Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 31 August 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Misplaced Pages to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant (W2WCDA) (Beta Testing)

Hi all,

I've created a Misplaced Pages to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant tool. (http://toolserver.org/~jylee/w2wcda/) It is 90% functional, there are some minor tweaks that require fixing (like the next and previous links). This tool is to provide a split screen interface for administrators to compare the two images side-by-side, one on the English Misplaced Pages and the Commons version of the same image. Please give me feedback on my talk page.

Thanks! --AllyUnion (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm trying it out now; that backlog is ghastly. —fetch·comms 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on this backlog manually for about two months now, and I estimate it will take me until about Christmas to deal with it all. However, I don't see how this tool helps; when I go to the links it invites me to log in , and when I do so, it takes me to a Category page I'm already working. Any ideas why this is so? Rodhullandemu 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because the page is retrieved from the server side and presented to you. I'll remove the log in link. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've fixed that. One of my known bugs is the URL conversion for strange characters like á or é (etc) -- That is being worked on. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Rod, did you click thru onto an image? Once you select an image, it gives you the side-by-side view. –xeno 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I picked a few files at random and they've all had the same problem. The left side shows the WP file correctly, but the right side does not because 1=File: is added to the beginning of the file name on Commons, e.g. File:HARRISON-CRIB-1910.jpg vs File:1=File:HARRISON-CRIB-1910.jpg. —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another bug? The 'Delete Misplaced Pages Image' link does not properly populate the deletion reason, and just fills '

As I mentioned above, the Next/Prev links are being worked on. I am trying to figure out the best way to do that without impacting Misplaced Pages too much -- it may ultimately lag behind the Misplaced Pages's updates. Looking into the Delete function problem now. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Purge and category delete links have been added --AllyUnion (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete XfD's

Could an admin please go through Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Old deletion discussions and process them? Most of these have closure results that are not delete or keep (no consensus, merge, etc). — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

2007?!?!?....oops ;-) Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing's really that old, the oldest dates back to May 2010. The oldest are really just maintenance cats. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems mostly done, except for the galleries that want moving to Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The flags galleries have already been moved and can be deleted. See my previous post here.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of flags by design is not the same as Commons:Gallery of flags by design, which is a mess, full of non-existent images. This should be resolved before the version here can be deleted. Chick Bowen 18:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some will not be free images, and thus won't be on Commons. Others just have different file names. —fetch·comms 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing an RfC

An RfC was conducted over the past month at Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC on date format for GG bios. Now that the requisite 30 days has expired and participation has dissipated, I wonder if an uninvolved admin could review the discussion and polls and close the RfC with a concluding note of it's ultimate result. The RfC is related to a wide-ranging dispute that needs closure. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. — Coren  02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And another

• Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#RFC: Passenger and crew list section. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • On my way there. — Coren  22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for the prompt closure. Section now removed. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The content has been restored by Crum375 (talk · contribs). As I was involved in the RfC, I will take no action beyond notifying the restoring user of its outcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Haken (Band)

Not sure where the right place is but Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Haken (Band) seems to have dropped of the list and been forgotten. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looked again and this can be ignored and closed, DumbBOT found and fixed it. Sorry. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dumbbot's been falling behind. This AFD was open on the 12th but not found by Dumbbot until the 24th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be something to discuss with the bot's creator, if (s)he is still around. GiftigerWunsch 08:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Creator is Tizio. S/he edited last week, but his/her edits have been sporadic recently; s/he has made fewer than fifty edits in the last six months. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request deletion of article The heathers.

Article title is incorrect as the group in question are named 'Heathers' All content has been moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/Heathers_(Band) and I will begin redirecting mentions of the group to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanor3 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... This is a cut & paste move, which I am currently fixing. Rodhullandemu 22:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Redirects should be fixed in due course, and the title should be Heathers (band). Rodhullandemu 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Should IP users be allowed to do non-admin closures?

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dominique Cottrez. I am not contesting the actual close here, which is clearly correct and an acceptable case for an NAC, but raising the principle of whether NACs by IPs should be permitted. WP:NAC and WP:NACD do not explicitly forbid it, but do say that only "Experienced editors in good standing" should do them. The problem with an IP is that one cannot tell whether it is an experienced editor in good standing (this particular NAC close was the IP's first ever edit), a non-static IP user cannot be held to account for its actions, and there is in theory the possibility of an editor taking part in a discussion and then logging out to close it. Since there is no pressing need for NACs - by their nature, they are the easy ones which any admin can do quickly - I suggest that WP:NAC and WP:NACD should be amended to say that only registered users may perform NACs. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Inactive administrators

Hi! What should we do with inactive administrators, like those who haven't been active for years? Should we let them have their mop or request desysopping on them? /HeyMid (contributions) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:PEREN#Demote inactive admins for some background. –xeno 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Also, I see it is currently only a proposal, which means that it hasn't gotten in effect yet. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Both pages are marked as failed proposals. –xeno 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I see. There is also the WP:Inactive administrators failed proposal in December 2005 (maybe it is the same one?). Also, the "Reconfirm administrators" section of WP:PEREN is basically the same as the policy at the Swedish Misplaced Pages, where all administrators have to make a new RFA every year (11–12 months), in order to carry the mop for another year. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course, sv.wiki only has 102 administrators. –xeno 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Right, but that might be because they have reconfirmations. How many admins would we have then? Even I wouldn't reconfirm me (hell, I wouldn't even stand!). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Chicken/egg –xeno 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
            • (sv.wiki) Basically, if a re-RFA passes, the candidate keeps his admin-tools for another year. However, if the re-RFA does not pass or the candidate is not re-RFA'ed within 11–12 months after the last RFA (sv.wiki has a one-year policy), a request for de-sysopping on that specific user is made at the meta-wiki. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

David Appletree tagged as community banned

Bringing this here for community review as it's a ban matter.

DavidAppletree (talk · contribs) was under discussion at ANI (WP:ANI#Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar/David Appletree is back despite a community ban,) as being a possible reincarnation of previously banned Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) (and socks) whose editing was unacceptable. A subthread discussed the "lifting of the community ban" on DavidAppletree (on the basis of that identity) based on communal pessimism and showing significant opposition. The user was reblocked on the basis of being a "probable reincarnation" with an "obvious agenda" including offsite activities related to Misplaced Pages disputes, chilling attempts and lack of useful content editing.

There was some discussion of whether he was in fact Einsteindonut and the source of issues, I offered as a completely uninvolved user to mentor on the possible chance that there may have been some misunderstandings in the past. At least one other mentor had also withdrawn their offer, stating "I have withdrawn my support for David above and withdraw my offer of mentoring in the unlikely event he be unblocked... I can no longer see that as an option" .

Comment Three other editors offered to help mentor him (Avi, Spartaz, and off2riorob, and he accepted, before Scott Mac came in to use the block as an unnecessary punishment, while DavidAppletree was already in the process of being steamrolled. Despite DavidAppletree being under a lot of pressure, he maintained civility and things were going fine, before the block, which I believe was misused as a punitive measure. Clearly DavidAppletree did not comprehend the block, which came almost immediately after David questioned one of Scott Mac's insensitive remarks. There's an entire context here that must be considered. WP editors were also saying that DavidAppletree should not be welcomed back unless he censored significant portions of his website dealing with Misplaced Pages, that they didn't like. Given the circumstance, and the fact that DA came here with the best possible faith, I can understand why he'd feel so hopeless and act out the way he did. --Bevader (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Block evasion sock - appears to be DavidAppletree per block log and contribs FT2  15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DavidAppletree declined (which was his right) and then undertook a campaign of refactoring his talk page to present the posts he selected at the top out of order. His reply to being told not to do so, was to try and forge an anti-Jewish racist rant as an apparent post from another user and to state on-wiki and in email he was going to use enhanced deception ("deep undercover").

Perhaps, FT2, you would allow another admin to decide whether or not to strike out these posts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Any admin can, and so can any user - striking out posts for evasion is not an "admin only" right. Ultimately we run an encyclopedia here not a drama-mill. Imposing posts into an active thread as a sock, to talk about "DA", will not help that thread do its job of reaching a decision on the encyclopedia and community matter, because it confuses the discussion by faking an uninvolved user's contribution. I choose strike-out because it leaves the post visible but avoids confusing the thread. Administrators do not become conflicted just because they have acted in an administrator/dispute resolution capacity and striking out is not an "admin matter". As I stated at the start, I have no prior connection to the matter and no interest in it. If someone else wants to also deal with the socks or disruption, that's fine too. Take a look at communal norms for handling evasion socks, disruptive posts by evaders, and the like. FT2  16:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of

1. Previous and ongoing community pessimism
2. Once mentorship was declined it was looking extremely unlikely he would be unblocked (and may have been a reincarnation of another banned user), and
3. All this even before his recent forgeries (multiple edits) and his statements (plural) of intended future gaming,

I suspect it is unlikely any administrator will unblock any time soon. I have tagged his user page as community banned rather than indef blocked at this point and protected his user pages against future abuse. Bans only exist with community consensus; I am bringing this action to AN to see whether or not this was an appropriate tag to add to his user page. FT2  08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how useful it was to link to these diffs after you made them invisible, but of course it may well have been necessary. In any case I would like to see a statement from someone with access to hidden revisions (checkusers only?) and ideally to the email in question including all headers, to make sure this wasn't a case of impersonation. In the discussion there has been a lot of noise due to people asking for a ban for the wrong reasons (such as not editing articles after being told not to), and I think for solving the problem we need as much clarity and transparency as possible. Hans Adler 08:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity: the revisions that are removed contained an anti-Semitic rant written by David and then tagged with the blocking admins name. --Errant 08:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hans - the hidden revisions are visible to any administrator, therefore any one of around a thousand active admins can check the authorship and contents. As with any deleted disruptive material (and impersonation of other editors with racist ranting is grossly disruptive), sometimes they need wider review as part of a community discussion and are linked for that purpose. FT2  09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you can check his Tweets. Looks like the kid is having a field day in front of 54,000 people:

• When asked if he was Jewish, a WP admin answered, "keep your knife off my penis" (cc: @Jimmy_Wales) #tcot #jcot
• If you edit Misplaced Pages, whatever you do, don't call out an admin for his inappropriate comments, You'll get BLOCKED!
• @Architekt010 Yeah WIkipedia kicked me out. I went in w/ the best of intentions and honesty, and they still found a way!
• If you get kicked out of something despite doing nothing wrong, all you can really do is mock it and chip away at it. Perhaps infiltrate.
• Here's my take on it -I'm not a fan of places that allow Jew hatred, anti-Israel bias, and extreme leftism fester, and kicks ppl like me out
• I wonder what the largest vandalizing campaign against Misplaced Pages has been.
• Misplaced Pages is a terrible project. Any time ur on there, u should edit in a grammatical error or spelling mistake, just to register disdain
• @g10greg56 lol - well, here's the remark i called him out on - apparently it's acceptable WP admin behavior.
• (Re: previous Tweet, of course I edited that a bit, but that's how it happened in my mind, at least.....)
• My short career editing Misplaced Pages as D. Appletree has concluded. Here's what happened #tcot #jcot (cc: @Jimmy_Wales) --80.79.116.243 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A little explanation: A few days ago, while I was defending a BLP subject who happens to be Jewish, an SPA accused me of having a COI because "Scott Mac is Jewish". Not being Jewish, I was amused by this, and responded with a light-hearted remark about circumcision . The remark was inappropriate. It appears that DavidAppletree commented (rightly) to that effect. However, the thread was long and his comment was late, and I didn't see it, and had no idea he'd been involved in that discussion at all. A few hours ago, as the result of an unconnected ANI discussion, I indef blocked Appletree. Had I realised he'd commented on my remark, I wouldn't have blocked him, because of the possible appearance of bias (but someone else would have blocked him anyway). Unfortunately, the fact he criticised my remark and then I blocked him, as given him licence to call my block anti-Semitic. I made that bed, and I have to lie on it. The first time the remark was brought to my attention (by Avi) and apologised for it, and struck it. I repeat that apology - it was careless and thoughtless, and has only caused drama.--Scott Mac 09:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable. This is sick and intolerable. Is there anyway anyone can complain to Imageshack or any other place this is hosted? Can we get the Foundation involved here? Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment He offered a disclaimer saying "in all fairness to that jerk, i used some poetic license there. that's how it happened in my mind, but not in reality'" Block evasion sock - appears to be DavidAppletree per block log and contribs (Striking since FT2 missed this one) GiftigerWunsch 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree: I'll report the image to imageshack myself. It'd certainly carry more weight coming from the foundation, however. GiftigerWunsch 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Here. I think this probably qualifies as "harassment". —DoRD (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. If that comment was faked by the DavidAppletree account we could hardly have a clearer case. Very much in character, but even slightly more stupid than I expected. Hans Adler 10:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I reported it to imageshack as libel (under their "harrassment" category) and left a clear explanation of how they can confirm that the image is libellous (i.e. that this comment was not left by any wikipedia administrator) and why it should be removed. I'd imagine they take libel seriously, so I don't think this will be on their server for much longer. GiftigerWunsch 10:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment It was actually a form of commentary and included a disclaimer on Tweets surrounding it. Given the context of Scott Mac's inappropriate comments and quick block of David Appletree shortly after DA call him out on it, I can understand how this played out in DA's mind, especially as he already in the process of being steamrolled by the community. --Bevader (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Block evasion sock - appears to be DavidAppletree per block log and contribs FT2  15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone anywhere on the planet can fake stuff. What people do who try it on Misplaced Pages (and what DavidAppletree has done) is provide a platform for his opponents who wish to prove beyond doubt that as a Wiki editor, that "User:DavidAppletree" faked stuff in their arguments - evidence which will stand up if the matter was ever looked at by mainstream media or the Jewish press too - which probably won't help his cause at all. So it's a classic and rather unfortunate and pointless "point gun at foot, pull trigger" because anyone can check that rant was actually David's own writing and nobody elses'. But that is his concern not ours, we can do little about the wider world and the behaviors in it. Similar results would probably arise if it had been his opponents and not him. Our role at Misplaced Pages is simply to document topics, which is by definition a role which requires an awareness of the bounds between encyclopedia writing and advocacy. I suspect Scott MacDonald has handled other attempts to make false defamatory claims and will handle this one too. One learns to shrug it off. FT2  10:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I am bringing this action to AN to see whether or not this was an appropriate tag to add to his user page." Beyond the shadow of a doubt. Support full ban. --Moonriddengirl 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. For the record, the deleted diffs FT2 links to above are as shown in the Imageshack link: a forged post purporting to be from Scott MacDonald but posted by David Appletree. TFOWR 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. Faking an anti-semitic comment by the blocking admin and posting a screenshot offsite? There has rarely been a clearer case. Hans Adler 12:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse full community ban and requesting Wikimedia legal folks intervention. We journalist types know full well the results of falsifying things and posting them on the web. There's enough non-journalism legal precedence as well - this one really opens whoever created it up for a full-blown can of whoop-ass, and counts as perhaps the stupidest idea ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Given the original inappropriateness of the comment, the fact that the editor in question quickly blocked David Appletree, while handfuls of other WP editors were demanding censorship of material about Misplaced Pages they didn't like on DA's site, and considering that he included disclaimers with his tweets that explained that it was a spoof and how it played out in his mind, I'm not sure WP would have much of a case. --Bevader (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Block evasion sock - appears to be DavidAppletree per block log and contribs FT2  15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. Per all of the above. Heiro 13:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse full community ban. This is about the worst personal attack I've seen on wikipedia so far, and I certainly hope the foundation decides to pursue the matter. Publishing such blatant libel about an individual, as well as attempting to discredit the project itself, calls for more than just a community ban, IMO. GiftigerWunsch 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblocking and mentoring - Scott should not have blocked him and was actually himself the one to put his own foot in it so to speak with his jewish foreskin joke, what do you expect when you steamroll someone who showed quite good faith imo. Steamrolling a user like that was excessive and you should expect him to be angry. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• The words "reasonable force" come to mind here. Being angry is one thing. Forging an antisemitic rant and posting it elsewhere in such a way to imply authenticity is something else, certainly well out of keeping with behavioral standards on Misplaced Pages. --Moonriddengirl 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Thus far, you're the only fair minded, objective, and reasonable person here, who actually has the context to know what you're even talking about. Kudos to you. --Bevader (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Block evasion sock - appears to be DavidAppletree per block log and contribs FT2  15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not in a million years would I waste a mentor on this person. Mentors are for problem editors who are perceived to still have a value to the project; these attacks and forgeries show that Appletree has nothing to offer. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban non-stop stream of bad faith behavior from the get-go. Cu found it "likely" that 4 recent socks were tied to this account, he refused to come clean over it. Probably the same account as community banned User:Einsteindonut, which has dozens of socks. Blatantly lied repeatedly, then wrote an anti-semitic rant, placed another editor's sig at the bottom of it, then spread that all over the internet as part of his campaign against people who disagree with him ("look at what an anti-semite so and so is!"). Given that he runs a website that openly uses lies and spoofs to try to "win" a fight against its opponents, allowing him to spread the campaign to wikipedia was always a bad idea. But after the attempted smear (which should not have been oversighted by the way, because it makes it harder to show to outsiders what a little weasel the pseudonymous keyboard warrior really is, but whatever), there's no way back. Anger? We all get angry sometimes. A fabricated smear of the basest sort reveals the sort of character that has no business here.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: it's not oversighted, just revision deleted, and it can be undone at the click of a button if it is determined to have more value in proving the forgery. --Moonriddengirl 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion notwithstanding, I guess that would be up to the effected editor to ask for (or not) at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think it might do more good than harm to publish it until it is no longer printed elsewhere, as it exonerates him completely, but that doesn't feel like my call. --Moonriddengirl 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword. The fact that the revisions have been hidden may raise suspicion, but leaving them unhidden would allow the forger to link to the oldid and visitors unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages may not have the wherewithal to move back and forth through the revisions or look at the history to see that it is, indeed, a forgery. –xeno 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case you can show them the diff when they're misled. Right now, it's just a big game of "trust me." I'm pretty sure the editor in question would like the thing undeleted. I know i would if i was him.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits are purely disruptive and have no place on the project, and also, we don't need to create a shrine to defamation, it just means we then have to have a post explaining it's fake (not on the history page where the defamation is actually visible) and it distracts from WP:RBI and WP:DENY and not feeding attention-seekers and those using Wiki as a battleground, which are far more suitable approaches. FT2  15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all with your redaction; clearly, that content didn't belong. I only question whether it would be better visible now so long as the forged document is published elsewhere as part of the "paper trail" proving the forgery. xeno makes good sense about its potential for additional misuse, however, so I'm undecided. --Moonriddengirl 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Appletree's talk page should contain an explanation along the lines of "This editor forged an antisemitic rant directed at himself, and forged another editor's signature to the rant. If you would like to be taken through the page archive and shown who edited the diatribe, please ask an experienced editor." Or words to that effect. Anthony (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, better still, we just redirect his talk page to his user page and proceed to forget he ever existed. HalfShadow 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be appropriate. As I have indicated, we leave everything we can out in the open unless there are strong reasons not to. There was an objection to David rewriting his talk page for his own purposes, it would be hypocritical for us to similarly rewrite history.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? As I understand it, he's essentially just a clever troll; and he's suggested he plans continuation as such. RBI. HalfShadow

I believe editors should be able to view, with ease, what went on. That is central to others determining whether or not what actions were taken were proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious from the page history that a bunch of edits by DavidAppletree were redacted. Everything written by anyone else is visible. –xeno 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Anthony, this message won't be visible when viewing an oldid. –xeno 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Anthony (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edits should remain revdelled; I shared Moonriddengirl's concerns, but xeno makes a good point: anyone who can see that edits have been hidden, can also see that the only edits which have been hidden, are those made by the user himself. GiftigerWunsch 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - One of the worst net-negatives to come across the project in recent memory, from what I have read so far. There's nothing redeemable about a person who forges racist messages and mounts off-wiki harassment/intimidation campaigns. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ban This isn't the proper procedure. If you want to ban the guy, start a !vote, not on whether to "endorse" a already-imposed ban. Tagging as community ban was unwarranted. Where is the evidence that he was, as stated, a "probable reincarnation" of Einsteindonut? I do not see that David's off wiki actions, that is, if it was him, rise to the level of conduct under the WP:EEMI decision. Very surprised FT2 first asked for an uninvolved admin to look and decide whether to refactor and protect DA's talk and then decides not only to do it himself but to assume that DA is community banned. If you want to have a vote on whether to have a community ban, have a clean vote. I'm surprised at the whole procedure, actually. The block itself seemed unwarranted given that David was civilly engaging at the AN/I thread, though he refused to give satisfaction by admitting he was a banned user. Very odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not odd at all. David declined mentorship, which was his right, he then commenced repeatedly refactoring his talk page to highlight the dialog in a selective manner. Basic principle is "do not edit war" - when it was clear he was going to persist in doing so despite requests and warnings, I passed the matter to ANI to ask for an uninvolved admin to look into the misuse of the talk page.

However, when he switched to falsifying defamatory racist material in another users' name and stating a preference to sock instead, at that point there was no real question left, nor need to ask someone else to review, since the matter was not problematic refactoring of a talk page and avoidance of edit warring, but prevention of defamation and extreme abuse where no edit warring nor need for talk page review was involved. It was overwhelmingly likely at that point the community would consider him banned - that being a WP:CLUEd in reading of the other recent threads on the topic including his "verging on a ban" even before the racist forgery. Because a community ban is an act of the community it was brought here and left completely up to the community to formally endorse or nullify. The comments above show how others saw it. FT2  15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe most of the comments complained of took place after the block in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And? There's a massive difference between steaming on your talk page and falsifying posts from other users. HalfShadow 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wehwalt, are you joking? No matter how badly this was handled by FT2, DavidAppletree was clearly on his way out when he faked a comment by Scott Mac (to quote for those who are too lazy to follow the link to ImageShack above: "If I want to make fun of Jewish rituals as an admin of WP and then abuse my power when you call me out on it, I'm well within my rights. BLOCKED, Jewboy."), took a screenshot and linked to that from Twitter. And before Scott Mac blocked him, he made it very clear that he doesn't care about the accuracy of the Misplaced Pages editor attack list on his site. We are all here supposedly to write an encyclopedia, not Der Stürmer and not its mirror image. We have no use here for such unsavoury characters. Hans Adler 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm questioning the procedure used. Please do not confuse that with condoning behavior.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Einsteindonut for a year. This situation looks very similar, though we can't peek through the wires to see who's at the other end. The extreme bad faith manifest by the user -- nobody forced him to forge that image -- is evidence enough to indef block, regardless of other factors. Jehochman 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, you can't ill treat someone and then say look what he did that is worth a block. As for clams that he refused mentoring, David had accepted mentoring and to claim otherwise is false. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don' call other editors liars, especially when the mentorship rejection is as clear as a sunny day. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a false claim, your diff is after the user had been indefinitely blocked, previous to that he had been very conducive and accepting of any mentoring. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also the user has fifty two thousand followers on twitter you can not just assert any or all of the new accounts are him at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest this. Delete nothing, strike out nothing. If that is David, I do not feel his comments on a thread dealing with his own actions should be stricken, as they are relevant to the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His honest posts, yes. These are not honest, are they? Nor are they responses to the actual concerns of the community. Instead they are self-pity and justification posts that say nothing about his improper actions, written under a different name and purporting to talk to and about DA. Even so if he stated an honest intention to stop everything and take time to allow trust, he might have a way back. That's true for any blocked/banned user though. FT2  16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO this block was a punitive escalation of the situation when the user was clearly in constructive discussion, sadly as Scott was a quality contributor, he appears to have fallen on his sword. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. The tweets say it all. This is the latest: "There's a lot you can do with VPN's. Misplaced Pages cannot fully block/ban someone." Anthony (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• And there's this question and this reply which suggests we can expect more. HalfShadow 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We lose Scott and get to keep the troll. I've seen better swaps. Anthony (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its an awful trade which could have gone a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If Scott hadn't been such a Cowboy, we might have avoided a pissed off troll and kept a good contributor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you repeatedly refer to the EEMI case. Admins have to seek community or Arbcom support if they go beyond limits set by Arbcom. If the community decide to agree with Arbcom's criteria, then the admin actions get undone. If we decide differently, then a different set of criteria come into force which Arbcomas our representatives should respect.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly indifferent as to what standard is applied, within reason, so long as it is a consistent standard. To break from an existing standard to get one user smells of pitchforks and torches.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse The outcome of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Einsteindonut makes it clear that "Appletree" was lying about his usage of previous accounts. In fact he was conforming to the previous known behaviour of Einsteindonut wiht the use of multiple ids, proxies etc and using an accoutn that already had been identified several months ago as a Einsteindonut puppet. He therefore is beyond reasonable doubt the same person who has already been community banned.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Likely was the outcome which clearly is not a certain fact and there was no overlap of editing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would ask people who are complaining about David's supposed inaccuracies to be utterly certain what they are writing concerning him is accurate. Otherwise, it's just a slanging contest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - Whatever led up to it, this editor now is clearly on a crusade to harm Misplaced Pages through libel. Based on that fact alone, I can't see any reason to not ban him. -- Atama頭 16:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reply from latest sock on my talk page here. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure if I consider the fact the he sees me as a 'supporter' an insult or not. My only was 'support' of him was that when it appeared he was no longer a sock (and that's still open to interpretation), I no longer considered him an issue and warned him to be careful.HalfShadow 17:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Left me the same message, which was also odd since my only action in this whole mess was to endorse the ban. I did mention WP:SO but warned him that he might have burned too many bridges for even that to work. -- Atama頭 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Me too. Get a life, kid. Anthony (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by talk page messages. Not sure how he figures I'm a supporter when my sole comments on this thread have been to endorse the ban and comment on the libellous image uploaded to imageshack. I just deleted it from my page per WP:DENY; it seems he's just trying to get more attention. GiftigerWunsch 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - A no-brainer, not worthy of the prcedural objections that have been raised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Even looking at one issue alone: he posted antisemitic material and added an admin's name to the post. People who engage in forgery shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. SlimVirgin 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't want to really comment too much more on this whole escapade. However I wanted to publicly note that I sent David the following email just now.

This pretty much states my opinion on the matter. Note, however, that I do not oppose what has happened. --Errant 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I think the conversation here when he attack another editor for being not serving in the military is unacceptable. I think Tweeting that We are filled anti-semites, Anti-Isreali, and extereme leftist while asking us to work with him and WP:AGF. Neither is advertising a dispute causing meat puppety to attack and out me. (The most vocal person on here at that point.)

• Avi Stated that While ED did not = DA
• Avi did state that DA= Mreddit.
• DA popped up as soon as WP:yellowstar and ED were community bannned,
• YellowStar popped up after we accused Mr.reddit of being a sock of ED.
• Mr.reddit popped up as soon as we Semi procted the JIDF talk
• We semi protect the JIDF talk Page so IPs from three different continents were messing around with the talkpage.

The Appletree account was nothing more than a Troll that put on make up and came to dinner. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of inexperienced opinionated user that has led us to this awful situation. This user attacked the account with his false claims of mistaken policy to which the user responded with very good faith and it was only after reading the policies and guidelines that David called User:weaponbb7 claims out as being absolutely false according to policy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to follow your logic, All i have heard from you is "not true" and "thats false". If i am so mistaken of policy please indicate where. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)to clarify statement with this edit ~ Weaponbb7 (talk)

You do kind of overreact. Just saying. HalfShadow 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To say the least! Frankly, Weaponbb7's actions could have been better, and I hope he will take Rob's and HS's comments to heart.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I got very frustrated very quickly, particularly after the outing (which I still find creepy as hell). IF i am in error could some one drop by my talk page and indicate how i am interpreting policy wrongly? Walking away from thisWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Review Requested

User:Akoha77 seems to be requesting that admins respond to a survey on gender, and are using an alpha list of admins. They appear to be using some form of automated process (they ignored a redirect on User talk:7SeriesBOT and posted in its talkpage), and are going upwards of 3-4 pages per minute.

I asked them at 8:43 to explain if they're using an automated process - no response, and they started posting faster. I have blocked for 3 hours, hoping to get some form of response.

A review of my actions here would be welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A short block is entirely appropriate to get their attention if it appears they're running an unattended automatic process. If they want to know the gender of admins they can use the {{GENDER}} magicword. If admins wanted to disclose their gender, presumably it would be set in their preferences. If not, it's not very appropriate to ask, is it? –xeno 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the message they're sending, I see they tried this and found that only ~400 admins have this preference set. If that isn't enough data for them, they should review Misplaced Pages:Research and contact WP:SRAG before proceeding. –xeno 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorse action - polling all users in a large class in an automated manner probably needs some reasonable explanation before going ahead, bot editing should have a higher level of responsiveness to concerns, and a short block for nonresponsiveness is not going to hurt it. FT2  13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, xeno and FT2! Akoha77 is working with me so, since she is blocked, I reply. Sorry if we caused problems, it was not our intention! We are not using automated delivery forms for writing the messages. We simply did some copy and paste. Before writing the messages, I asked to 2 admins if this way of doing it was ok and they reply that, according to them, it was ok (see 1 and 2). Of course this does not mean that I'm arguing that we can do it. It is simply to say that I did some work in trying to understand if we could do the survey in this way. If it is ok, I first read Misplaced Pages:Research and then I write at being discussed at WP:AN. Thanks for your suggestions reply and sorry again for any problem we might have caused! phauly (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Akoha77)

One of those admins is very new... The other is very old. =) Probably neither was aware that there are procedures in place for researchers on Misplaced Pages... Thanks for explaining and your attention to this. –xeno 13:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Akoha77)

Thanks for pointing this about the 2 admins that replied. We were unlucky in getting the random sample! ;) phauly (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

400 out of around a couple of thousand is an excellent ratio for a sample size. There should be no additional need to request additional respondents. Any researcher would be thrilled at that ratio (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-selection may be an issue though. –xeno 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I agree!!! 30 something percent is great, but 100% would be better! ;) Of course I understand that not all admins are going to reply to our survey so we might get similar coverage. And, xeno, maybe there is similar self-selection effect (admins who decide to reply to the survey) but I have the feeling (not motivated at the moment) that the self-filtering would be minor. I'm reading the policy of Misplaced Pages Research at the moment, very well done actually! I reorder the ideas and then I decide if it makes sense to apply for the survey or working with the data we have at the moment. Thanks again! phauly (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, given that about 25% of people who self-identify as "female" in online forums are actually male, whereas only 7% of people who self-identify as "male" are actually female, one might want to consider those issues. That said, asking people is not likely to change their answers :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

← I think now that the users are aware the relevant procedures for conducting research, the block can be lifted (with the understanding that no more surveys be sent out until SRAG has given approval) and this thread can be marked 'resolved'. –xeno 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! We will go the SRAG way. phauly (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, at the moment for getting the {{GENDER}} of a user I call the API with something like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=brion%7CTimStarling%7CPhauly%7CWarmfuzzygrrl%7CNightsky%7CJengod%7CGeeoharee&usprop=blockinfo%7Cgroups%7Ceditcount%7Cregistration%7Cemailable%7Cgender but I can pass a maximum of 50 users to the API. Do you know if there is a way to increase this limit? I think maybe bots have 500 but I'm not sure, I didn't find it in the API documentation. Or is is possible to get access to a copy of the database (without requiring access to toolserver.org)? Well, I guess this is not the correct place to ask but since you are being very supportative, I thought I could try the chance ;) Thanks anyway! phauly (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You might try asking at WT:DUMPREP. –xeno 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have more time, you could look at other indicators on administrators' userpages; for example, you can see that I claim to be male, because I claim to be an Eagle Scout, and only males can be Eagle Scouts. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards