direct evidence, such as code in the MediaWiki software or a relevant page at http://www.mediawiki.org/, suggests that this is false? --Iamunknown 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no log entry for this deletion. I would recommend contacting a developer on WP:VPT. Naconkantari 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may have been the oversight function. You can also google for it. wikitruth has articles related to it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or if you want a more balanced view, Misplaced Pages:Oversight has information. Veinor 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Before arbitrarily suggesting that an entire class of users are willfully removing log details, please try asking them first. You can find them here. --Iamunknown 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi, please will you approach MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs) before you come here? Or at least notify MacGyverMagic that you have raised an issue here? It is generally courteous to do so. --Iamunknown 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

merged talk pages

School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Art Institute of Chicago talk pages are merged (via redirect). I would remove the redirect myself, but there must be some historical talk page for the Art Institute. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Page move needed

Cho Seung-hui temp move → Cho Seung-hui. (→Netscott) 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'sdone.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is all mixed up now... there is Talk:Cho Seung-hui Cho which has to go to Talk:Cho Seung-hui. And there's a page history missing. (→Netscott) 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the article's proper history. :-/ (→Netscott) 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for eveyone's mop assistance there. :-) (→Netscott) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oops spoke too soon, the talk history has to be merged back together with Talk:Cho Seung-hui. (→Netscott) 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Read-only for a day in memorial of the Virginia Tech massacare

Seeing how this entire topic came up as my mis-interpretation of a statement by Jimmy, I'm taking the step of archiving it, if people don't mind (to try and prevent confusion) -- Tawker 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

It has come to light on en-admins that we go to read only mode for 24 hours in memorial to the victims of the tragic events of yesterday. Obviously its not something we have not done in the past and hence, a discussion needs to occur before such events happen. As IRC isn't the most transparent communications medium, I am proposing the discussion here. -- Tawker 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Misplaced Pages is worldwide... while reporting on this event is worldwide in nature I don't think its impact is as great outside of the U.S. ... don't get me wrong, I am all for respecting the victims but this measure seems a bit excessive. (→Netscott) 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me you are joking. Life goes on. We have an enyclopedia to build and no time to waste. (That said, I don't read the admin list anyway, we have wiki to discuss wiki issues so I don't really care).

Nothing in this post is intended to be dismissive of the victims of the awful tragedy in Virginia. --kingboyk 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You actually mean taking the wiki readonly?! I've been informed that Jimbo proposed this on irc, what I don't know if he was serious. I presume not. You should go back and check. Sounds ludicrous to me, but it's not my site. --kingboyk 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely we could issue some statement of condolences without reducing our level of service. Sounds like the kind of thing that's up to the Foundation, tho. Friday (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but wouldn't this create a whole issue if, G-d forbid, something else bad happens in another region of the world, and we don't do a similar gesture? There is much worse violence happening in Iraq and Darfur, unfortunately. Will this open a whole new issue if some event happens over there, and we do not make a similar gesture? What about events in Israel or the West Bank.

So as laudable as this gesture is, i can see some drawbacks, especially since we here at Wikipeda continually seek not to be overly US-centric in our approach to variosu things. But thanks. And bless you for remembering the fallen and the innocent, at sad times like this. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I intend no disrespect in this, but what makes the VT Massacre different to the World Trade Centre attacks, or Columbine? I do not think the memories of those people, young and old alike, who tragically perished yesterday would be best served by us shutting up shop and doing nothing for a whole day. Do you think they would want everyone to down tools and stop work? Instead of remembering them as perished, let us celebrate the lives that they had, and the joy they bought in their however long or short lives to other people. My suggestion would be a public banner, linking to a moderated book of rememberence on behalf of Misplaced Pages and the Foundation, which could be printed out and bound, then forwarded to Virginia Tech after a month or so. Memory is a harsh thing, but as the British Legion use in part of their code of conduct, Remember the dead, but don't forget the living... - 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow

- :::I was on IRC when Jimbo said it. He also said that he decreed that there would be no shooting of anyone during those 24 hours. I don't think he was serious. Making WP read-only for 24 hours is really not an option. DS 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In short, the main reason for this posting was a comment by Jimmy indicating a suggestion for "one full day of universal world wide voluntary reflection without editing" - in the interests of transparency, I decided to post as such here. I cannot speak for the worldwide impact, I only thought it was fair to being the discussion out into the open and not behind closed doors on IRC. -- Tawker 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy doesn't do any editing anyway, so it wouldn't make a lot of difference ;) --kingboyk 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I yield to no one in terms of sympathy towards the Virginia Tech victims and the campus community, but I too think this proposal, while well-intentioned, is misguided.

• It is US-centric and legitimate questions will be raised why similar actions were not taken during the Asian Tsunami or the Beslan tragedy, to pick only two. Also a bad precedent wil be set for the future.
• Shutting off editing on wikipedia does not seem a fit tribute to me since the message being sent seems to be "we will stop improving wikipedia for a day, to express our sympathies". IMO a better proposal would be, say, a drive to improve Virginia related articles as a memorial. That will express solidarity and defiance in face of the tragedy.

Regards. Abecedare 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer this idea. It turns out I mis-interpreted Jimmy's original comment as being directly related to the events of yesterday when in fact they were directed at the whole of OTRS issues "and a general need for noise reduction so we can get our work done around here." As such, I consider the topic closed and would prefer that we simply improve WP so people can learn what happened, and hopefully education can prevent such an event from happening again. -- Tawker 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Why prevent people from editing? Why not have a day where we all call in sick and ONLY edit Misplaced Pages to honor these students. Jehochman (/_contrib) 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With full respect to the victims, I have to say that worse tragedies occur every day at various parts of the world. Even if we disregard Iraq, where hundreds of people are killed everyday, there are hundreds and hundreds of people dying in similar tragic manner in other countries of the world. Misplaced Pages, even en wiki isn't just US centric. There is a whole lot of the world out there outside the USA. I totally Oppose any such "shut down" of wikipedia. --74.139.220.180 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but um... we'd have to shut down and stay shut down every day :-( --Kim Bruning 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't even make any sense. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. I hope the victims rest in peace. But I agree with Netscott. This isn't a worldwide issue, and if we did this alot I don't think it'd be a good idea. Maybe a tribute somewhere else then? Something small on the main page perhaps. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi potentially sanctioned

Please see WP:CSN. Cheers, Moreschi 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi, once ranked 87 in en:WP, is indefinatly blocked. One admin reached a consensus for himself ;-)

Cicero Dog

As you may know, Cicero Dog (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for disruption (and at the same time a check user showed him to be a puppet-master). Since then there have been rather a lot of sock puppets (1, 2). I recently blocked Dog cicero (talk · contribs), and 3 unblock requests have been refused by different admin. I write to notify that I have indefinitely blocked CDMS (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet (who has contested Dog cicero's ban, and has stated on his userpage he wishes to start a "Cicero Dog Memorial Society", which relates to the name CDMS). Ian¹³/t 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do we stand with WP:COI and how far have we moved on? Including a possible scenario

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, the village pump would probably also be a good place for this, but I'd like to gauge other editors opinion on the state of WP:COI, especially the admins. For those of you unfamiliar with this, COI was basically drafted up in a knee jerk reaction to User:MyWikiBiz posting articles that he'd been paid to write by their respective subjects. An interesting background piece on this is the Arch Coal DRV which was one of the triggers for the creation of COI.

Originally, COI started out as a conversation between Jimbo and MyWikiBiz, and somehow came up with the worst possible solution. That of MyWikiBiz posting paid for GFDL articles off site and allowing others to copy them over to Misplaced Pages in an impossible to trace mess. Since then, it's evolved, but it no longer includes any procedure or rules, it lacks teeth. Originally intended to stop what Jimbo labeled as immoral editing, it now seems to say "It's OK but we/you might not like the results". So if I am paid to write an article by its notable subject, is that OK if the article is sourced and neutral? Do I even have to tell anyone? I am in favour of disclosure, I'm also in favour of allowing paid-for editing, but judging by the Arch Coal scenario, I'm not sure if the higher ups like Jimbo Wales likes it, at all.

I'm mentioning this again, because I've just recently learned that online data broker Intelius owns more than half of the people search market from the front page of one of the world's most visited websites. It's quite possible that the Intelius article was written in good faith without pay, personally, I don't care, as I mentioned, I am in favour of allowing Paid-for edits. What I care about is what Misplaced Pages's position on this thing is. What bought this case to my attention was that it's a very press release sounding WP:DYK snippet, and a user with not too many edits has somehow managed to incorporate and find the inappropriately tagged Image:New Logo.JPG, which was uploaded by a user who has only uploaded Intelius images.

I think there should be a framework for paid-for edits, I believe it is an inevitability that this will take place, and I want to know when and where it happens. After scrapping the frankly detrimental off-site posting, Misplaced Pages still hasn't come up with anything to replace it. - hahnchen 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• And I hope that Misplaced Pages actually tries to address this, and that an admin doesn't just come up with a ill conceived cop-out reason for removing the Intelius link, citing something like "Crap DYK". Personally, I don't actually think it's a paid for article judging by the author's editing patterns. But this can and will happen in the future. Jimbo Wales flat out deleted Arch Coal as a fluffy PR piece (he was wrong), and yet similar in style Intelius is front page. - hahnchen 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The great thing about allowing paid for editing is that it encourages the belief that writing articles in whose content you have a vested interest is fine and dandy. Oh, wait, no, that's a bad thing isn't it? So the advantage is that companies get to have their articles started in a guaranteed favourable tone. Oh, wait, that's not so hot either is it? Er.... Thing is, we're all volunteers. Pitch in paid editors, paid to edit on company time, and the dynamic changes, and in a direction which is away from neutrality. They will have more time, more determination and more resources. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly i think that paid for editing, if proved or strongly suspected, should be a bannable offence, adn I would summariuly speedy as spam any articel i suspected of being so written. DES 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI There's another aspect that's missing. WP:COI is also a redrafting of WP:VANITY, which was deemed to have an impolite name. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, a company could decide they wanted to give back to the world and hire a few people to improve Misplaced Pages. This has happened with other open source projects, like Linux. Many other times, a company will ask one of their employees to make sure the company is shown in a positive light on Misplaced Pages. One is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. The other is corporate interests. A number of cases will fall in between. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The majority of cases which are identified as COI are so identified precisely because they are biased. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• (Remarking on Armed Blowfish's comment) I don't think there's an inherent problem with being paid to edit Misplaced Pages. However, there certainly is a problem when the people who are being paid are writing about the people who are paying them. For example, if IBM paid editors to write about mathematics that'd be OK, but when they start getting into something like mainframes or other products/technologies associated with IBM, it becomes problematic. So, basically, paid-for-edits are OK imo, as long as the company thats paying for it is not even vaguely related to the article subject matter. Even with good intentions though, I think companies paying for edits to their own and related articles is still a bad idea and leads to a natural (possibly unintentional) bias and COI. If companies want to give back to Misplaced Pages by paying people to edit, they should make sure the subject matter is not in their field. Wickethewok 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe it's just my paucity of imagination but I have trouble imagining almost any company paying anyone to write articles just for knowledge's sake. If it can happen, I think it will be the exception. If any official line is taken for this hypothetical do-gooder, that it is okay "so long as...", I foresee a very slippery slope, with companies claiming that a paid for article is unrelated, where it may not be so easy to see a connection, which nevertheless exists.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What if somebody is paid to research a topic, uses Misplaced Pages as a source and notices a spelling mistake, or decides to add some info that he found in another source? What if somebody is paid to create page for a technical support website and wants to link to a useful article in Misplaced Pages, such as network address translation, notices some minor problems with the article and decides to fix them. I think we are risking instruction creep here. Judge the edit at face value. Jehochman (/_contrib) 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Do you guys see a marked difference between the instantly deleted Arch Coal and the current Intelius DYK? The Intelius logo at Image:New Logo.JPG seems to have been uploaded to an unconventional filename by a user who has only uploaded Intelius images and then disappeared. There should be a framework for COI editors to upload their paid-for articles on Misplaced Pages. There should be some kind of vetting process as in WP:AFC. Much rather have this, then having them uploaded on the sly. I don't care about the biased majority of COI articles, they can be deleted or stubbed just as the vast majority of crap articles. What I do care about are the ones that are satisfactory for an encyclopedia, uploading these are OK now? COI doesn't seem to have any sort of bite to it any more. Banning paid-for editors is just going to drive them underground, and you can't stop the train of inevitability. - hahnchen 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kevin Granata

Would someone like to close this as a Speedy Keep/WP:SNOW per the strong consensus at AFD? I would, but I already voted in the AFD. Thanks, NawlinWiki 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards