Revision as of 22:03, 21 November 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)

Current issues

Invalid RfC

I have spent some time looking through Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 and the history of its contributors. None of them have provided any evidence of recent attempts to resolve the supposed dispute, and most of them are actually rehashing past disputes including the Ecyclopedia Dramatica arbitration. It is very hard to see this RfC as anything other than an attempt to see off an opponent in a dispute. I suspect it should be deleted as not properly certified (as in: the supposed attempts to resolve the dispute are not evident) or perhaps simply archived. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help in the deletion aspect as I'm not an admin, but I agree that the RfC shows lack of evidence against MONGO (who I know to be a long-term contributor). Maybe it would be an idea to ask the certifier(s) to provide evidence via diffs, in order to make this request valid - that might work. Qst 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion because it could be used as evidence in the future (including by MONGO) but given what the page looks like right now and the lack of recent DR archiving sounds right. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The "{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}" section of an RfC could use a small improvement: for each signature, a diff that shows a genuine recent attempt by the signer to discuss and resolve the issue. Untruthful signatures appear to be common now. Weregerbil (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Squeakbox's comments: See Misplaced Pages's not a crystal ball. This RFC can only used in the "here and now". Not for anything that may or may not hapen in the future. ;) That funky visitor from the Vorlon Home World !talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And some believe the problem is in the "here and now," whether that problem truly exists or not (and I'm not getting in that argument). Squeakbox is merely seeing a secondary benefit to keeping. —Kurykh 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball" part of WP:NOT is only in reference to articles. It has absolutely nothing to do with pages in the Misplaced Pages project space. Natalie (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z

Continued from this discussion; I would like for a sysop to revert only the content on the protected article, which is currently violating WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:MOS-AM#Content, back to this revision. Everything's a mess, it's categorized in places where it should not be (eg, Comedy, Supernatural, Shows on Toonami, etc.), references were removed, and I could go on about the original research and fan bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you do not own the DBZ article, nor does DBZROCKS despite all of your attempts to do so. Consensus is both against the merger you're trying to push and against wiping everything from the article. Aside from the two of you the rest of us want to repair the problems with the article, not delete everything into non-existence. Your actions hve been nothing but disruptive during the entire atempted discussion on the matter which you have simply chosen to ignore.Xyex (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The page will need to be reverted because references were removed and it's categorized redundantly, as well there is too much garbage on the current page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated by several people, that does not dictate erassure of the article's entire contents. The majority of the issues would have already been corrected a while ago had you not insisted on trying to own the page and keep it in it's nearly non-existent state. There are at least ten of us who have been trying to fix the issues with the article but you have systematicly ignored all of us and persisted with reverting to your wiped article. Wwhich creating in the first place could be classified as vandalism because you wiped nearly everything including solid and sourced information.Xyex (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the diff; I merely deleted the unsourced crap and undid the overcategorization, and had the reference re-included. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What you did was remove pretty much everything in the article, without discussion, and without any effort put in first to source it. Which certainly can be considered vandalism. No one is denying that the article needs work but removal of nearly all information is counter-productive to improvement and is disruptive, espeically when you and DBZROCKS constantly revert everyone else's reverts back to the original article. Your first change conformed to WP:BOLD but then you proceeded to ignore WP:BRD which goes hand in hand with WP:BOLD and which is what lead to the current situation.Xyex (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry states, Sesshomaru, you do not have any consensus to do as you have been doing. There are multiple people who do not think you are right in how you are removing content from the article, and I had been wondering myself why you would remove that information. This is edit warring, and until you all decide what you think should be done with the article, it remains locked from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see m:The wrong version.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this.. For the unsourced information, take three days to properly cite it. Anything that cannot be cited in any shape or form may be deleted. For contents within episodes, the episode name and the time (i.e. 3:40 for 3 minutes and 40 seconds) should be used. Technically any non-obvious information that is not sourced may be removed, and the burden of proof is on the party that wishes to keep the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the episodes themselves cannot be used as sources. Secondary sources only. Quatloo (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF "It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information"

WP:WHEN "When a source may not be needed : *Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.".

Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR, which are both policy, trump anything in WP:WAF, which is mere guideline. An article should have secondary sources, or it should not exist. An article should primarily rely on secondary nontrivial sources and not primary sources. The use of primary sources should be minimal. No argument can be made without secondary sources. This means any claim or comparison to other episodes cannot be done without a secondary source. If "citing" an episode is done without secondary sources (which may be the intent here) to build the article, it's completely irrrelvant, the article has to go. Quatloo (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing an episode can be done without a secondary source. Any form of analysis or interpretation of the primary source must obviously come from secondary sources, but "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source", which correspond to the mere episode plot summaries we want to use in the DB articles, are perfectly allowed by the policy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In simple cases, yes. But when the majority of an article is constructed this way, no. Quatloo (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles containing only plot summaries require to be improved with other sections this time using secondary sources, yes, but in any case the use of primary sources is never forbidden. If you suggest that long plot summaries cannot exist without secondary sources, that's not written anywhere in the policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." (direct quote from policy) If the purpose of the article is to contain these plot summaries, then yes, I am suggesting that is forbidden. If the majority of an article is plot summaries unsourced to third party material, that is the subject of it, and the article should go. You are correct only in that the limited use of primary sources is not forbidden -- excessive reliance on them is. Quatloo (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Quatloo, you appear to be making a dangerously sweeping statement here. If you are thinking only about television episodes (for example, episode 4 of the first season of The Golddiggers) that is one issue. However if you mean that as an absolute rule, I not only strongly disagree but strongly encourage you to spend some time considering why you might be wrong. I can cite quite a few article subjects where our best strategy would be to ignore whatever secondary sources one can find & simply work from primary sources. (One class of examples would be a number of Emperors of Ethiopia.) I would need to know exactly what you have in mind before I -- & I assume anyone else -- discuss this further with you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your opposition. Which of the Emperors of Ethiopia are only discussed in primary sources (their outobiography?), and not in independent reliable sources (something like "A History of Ethiopia"? What we know about them may only be legends and so on, but that's not the point: these legends are reported upon, are discussed in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and so we can have an article on them. This has, as far as I read it, nothing at all to do with the statement by Quatloo. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones after Iyasu II of Ethiopia and before Tewodros II of Ethiopia. Most of the general histories or accounts of Ethiopia dismiss those 70-odd years in a few sentences, & the specialized secondary accounts omit everything before about 1805. The one history of Ethiopia that does cover the period in any detail is by E. A. Wallis Budge, whose account is erroneous & sloppy -- something I discovered to my amazement & chagrin only when I started reading the single source he used (of many that were availabel to him) for the period. There are other examples why we should not follow that silly interpretation of no original research. -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo is partially correct. However, verifiability only limits whether an article should exist. It does not directly affect it's content. Whether primary sources are permissable is entirely dependant on what you're writing about. Articles about fiction almost always NEED TO use primary sources(the work of fiction itself) as a foundation for writing the article.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But this should be minimized and should never be the bulk of the article. The primary source part (the plot summary, character biography, or something similar) should only be there to help the understanding of the rest of the article. The in-universe info should never be the focus of an article, but only a means to make the out-of-universe info from secondary, reliable, verifiable sources more understandable.Fram (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In this particular case, secondary sources are not useful beyond meeting the notability criteria. Practically all secondary sources would, by definition, not be considered reliable, since nearly all would be stuff like fan blogs. When writing about the subject as a whole, there is a considerable amount of review/commentary from non-primary sources, but very little about the more detailed aspects.--Marhawkman (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So if there are no reliable secondary sources about these subjects (only about the "mother subject"), these articles are per definition about non notable subjects, and should be deleted or merged (if anything worth merging) and redirected... Fram (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If no secondary sources are reliable, the article shouldn't exist. I understand that you might consider the subject important. And I understand that you might want the subject covered in Misplaced Pages. But if nobody else considers it of enough importance to publish reliable, secondary sources, it doesn't belong in this or any other general encyclopedia. Your complaints about the inadequacy of secondary sources is no reason to switch to using primary sources -- it is merely is a glaring indicator that we should not be covering the subject at all. Quatloo (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles(DBZ character pages) currently exist as sub articles of the parent(DBZ). I'm not really sure how you would go about determining the notability of individual fictional characters. I'm also not sure if the various licensed video games would count as primary or secondary sources.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is IMO not really relevant if an article is an article or a subarticle. Notability of fictional characters should be done in the same way as the notability of people, books, movies, companies, ... Have they been discussed as such (not mentioned as part of the discussion of the mother subject)? A character like Maigret is notable, as can be seen from some of the results on Google scholar, like this or this one. ] is notable, and this can be evidenced by some articles from this list. Hefty Smurf, on the other hand, probably is not notable, even though he is relatively well-known and is mentioned 15 times in Google news, and appears in comics, cartoons, and video games. These are all primary sources, they are stories set in the fictional environment, using the fictional characters; they don't provide critical commentary about the characters. A DVD commentary (or something similar) may provide such comments, but it still wouldn't be an independent source, of course. Fram (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the articles are currently structured, the subarticles exist because a merged version of the article would be far too long. Although.... your idea of a google search gave a rather interesting result. A search for "Krillin" gave over 400,000 hits. O_O` Noit sure what that really means here though.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The block note is on the user talk. Just posting here as a courtesy. Regards, Mercury 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At Privatemusings's talk page I cut my standard offer in half: if the editor does productive work at another WikiProject such as Commons I'd discuss unblocking in three months rather than six months. Durova 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him for sockpuppetry (false he is now on a single account) and "an inability to properly source biographies of living persons". Forgive me for assuming good faith, but PM has been actively involved in talk page discussion as to why the sources he is using are not reliable, and has asked for input from people experienced in the policy at WT:RS. He has been polite throughout in the face of a whole heap of reverts without discussion, and has gone out of his way to seek input from the other people involved. Tell me again... why have you blocked him???????? Viridae 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion with reasons here: I hope that helps. - Jehochman 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems very bizarre. The sockpuppetry is old news. Suggest unblock. Catchpole (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. PM emailed me asking for help because Durova had declined to post a note here when answering the unblock request. I was half way through writing my own when I saw Mercury's come up on my watchlist. That doesn't make things any clearer at all... Viridae 09:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed part of the talk page conversation, Viridae. I by no means declined to do so. Two factors operated: the editor's stated desire for minimal drama made an e-mail to ArbCom advisable, and it seemed unlikely that any unblock discussion would succeed while Privatemusings had an unfactored f-bomb on his talk page. As I explicitly stated there at the talk page, I would have opened this thread pretty soon myself, regardless. Durova 10:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An unfactored f-bomb? What does this mean in English? Catchpole (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An four letter epithet for sexual activity. Or I should say, unrefactored. It's late. G'night. Durova 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will assume good faith and ignore what I took to be Durova initially declining the post here. Regardless of that, why exactly is he blocked? Viridae 10:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think that some of us were a bit shocked upon reviewing the sock puppetry in this user's recent past. Playing characters with funny voices is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Perhaps the consensus on the previous AN/I thread wasn't unanimous after all. Since then, PM has not stayed away from controversial topics, and instead has kept stirring the pot on a BLP-sensitive article. I'm sure PM doesn't want this nth review of his blocks to be a source of dusruption and I suggest we let the ArbCom handle the appeal this time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it come to arbcom? He was blocked for sockpuppetry in which he is no longer engaging and politely engaging other editors on the matter of sources for that article? He has been nothing if not patient, having faced a whole crapload of reverts without communication, and fairly terse responses to his good faith attempts to get to the bottom of the situation on the talk page. And yet it is he that is blocked. Viridae 10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is this much difficulty in reaching a decision about these succession of blocks (and getting to the bottom of those matters you speak of) then perhaps that indicates that this would be best settled more conclusively at arbitration. --bainer (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave him blocked and take it to Arbitration. That's the route for administrative actions that are disputed in good faith. Thatcher131 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher here. We've now fairly exhausted all angles of community discussion regarding this Administrator action - the ArbCom now need to have a look at this one. Anthøny 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that PM is a net-negative for the project. He's either unwilling or unable to recognize the disruption and drama his actions have caused. Agree with Thatcher and others that he should remain blocked pending ArbCom review. Chaz 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the block. However, I agree with Anthøny's point. There have been numerous, non-binding discussion about Privatemusings. Disruption, drama, perhaps not enough to block, but enough to draw too many resources away from other matters. The matter needs some finality as it has taken up too much time from too many editors. ArbCom review seems the only way to get some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• So... Privatemusings is indefinitely blocked for non-legitimate "use of an alternate account", despite no allegation that I'm aware of that he is editing under any other account currently, and doubt about his "ability to reliably source"? Why can't people just come out and say, 'blocked for doing things I disagree with and am annoyed about'? It'd be refreshingly candid. Argumentum ad infinitum can be disruptive to the point that a block is needed. However, as usual, this goes directly from, 'novel theory of an excuse to block which has no history or established consensus' (we certainly don't block every newbie through the door who doesn't know how to include reliable sources... in fact, we never do it) to 'indefinite block'. It seems intended more as an effort to 'get rid of' the user rather than any sort of effort at correction. It wasn't, 'your position on reliable sources is wrong IMO and your continued arguing of this point is becoming disruptive'. It wasn't, 'ok the disruption has gone on long enough so I am going to issue a short block and may issue longer ones if the problem continues'. That's what policy and IMO common sense suggest. Instead, this was, 'that's annoying, so let's indef block him'... again. This is the third indef block for completely novel reasons on this guy in something over a week. That is ALSO disruptive. Indeed, IMO far moreso than someone who merely dares to hold a disputed opinion. If you think that disagreeing with someone about the reliable sources policy is blockable then warn them... give time for people to discuss whether they agree it is blockable. If they do and the person continues anyway then place a short block. If that is upheld and they continue... longer blocks. That's what policy says. We only place indefinite blocks when people have failed to respond to reasonable efforts to get them to change. Not, 'any time we think up a new theory of what is blockable'. --CBD 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not block folks because I disagree with them, I block folks, to prevent disruption. In this case I have blocked for disruption. The account is clearly here to disrupt the project. Assume good faith please. Mercury 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But you were in an editing dispute with him at Giovanni di Stefano. I've never heard of an indef block simply for citing sources deemed unreliable, and probably whatever is in the YouTube video could be reliably sourced to something else. -- Kendrick7 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion here, to include the rationale below, and on the talk of PM, then comment. Respectfully, Mercury 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mercury was in an editing dispute; his edits to Giovanni di Stefano were on biographies of living people and external links issues and not on the editorial content of the page. These are maintenance issues and this is not a content dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad! I confused User:Mercury with User:Mervyn when looking at the article history. It's still an odd block. -- Kendrick7 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Tis ok, no harm. :) Mercury 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of how past discussions of Privatemusings have gone, I suggest leaving him blocked, closing the discussion here, and taking any concerns to arbcom. Tom Harrison 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We are at the time of year where arbcom are pretty much non-functional. Got any other suggestions?Geni 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further rationale from the blocking admin

This part of the sock policy referencing good hand bad hand accounts would appear to preclude usage of an alternate account for the purposes of disruption on on site drama. Regardless of whether or not the primary account is not editing is of no consequence. If the primary account has stopped editing, then the editor has given up that account that was used for more useful work in favor of disruption. This is not good either.

In any event, this editor is very clearly disruptive to the site and needs to not be a net loss. We are here to build the encyclopedia and it would appear that PM is not here for that goal. If the above logic does not help, I have also used what I believe to be common sense for this issue. I hope this helps to clear things up a little. Best regards, Mercury 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree. Giovanni di Stefano is not an article we need aggressively edited by people who freely admit they know little or nothign of the basis for the disputes. If you're going to edit war it's probably best not to pick an arbitrator to argue with, or an article that is under active scrutiny by WP:OFFICE, Jimbo, Mike Godwin, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Privatemusings' edits to that article were irresponsible, and he showed a complete lack of sensitivity to increasingly direct comments from Fred about the incredibly complex nature of this dispute. Having been involved in it in the past I would recommend the use of a ten foot pole for this one; this looks like a case of fools rushing in, and possibly endangering the entire project as a result. Contentious articles need careful handling, and when the subject is litigious that is redoubled. As Tom says above, appeals should got o ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At the present time there is no evidence of involvement by Mike Godwin. Fred's comments are mostly showing a lack of understanding of how 230 years results in a significant drift in legal practice and UK libel law. If the project is at risk it means the foundation has done something stupid and we are going have issues sooner rather than latter whatever.Geni 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That word "scrutiny" is the one you're after there :-) It's probably also rather unwise (to say nothing of rude) to assume that Fred has not taken the trouble, in the months this dispute has been running, to check out the likely legal position. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months to understand 2 legal systems (the football club is in scotland)? Tricky. The problem is that isn't consistent with the basic terminology errors (there are very few attorneys in the UK) and clear not getting of UK libel law ("Cleverly implying" is a really really bad idea). Fred's understanding of UK law is less than impressive. He studied US law so it is to be expected that he is going to have a hard time adapting.Geni 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a UK lawyer, Geni? Fred appears to have a better understanding of aspects of British law than me, and once a lawyer always a lawyer. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No but if you wish to claim that fred's understanding is anything special why the mistakes?Geni 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We really are getting off the topic. :) Mercury 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The element here that is on topic is that WP:BLP is a policy best applied conservatively. At best, Privatemusings had shown a consistent inability to recognize that. I think this is an editor who may get better in that regard and that's why I've offered generous terms for revisiting this block in just three months. The interests of the project take precedence at some point, and too much volunteer time was going into management of this situation. Everyone here on both sides of the issue who acted in good faith has my thanks. Durova 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Conservatively" is not the way I would describe the general historic aplication of BLP.Geni 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For "couple of months" read "since May", at the very least, and Fred has been in extended correspondence with legal counsel. Advice to all: don't go near that article unless you genuinely are a legal expert in English, Scottish, Italian and US law, and have double-checked your sources, and then checked them some more. And talk to Fred first. DAMHIKIJKOK? Guy (Help!) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. The Stefano article is one that needs huge sensitivity given the BLP concerns expressed both on and off site by the subject of the article. Some mistakes have been made in the past, some good faith editors have probably made the dispute worse, but that was a while back, and really there is no excuse to continue on with the controversy given what we all know now. There is a task force trying to find a sensitive solution to this issue and if editors want to be a part of that they should email Fred or Jinmbo. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, do we all know now? -- Kendrick7 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much let the block stand or open an arbitration request, unless you think the middle ground of a three month review is an adequate compromise. Durova 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the blocked editors points here, I'd personally like to see any diffs whatsoever supporting the allegation that User:Privatemusings edits have been "disruptive" if that's indeed the rationale behind the block. -- Kendrick7 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input. So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision. One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion. Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He simply thought you stated reason for protecting the article ("BLP edit warring") was inaccurate. That's not really disruptive. Privatemusing seems to believe, although this information keeps getting removed from his talk page, even in redacted form, that otherwise easily sourcable information is being forbidden from the article. I understand this editor keeps picking controversal areas of the wikipedia to edit, but he has a point. We don't have a separate policy called WP:Biographies of living lawyers, which makes clear not to mess with any "biography of a controversial legal professional" though maybe we should. -- Kendrick7 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings asked for a quick presentation and that's what I've given. Based on the discussions so far, consensus for unblocking isn't likely to form. Several editors have weighed in here with the opinion that arbitration could be a good solution. Kendrick7, would you like to see how this discussion shapes up after this has had some more time? Durova 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One man's troll is another man's idealist, and you'll find both editing in the same place. Our project thrives on idealism to a point, though obviously there's a point after which it becomes harmful, so I would hope a way could be found to convince Privatemusings to limit himself to not going over that ledge. There's no hurry in finding that way, of course. -- Kendrick7 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How would the community react to a proposal to unblock Privatemusings based on assurances that he would (1) edit from a single account, and (2) refrain from editing BLP's. I believe this would address both of the reasons for a block that are perceived as currently germane. If a consensus to an unblock on those terms cannot be reached, they I will consider a request for a limited unblock to allow him to file an arbitration request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the history, I do not think I can support this proposal. Historically, I have supported and even authored such proposals. But not in this editors case. That is to say, I do not support an unblock at all. Mercury 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I. He gave an assurance in the past to edit only from one account, and broke it. His gossip page, his excessively polite goading of Essjay, his constant stirring up of drama, show that he is not, and never was, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. If he wants to appeal to ArbCom, he can email them. ElinorD (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, it appears that consensus to unblock does not exist. Unless that should change, I invite this user to send me an e-mail as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, and I will forward it to the arbitrators for their consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

His gossip page? So you are saying he's also User:Petesmiles? -- Kendrick7 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, huh? Mercury 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

K, yes he is. I don't think this is a secret anymore as PM has recently acknowledged he is Petesmiles. SlimVirgin 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, he pointed that out just now on his talk page. It wasn't cleat that account was blocked per . -- Kendrick7 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I would not support the unblocking of this user. He has caused too much controversy, used too many accounts, and continues to insist he sees nothing controversial in his edits, which suggests the same behavior will continue. SlimVirgin 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given this editor's conduct since the block I don't think I could support anything more lenient than a review after three months' service to another wikiproject. I'm having second thoughts about that offer and might withdraw it if problems continue. The obvious solutions here are to pursue that offer or to arbitrate, since consensus to unblock isn't likely to materialize. Durova 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and Durova. I tried talking some sense into him on his talk page and I got no better results than when I tried talking to Jon Awbrey - they both will not accept that the opinons of others must be taken into account. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was all discussed a few days ago. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive326#I.27ve_blocked_User:Privatemusings. And incidentally, that discussion was closed far too quickly, in my view. It was very obvious that he was blocked, not because he was technically but innocently in violation of some rule, but because he had a long history of stirring up trouble. But as soon as he asked to have his other accounts blocked, and Privatemusings unblocked, it was done without any waiting to see if there was any consensus, and the noticeboard was archived as "Drama ended with amicable resolutions on both sides". See also Fred Bauder's protest. ElinorD (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he edited for a long time at WP:BADLINKS, then he tried to apply those ideals to an actual article and ended up in an edit war, plain and simple. The conflict at the British lawyers article, who doesn't want the world to know he is a , is again a reflection of the same sort of idealism. That people just label this as "stirring up trouble" is disconcerting. Admittedly, the editor should take a breathe now and again betwixt his quixotic quests. -- Kendrick7 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC) say that three times fast!

Somebody asked me to comment here, because I'm a bit of a buddy of PM, and I've come to his defense before. First off- I don't believe he has ever abused sockpuppets. Given that he was so open about his identities-- informing multiple different admins, I truly haven't seen any evidence that he guilty of sockpuppet abuse. At worse, he was confused about sockpuppet rules and ulimately corrected. But when you openly TELL multiple admins, even ones who disagree with your POV, what your other account is-- I don't think you can really be guilty of sockpuppet abuse per se. I genuinely don't believe the sockpuppet usage was any kind of bad faith.

And PM has had helped out at the encyclopedia-- he was a valuable contributor to the badsites discussion, helped mediate, and did get some things accomplished.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alec. Given the lack of diffs to show behavior rising to the level of disruption, I'd allow this user back in a week, which should be a sensible timeout to consider his goals here on the encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Risky. I don't see any evidence this user is willing to come back constructively. I don't think I can support this either. Mercury 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I say "maybe reduce it to a week"-- somebody would have a very serious conversation with him and lay down some firm groundrules on what exactly it is he isn't going to do in the future. I wouldn't suggest saying "let's just make a week and call it good"-- that might just lead to future problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any diffs to suggest he hasn't been editing constructively, by which I mean, he hasn't, AFAICT, been editing in a way which violates wikipedia's guidelines. I'll gladly change my position, but give me something, anything. -- Kendrick7 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I don't think Privatemusings directed the profanity at me. I simply thought it would be wiser for him to refactor that statement before a noticeboard thread opened, since that's the kind of thing that tends to sway opinions against an editor and it's understandable that someone would use an epithet momentarily out of frustration. I'm very glad he did strikethrough the statement, although the whole issue got delayed enough, with enough apparent doubt about whether I was really acting in good faith, that I now regret stepping forward at that juncture. Durova 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't turn into a self-righteous WP:DICK after being blocked is getting paid to be here. In fact, the degree to which someone turns into a self-righteous WP:DICK is directly proportional the block's absurdity multiplied by its length. To point Privatemusings behavior after being indefinitely blocked as justification for the block ignores this reality. -- Kendrick7 08:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am one step away from withdrawing my three month review offer. Suggest you set a better example, Kendrick, or pursue the ArbCom/Foundation options. This is counterproductive. Durova 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked why?

Still have not got to the bottom of why he was blocked. Firstly sockpuppetry in which he was NOT engaging since the ani thread before and secondly for an inability to properly source a BLP... He had made multiple attempts to understand why people thought his sources were nto good enough, which seems reasobale when the guardian is ussually regarded as a reliable source. So tell me again, why is he blocked? Viridae 10:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see all the issues surrounding. You have my reason... and others have added to that reason. Consensus here is to leave blocked, and if you must, request arbitration. Regards, Mercury 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block reason is half false and half questionable. I would like one that actually stands up to and kind of review. Viridae 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It did. Assume good faith please. If need be, pursue arbitration. Mercury 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Viridae, you might have missed all the diffs provided demonstrating the good faith of the block here. Actually, that's probably because such diffs have been repeatedly requested and not been forthcoming. But somehow, in my best of WP:AGF attempt, I too will attempt to magically "see all the issues surrounding" the block. Nothing yet, but I'll keep you posted! -- Kendrick7 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conditional unblock

I have unblocked so that PM can request arbitration. PM is not permitted to edit anywhere else than arbitration pages. Mercury 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And his own talk page presumably? --CBD 11:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case has been filed. Interested editors may comment on whether the case should be accepted for an unblock review at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Privatemusings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

George Cross Recipients

Please could admins note that the George Cross is a highly notable award for gallantry, and that its recipients are also highly notable? And, bearing that in mind, could admins please avoid speedying stubs about its recipients, especially when an editor (NOT the original author) has removed the speedy tag with an explanation given in the edit summary? Thank you for your consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The entire island of Malta has a George Cross :-) But yes, it's an assertion of notability and no mistake. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? We have an article on the island of Malta! DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please? These can be undeleted if this is indeed a problem. Chick Bowen 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Douglas Merriman. The deleting admin has refused to recreate. Another editor (neither the original creator or myself) is now working on a new version in their sandbox. There have been some misunderstandings of policy and who did what along the way. Hopefully the situatioon is now sorting itself out. Just rather disapointing to have such bizarre ideas of non-notability floating around among admins, and I personally am rather upset at wrongfully being accused of a breach of wikipolicy for removing the speedy tag. Heigh-ho, just another day at the office! DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article was Arthur Douglas Merriman. It was deleted by a different admin because of a lack of context, which it indeed suffered from. Duncan is rightly a bit peeved because he was accused of maliciously removing the tag. It wasn't malicious because he was perfectly entitled to remove it, not being the author of the page. The article has now been recreated with a reference and a bit more context. Kerfuffle over. ;) Woodym555 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as lacking context (true: it said that Arthur Merriman had a George Cross - a context-free factoid). Re-creating with some information would have been rather more effective, I think - see WP:HOLE. The sooner we get WP:WIZARD in place the sooner we can wave goodbye to problems like this. There is a small concern that the creator might be simply creating substubs from www.link-ex.net/wiki_en which is not a reliable source, so I left a note. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You would notice him in a hole because he has a George Cross pinned to his chest ;) Yes it was the stubbiest of stubs which needed a hook, but I still don't think it should have been deleted, simply tagged. Woodym555 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I'd not have deleted it, but there is at least some burden on the creator to do more than "X won the George Cross, here's a link to my website" which is what we had here. It was speedied as A1, not A7, and it did indeed lack context. See the discussion of Eric Moussambani in WP:HOLE - there is some sense in the humour, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedied articles

Is there anyway to see a list of speedied articles? I ask because without such alist, it is impossible to review if the speedy process is being used appropriately. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No such list exists, for reasons such as this. —Kurykh 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Struck out my inaccurate comment. —Kurykh 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the deletion log but that's not going to tell you much more than the name of the page and the reason for its deletion if you're not an admin. Metros (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So realistically, only admins are in a position to see if admins are using speedy appropriately? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but trust me, with 1,400+ admins on here, I severely doubt there willl ever be some super-secret plot to speedy delete articles inappropriately. Metros (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't for one moment think there is any kind of plot, rather I suspect that speedy is sometimes misused by people making poor judgments about notability, or unfamiliar with the possibility of tagging stubs with appropriate templates, or averse to talking to editors, or looking at edit histories. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And if that occurs, the articles can be brought to deletion review. Metros (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows that they've been deleted that is, and assuming the original author 1) knows about deletion review, and 2) hasn't become so dispirited and demoralized that he or she can't be bothered, and 3) they haven't thrown a hissy fit and been blocked for venting their frustration. There is no way for us to know how many potentially worthwhile articles have been lost by improper speedying, it is a "closed system" - only admins can delete, and only admins can see what they have deleted, and apart from the original author of a speedied article, no-one else is ever likely to know what happened. In short, there is a massive and I believe fatal lack of transparency to the speedy process. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Woodym555 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the person is notable, can't we just that someone else would come along looking to make that article at some point eventually? At some point along the way, someone will notice an issue. And yes, only admins can see the deleted content, but once again, admins are not plotting and if it was a truly notable article, an admin in the DRV would raise that objection. Metros (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As with any process controlled by humans inevitably there will be errors, but based on my experience the tendency is not in the direction that DuncanHill implies. For every article that is unjustly deleted there are many more pieces of absolute crap that are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to stay. I don't think allowing deleted articles to remain in plain view is wise, among other reasons because many of them are plainly defamatory towards living persons. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice if non-administrators could view the text of "ordinary" deleted articles and a smaller classof administrators (than is currently allowed) could view the text of "extraordinary" deletions, such as is required by copyright or libel laws, or by moral, legal or ethical standards. (This blog post is a rather interesting take on the issue.) --Iamunknown 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Iamunknown makes a good point - and I think there is some truth in what Raymond says - perhaps a line could be drawn between speedies for BLP violations, and speedies for other reasons (eg alleged non-notability or "lack of context")? For every notable article speedied, an admin ISN'T speedying a pile of crap somewhere else! DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to something you've seen? If something is truly notable, it will be created again, and I've always thought the great majority of admins have very good judgement. I don't see why there is a need to add another layer of bureaucracy to a system that works well. Letting everyone see deleted articles and having partial admins have both been brought up plenty of times before. Grandmasterka 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For a specific example - see my thread above about GC recipients. For more examples - I am not able to tell you, because I am not allowed to know! DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it's important to hide the content of deleted items. Much of the time articles are deleted because they are obviously libelous, copyright infringements and/or a number of other things that shouldn't really see the light of day. In any other case most admins are usually willing to restore to user space on request. At the worst-case scenario you can always contact OTRS with a request to review the deleted file. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that I'm merely redundant to other comments above... I'll go away now. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different reason for wanting to see deleted articles (other than libelous, copyvio, etc.). It is so that I can use them as a training tool to help learn what should be deleted and what is okay. I know the policies in the abstract but it takes experience to develop judgment as to which articles fit which policies. Glancing through deleted articles would be a useful experience to build judgment. (Conversely, I've seen some articles on New pages patrol which were accepted by other patrollers and I cannot understand why. I wish that patrollers would explain why they did NOT mark a New page as deletable.) Sbowers3 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedies are commonly misused by many many administrators. You don't need to see the deleted texts to know it. ^demon 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to contact another admin and tell them to check out an article if you have any concerns. Remember that admins have to pass RFA though, and they're unlikely to do that unless they know what thery're doing and how to do it properly--Phoenix-wiki  20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix - the point is we CAN'T contact another admin - because we have no way of knowing what admins are doing. We have no way of helping them improve. We have no way of spotting a bad egg. We have no way to know if they are doing a good, bad, or indefferent job on speedies. All we have is "admins must be good otherwise they wouldn't be admins" which is, if you will excuse my French, utter bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, I checked your deleted contributions, there are quite a few and deleted by several different people. I think you are doing something wrong, at least some of the time. That is, I think you are not making the case for these articles. I disregard the MySpace blogger, but some of the rest might have potential if you ran them through WP:WIZARD or something. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - my deleted contributions? What deleted contributions? I am not aware of any of my contributions being deleted. Are you perhaps a) lying or b) incompetent? You expect me to assume good faith when you write utter nonsense like that? Where are these deleted contributions of mine that you claim to have looked at? DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, administrators can see a link on your user page hidden to non-administrators, which lists all your deleted contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So what of my contributions have been deleted? I am not aware of ANY being deleted - I certainly have never been told of any being deleted, and have not noticed any disappearing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick run through your last 100 and all of them have been disambiguation and stub sorting of other editors' articles. Didn't see anything you created that has been deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn right nothing of mine has been deleted - so can someone make Guy stop lying? Or is that asking too much of admins? DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deleted contributions" doesn't just mean articles that you originally started. It includes all articles to which you contributed and that were later deleted. As an example, someone created Carlton Jakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about a week ago. Another editor flagged it as a non-notable biography under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. You later disambiguated a link, changing Georgia to Georgia (U.S. state). Finally, the article was speedily deleted. Your disambiguation edits show up as deleted edits, even though the article wasn't one you started. By the way, if you want to look at any admin's deletion, protection, or block logs, go to their contributions page and click "Logs". As an example, Elkman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gives logs that explain what I'm doing. Basically, Guy isn't lying here; he just didn't give you a full explanation. --Elkman 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So he's criticicising me for dabbing pages which were subsequently deleted? OK - as it now seems to be policy, I won't dab or fix wikilinks again. I won't bother editing, if Guy's attitude is tolerated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume Guy just misread them. Please don't take this personally and please don't stop editing. I think the issue over GC recipients has been resolved as much as it can. One admin didn't look into it that much. The problem of who watches the watchmen will always be around. Admins in this category will be happy to tell you what was in a certain article if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted. Woodym555 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith as long as people like Guy talk utter bollocks and make entirely unjustified attacks on my edits and get away with it. If Guy can't read he shouldn't be here. As I can no longer assume good faith of the admin team (though there are many splendid individuals on it), I do not believe it is possible for me to continue making constructive contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's list of my deleted contributions makes fascinating reading - it includes articles which I marked as hoaxes or proposed for deletion, categories I had renamed as they were malformed, user talk pages where I issued vandalism warnings, and at least two articles which have not been deleted at all! DuncanHill (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy posting for banned and blocked users operating through Tor nodes

As an example of this problem, Krimpet (talk · contribs) has been restoring disruptive posts, of banned editors operating through Tor nodes Krimpet seems to reject the idea that banned and blocked users aren't allowed to post.

I'd like to clarify how disruptive posts emanating from Tor nodes should be handled. I'd also like to know whether an editor is allowed to restore such posts after they have been removed by another editor. It seems like removing such posts to deny recognition is the policy a good idea, and that when an editor takes that action, it should not be reverted. Comments and advice? - Jehochman 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition policy? Picaroon (t) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The banned user appears to be (No need to name them) or a meat puppet, but there's absolutely no way to ever know for sure because they are posting through a Tor node. We sort of have to make a best guess by the message that they are sending. Are we now going to say that banned users can do whatever they like as long as they use Tor nodes? That seems rather unwise. Additionally, I have received email correspondence that strongly suggests involvement of (No need to name them). - Jehochman 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You said the same thing with 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs)... Daniel 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you proof that the user is somebody else? If so, please share the information because there was a massive disruption and Arbcom is still investigating the incident, as far as I know. - Jehochman 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has taken the close-to-unprecedented step to investigate your own and Durova's actions and judgement in that incident via private email without opening a case, but welcoming evidence from everyone. Any information I or others have provided to ArbCom via their private mailing list is exactly that - private. It just needs to be noted that your assertions of "this is clearly MyWikiBiz" is currently not as persuasive as it could be. Daniel 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I requested the investigation myself.  ;-) Check your email, Daniel. I've sent you new evidence and CC'ed Arbcom. - Jehochman 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I requested the investigation also. And if you're not aware, Daniel, I was harassed via e-mail by a person who claimed to be that same IP. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than I do. Durova 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was writing a reply to your post on my talk page. I would have gladly discussed this there; why did you bring this to AN/I before I got a chance to respond, other than to cause more ridiculous drama?

Removing a critical comment as "a post from a Tor node" is not policy - we don't even have a clear position on blocking Tor nodes right now. I specifically stated, multiple times, that I restored the comment because obscuring and removing discussion just feeds the trolls and gives them more nonsense to speculate on. The proper thing to do would be to let the comment stand on its own, perhaps rebut it, or just have people ignore it. Transparency is sorely needed here - it's a very effective weapon against disruption of every stripe, yet many prominent editors are taking the opposite approach. --krimpet⟲ 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I brought it here because this isn't really a disagreement between you and me. It seems to be a lack of clarity about how to handle disruptive editors using Tor nodes. I am hoping that others can provide clarity. I think letting banned users post through Tor nodes is a very, very bad idea and am hoping that the community consensus will confirm that. - Jehochman 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of "Krimpet proxy posting for banned and blocked users operating through Tor nodes," directly accusing me of impropriety, seems to suggest that you intended me to be the primary topic of this discussion. --krimpet⟲ 03:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 2x) Actually, Krimpet, your second restoration stated in the edit summary that you thought the blanking had been an artifact of an edit conflict - although I had specifically mentioned TOR nodes in the body of my post. That should have been quite clear, and at that point taking the matter to talk pages would have been a good idea. I haven't looked through the entire history yet, but it appears your first restoration got reverted by a different administrator. Bold-revert-discuss would have been a good idea. ArbCom has expressed who's who clauses in many decisions: when it's difficult or impossible to determine specific identities, remedies can be fashioned in ways that make identification unnecessary. Blanking those posts looked like a WP:DUCK application of WP:BLOCK. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons. Durova 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My initial restoration of the comment was reverted by you as you added another comment, without mentioning that you were removing the comment again. This is why I restored it, assuming good faith that this removal was not intentional. --krimpet⟲ 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In that diff you cite the text of my post includes the statement Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. I'll double check, but I think the restoration you did after that was the second one. If it's an honest misunderstanding I'll certainly be glad to work things out. Hope you can see how the confusion arose. Durova 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the second restoration. Here's the first one 13 minutes earlier. Now that I double check, I did reblank it myself. Durova 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to cast blame. I'd like to come to a consensus about how to handle these situations so we have no more reverting when an editor deletes a post of a banned user operating through a Tor node. If we can agree, then going forward we will have smooth sailing. - Jehochman 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Every time I see someone citing WP:DUCK I can't help but think of Monty Python's take on the proper approach to witch hunting. Yes, someone may indeed weigh as much as a duck... but burning them for it is far more disruptive than just ignoring them would ever have been. Block accounts and IPs for what they do. Blank messages only if they contain information that should be private. The 'banned user' hunts just create big unruly mobs making a mess of things with torches and pitchforks... and that's not even counting what happens when you get it wrong. --CBD 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

please dont discrimate chinese because of some bad users. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.111.94.195 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Errm, once again, Jehochman has a rather distorted idea of Misplaced Pages policy! There is no rationale for reverting the non-disruptive contributions of blocked (as oposed to banned) users, nor for reverting the contributions of users editing through Tor nodes. From Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks:

"An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block."

From Misplaced Pages:Open proxies:

"Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked."

Even if these two policies specifically said that such edits could be reverted (as in the case of bans), which they don't outside of the imagination of two or three admions, Krimpet would have been quite within her justifiable use of administrative discretion in not reverting them for the benefit of discussion on the encyclopedia. This is a farcical thread which seems only designed to draw attention away from the controversy surrounding one of its contributors. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we no longer blocking Tor nodes on sight? Tom Harrison 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes, under Misplaced Pages:Open proxies. There is even a bot available to do it, should the Community wish that. However, we do not revert non-disruptive edits made through these nodes before they are blocked. Disruptive edits may, of course, be reverted under Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing wherever they come from! Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned users posting through Tor nodes

Back to business. We are talking about what to do when a banned user posts through a Tor node. Obviously checkuser cannot determine whether it's a banned user or not because Tor nodes anonymize the source. Hence, we must look at the content of the post. When a post appears from a Tor node that looks like the same message being pushed by a banned user, can that message be removed? I say yes because we obviously don't want to give banned users a free pass to post whatever they like through Tor nodes. Any other comments? - Jehochman 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the post; block the ip. In general, any post can be removed. Posts by banned users should be removed, and may not be restored. Nobody has to enforce a ban, but nobody gets to prevent enforcement either. I don't know to what extent checkuser tells us anything about Tor users. Tor or not, it never infallibly identifies the editor. A somewhat seperate issue, Tor nodes are blocked on sight. Tom Harrison 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So if an edit summary indicates the removal of a banned user's post, that post should not be restored without some sort of clarification or discussion with the editor who performs the removal in good faith. Right? If an editor restores posts of a purportedly banned user without any agreement that it's not a banned user, then the editor is effectively proxying for a banned user. Does that view reflect the consensus? - Jehochman 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just make it clear what's happening. The issue of Tor nodes is a red herring in this argument; if I were banned, "rv banned user Jpgordon" (for example) should be a sufficient note to other editors not to restore the edit without discussion. --jpgordon 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not be a license for admins to revert edits which they don't like. If there is evidence of disruption, of course those edits should be reverted: if there is no evidence of disruption, administrators would be better spending their time helping out at WP:AIV, CAT:CSD or many other pages where there really is disruption, rather than trying to fit the post to the troll. Physchim62 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Physchim62, you restored a post by banned user Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs) to your talk page. Earthenwareboat (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock in the sequence of Earthenboat (talk · contribs) and Earthboat (talk · contribs). Those are known socks of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs), who is banned. You might want to remove that post. Jpgordon is the one who seems to have tagged Earthboat. - Jehochman 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my case, Durova simply started blocking and after realizing that she did not have the right banned user, she went with another one, also wrong. Since I am not in any trouble with WP; I am not using a TOR anything, why does she or anyone have a right to block me, take away my posts and hurt innocent people around me? Songgarden, Deutschland. 11-19-07 217.81.37.228 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For God's sake, people! They are laughing their asses of at us! Here we are arguing whether it's OK to remove trolling form a Tor node if we are not entirely sure it's a banned user, and we have a policy that says using Tor is verboten - anyone who wants to contribute to the debate can do so using their Misplaced Pages account, it's free to register and if they are blocked or banned then they can... do the other thing. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As Jpgordon said, the Tor question is a distraction; banned users are banned users. And as Tom Harrison said, "in general, any post can be removed". This is the important part. Tor or not, banned or not, it doesn't matter; if a post is disruptive, remove it. This is common sense that I think pretty much everyone here agrees with, right? WP:BAN allows for the removal of banned editors' posts; it does not prohibit the removal of other disruptive posts! Guy, I'm afraid that even you are eyeing this red herring like it's a delicious treat. It is not against the rules for constructive editors to use Tor. We just block Tor due to its potential for abuse by destructive users. This distinction is subtle but important; if it's overlooked, we'll end up punishing good users who manage to use Tor even though they aren't breaking the rules. ··coelacan 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

long term edit warring

Through happenstance, I ended up making some edits to Cuba today, where I had the misfortune of running across "El Jigue", 208.65.188.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been maintaining a long-term ownership of the article. My initial edit , which corrected the formatting of a reference and removed an enormous quote in the ref tag itself, was described by El Jigue as a "pro-Castro POV". I guess Fidel Castro really likes short references notes. The user has proceeded to revert every single edit I've made to Cuba, no matter how minor or neutral, including reinserting vandalism. A perusal of the user's talk page and the Cuba talk page indicates that this person has harrassed many good editors away from Cuba and related topics, I assume by making immediate and blatant aspersions to their motives. I have warned the editor repeatedly and, I think, nicely, but have been ignored, culminating in a final warning about civility, assuming good faith, and article ownership. The response was a charming accusation that I am "purging" "anti-Castro" editors and a similar accusation on the article talk page.

A perusal of his history shows that I am not the first person he has arbitrarily set himself against. El Jigue has made what I assume are positive contributions to the article, but his behavior has been unpleasant, to say the least. He has removed other editors talk page posts because he thought they introduced a "alternate POV", accused other editors of censorship, and generally refused to assume good faith of any one.

He has been blocked a few times for the same issues I'm bringing up here. He was also blocked for a time, for the same issues, from Spanish Misplaced Pages, although the EsWiki admin I spoke to said he did not return after the block. I feel like a long vacation may be in order, but as I am obviously involved, my blocking would be inappropriate. At the very least, there is a dire need of more people paying attention to this user and the articles he edits regularly. Natalie (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing this up took a little longer than I though, so I'm going to bed. I've notified the user in question of this discussion. Natalie (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just reading this and the talk pages show that this user is not here to contribute in any positive way, as was his block at the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Unless someone says different, it might be best to consider him banned from this Misplaced Pages, and as such I have blocked the IP for 3 months, as he's been using it for nearly two years at the English Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that works for me. Just for the record, today I looked at 205.240.227.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old IP of El Jigue's. Considering that extensive block log, I'm not opposed to considering this a ban. Natalie (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A permanent ban will work nicely. Be on alert though, El Jigue has numerous IP addresses to edit and post from; he won't go away easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a single issue editor, though, which are the easiest kind of sockpuppet to stop. If and when El Jigue returns with a different IP address, he won't edit Israel, Bill Clinton, or cat. He'll go right to Cuba and it's daughter articles. I've watchlisted a couple of his most favorite targets and others can do the same. Natalie (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist closed

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was an atrocious decision. We've just given a green light to all manner of bullshit merchants. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure. I'm about to suggest that Martinphi be restricted from articles in relation to Morgellons on the basis of this finding, since his tireless advocacy and endless repetition is completely overwhelming the debate there. SA should be fine as long as he keeps it civil. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with Raymond. While I generally agree with SA and his POV, he irritates me. Nothing in this says one can't responsibly and civily remove unsourced crap from the encyclopedia. All it says is be nice, and not to remove stuff with appropriate sources (regardless of how you feel about it). SA is very much his own worst enemy in far to many instances I've come across. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I think it's often overlooked that it's possible to be nice and firm. Grandmasterka 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what in the world are you talking about? I have no idea what Morgellons are. It sounds as if you are accusing me of disrupting the page by sock puppet, and if you keep it up, I'll report you for personal attacks. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's confusing you with User:Levine2112, who does engage in tireless advocacy and endless repetition. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I see. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, remote viewing. Mixing up my pseudoscience pushers there. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, on the Admin noticeboard no less. Nice. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Guy was commenting on his perception of your editing habits. NPA does not regard whether you feel insulted. Keegan 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify: insults, not feelings of being insulted. Guy was saying you push pseudoscience in your contributions. Keegan 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And it was for this that the ArbCom restriction was applied to Martinphi, who has been a tireless advocate of fringe and pseudoscience for a long time now. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

abuse of power by administrators Secret and Jeffrey O. Gustafson

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

Hello this is the editor formerly known as user:Rafff18 before I was indefinitly blocked by user:Secret(note: I am not asking you to unblock me but to look into the actions of the above mentioned administrators). The block was a result of a small edit war me and a friend of mine got into with User:Bmg916 and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they kept deleting agreed apron and sourced information on the page of the Montreal Screwjob. Instead of going through wp:dr like I wanted secret blocked me indefinitely for several false reasons that I detail on my talk page along with that of secrets and user:Chris G.

latter while I was appealing the block User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson one of the people that I originally was in the dispute with ,did a blatant violation of WP:ACM by deleted the information from my talk page and then blocked me from using it. Please inform these administrators that these actions are unacceptable and further use of theme could result in theme losing there rank thank you.

• And what was your previous account? It's blindingly obvious that Rafff18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not a new editor. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • He shouldn't have to reveal his IP address per WP:PRIVACY. Otherwise, I'm not aware we're doing indef blocks for 3RR now? I don't understand from the talk page what made Secret change mind to extend the 24 block to an indef block before the 24hrs even expired. -- Kendrick7 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Rafff would not stop using sockpuppets and meatpuppets (his friend, according to him continued) to repeatedly insert the same exact information into an article whose sources failed WP:RS and WP:V. Not to mention, the "source" was one person's POV about another's behavior (Bret Hart). If the sources were valid, the information would have been more appropriate for the aforementioned Bret Hart article. The "source" mentions nothing of the Montreal Screwjob, the article in question. However, the blocked user was trying to insert this as a supposed reason for the screwjob taking place, when as mentioned before, the "source" says nothing of the screwjob, and therefore, even if the source was reliable, using it to allude to the fact Hart's supposed behavior led to the screwjob, is nothing more than an assumption. The information they wanted to insert was never agreed upon at any time. It was only this editor who was blocked who wanted it repeatedly inserted. After this user was blocked for 3RR, I reverted their edits no longer based on the actual edits, but because solely because they were using block evading IP addresses, which as we all know, is not allowed. If the user had waited for the 24 hour block to expire instead of abusing sock puppet and meat puppet accounts, they probably wouldn't be indefinitely blocked, and I would have gladly recommended putting the information in the Bret Hart article instead, with a reliable source. Some random website saying they have an interview with some person doesn't mean they necessarily actually conducted said interview. Sorry if the response was long winded. Regards, Bmg916 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He seems to stand accused of meatpuppetry, and sockpuppetry. I have to insist that just because a lot of editors show up and agree with each other regarding a Featured Article, that's really slim evidence of meatpuppetry -- that occurs on every front page article. No one bothered to file a sock case prior to the indef block. -- Kendrick7 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I figured much of that out. But the guy has made less than 50 edits so an indef seems like WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7 —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was blatantly obvious it was either sock puppetry or meat puppetry. They were re-inserting the exact same information down to the punctuation, and it started as soon as Rafff was blocked for 3RR. After each sock was blocked, another different IP would come along and once again re-insert the same exact paragraph down to the punctuation. Rafff claims it was his friend and not him doing most of this, so I am going to assume good faith and believe it was his friend. However, this would still be meat puppetry if I'm not mistaken. Bmg916 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you consider it a WP:BITE. However, just to play devil's advocate, he has admitted to editing for over two years anonymously, and refused to admit to use of sock puppets and denied that his friend was acting as a meat puppet when he clearly was. He also has clear knowledge of policy in my opinion to bring up WP:ACM. Bmg916 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree he screwed up. But, can we at least agree the guy had lousy luck of joining the wrestling wikiproject in late October, which two weeks later on 9 November (see Talk:Montreal Screwjob) got a WP:Featured article, and then may have bent, broken, or not understood our rules under the resultant feverish excitement of such an occurrence. I can't forsee the stars aligning just that way again. By the way, I would have another look at the source, does actually mention the screwjob, just not by that name, unless there's another "Montreal incident with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels" we don't have an article on. Beats me if it is reliable, it has a byline and everything; of course I never thought I'd use "reliable sources" and "pro-wrestling" in the same sentence. -- Kendrick7 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I must've missed the article mentioning the screwjob before. I honestly still don't see it as being reliable however, as we can't verify that they are actually summarizing this supposed interview correctly and without twisting words and context, etc. As much as I would really like to assume good faith here, and I really hate not to, but I unfortunately believe that this user would go right back to insisting this be put in the article, as he inserted in the information about a year ago as an anonymous user, and because of his insistence on inserting it with sock and meat puppets. Bmg916 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for Background check on Editors Being Promoted to Admin

A few months ago an editor put up a link in a Tibetan Buddhist page that is an Englishman's cult claiming to be a prophet (Terton) dismissed by Tibetan Lamas, which basically has wrong information whereby a photo is wrongly captioned. This misinformation page is still up, against Wiki rules. He has given me so many warnings and claimed to know virtually nothing of TB(Tibetan Buddhism) and abusively called it an inner faith squabbling. I claimed then and now that he is a member of the said cult whose former members have claimed great abuses by the cult leader, the former English truck driver! He has since added a badge of interest in TB on his page as well as claiming to be a Freemason. When he gave another harassing warning again today I decided to check his activity on Wiki. To my surprise it appeared that this user is highly controversial and his interest in TB is not new. He has been accused of being the same person as a now banned editor who was double nicking one of whose names was a TB guardian deity by separate people who individually came to the same conclusion.

So I propose in order to promote people to admin status, that:

1) A history of their activity be googled in the format of:

XXXX site:wikipedia.org

2) Controversial editors be listed on an invisible admin 'To Watch Board' as many are pursuing various organizational agendas.

I hope an admin who agrees with me takes this recommendation up with the relevant procedures.

I will continue to observe the activities of the particular abusive editor as shown by the archives for ever, whose writing and behavioral style I have familiarized so that even a new nickname would be pointless. I also think that others, including admins, editors and even users take up this practice and break their silence when they encounter 'persistent' vicious behavior protested by unrelated victims as shown in googled Wiki archives.

I also hope one of the admins can reverse the many warnings he has given me as a protest to his misinformation page which contains a wrongly captioned photo (important for TB practitioners' use) and thereby is against the rules. Both the linking to erroneous information and the warnings based on its maintainability are illegal. The editor concerned is: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:GlassFET

Try the "XXXX site:wikipedia.org" on anyone before making them an admin and make it a procedural necessity, please. I hope for the future of Wiki the procedure I suggested is considered. Thank you all, --Thegone 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this? I' notifying User:GlassFET os this discussion. JodyB _talk 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done. JodyB _talk 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What article, what information is in or out that you don't like, what is the search you are requesting? you can always check a user's contributions, and should when participating in a discussion at WP:RFA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty curious about that too, as I'm not an admin, and if anybody nominated me, they must have neglected to tell me about it. GlassFET 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, Thegone keeps vandalizing article by removing links, sometimes substituting his own links for links being used as references. The links he has been substituting lately have been to an old offsite copy of the same Misplaced Pages article. GlassFET 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of his removal of what I believe are perfectly valid and approprate links: , ,

He's also been spamming some Buddhist forums: .

GlassFET 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, and for the record, it's not the first time he's posted an "incomprehensible essay" complaining about me on WP:AN/I, where in August he was advised of the proper way to handle a content dispute. GlassFET 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thegone: 1- The article as linked by GlassFET has a wrong captioned photo as well as being incomplete to mention the third incarnation. The error in the photo captions, first one is the title not the person's name and the second photo is bearing the name of the person in the first photo, should be enough to remove the link and reverse his many warnings to me based on it. The site is a disguised front for the abusive 'Aro' cult whose other undisguised sites GlassFET links openly in different sections. http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/dudjom_yangsis.shtml This is false information and its linking and warnings based on its removal are ILLEGAL, period. The links to both persons official sites can verify this as I posted on a previous occasion. I merely changed the link to another which was a portal to many articles on the subjects without any error. He removed them.

2- The main point of my post above was the two specific recommendations for procedural changes to Wiki considerations of admins, as I can easily see people like GlassFET slowly working their way up into that position. This should not be diverted nor ignored and I wish to make i) the archive background check and ii) an invisible 'controversial editors watch board' for admins To be taken up. To see a case in point and how unrelated victims have come to the same conclusions regarding an editor conducting illegal activities click here and do go back at least 6 or 7 pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=GlassFET+site%3Awikipedia.org

I share the point by various users/editors' claims, not knowing of each other, that GlassFET is the banned editor as well as guilty of other misconducts.

This should prove the point for both my recommendations as suggested points of order, which is the main point of my post here, not GlassFET's illegal activities in the erroneous link or his warnings based on that to me. Please adopt both suggestions for safeguarding Wiki's future mainly under attack by 'organized' misconduct by various quarters. Thank you. --Thegone 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply barking up the wrong tree. Try reading about how to handle a content dispute. This is not it. I'm happy to discuss your concerns, but I won't accept your claims without any proof. You simply appear to be ranting. GlassFET 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your illegal activities are proved above despite your childish attempt at discrediting anyone as the archives show. I once again emphasize the 2 recommendations to be taken up as organized abuse will only increase in future and not just from pathetic little cults and low level lodges. --Thegone 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As messy as that was, just as a technicality that's not a legal threat is it? A legal threat is a statement that one is going to sue, not an accusation that someone has done something illegal (otherwise we would be blocking people over fair use discussions all the time). Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, an indefinite block without warning is way too harsh, and doing so over a good faith if bizarre attempt to seek redress from administrators smacks of WP:BITE. As much garbage as we get on this page we should not punish people for bringing a complaint here, even a flimsy one. See a recent example here of an editor blocked for daring to tangle with administrators. Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrible example. That user was blocked for being a disruption only account troll. ⇒SWATJester 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think blocking for a legal threat is a little excessive, but this user does perhaps need a shove in the direction of dispute resolution. Natalie (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no immediate threat. I'll unblock Thegone (talk · contribs). — Sebastian 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may have been too rash. I only checked Thegone's talk page now and saw that this user has already been warned with a final warning for vandalism. However, all vandalism warnichs come from GlassFET. Given that the two have an issue with each other, this may not hold water. If anyone who investigated this matter further re-blocks Thegone for a clear policy violation then I won't object. — Sebastian 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was not solely for the legal threats (and referring to someone's actions as illegal is indeed unacceptable). It was also for the incivility. It would have been nice if someone had discussed it with me first before unblocking, you know, as we're supposed to be doing. ⇒SWATJester 03:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• SebastianHelm should have informed you about the unblock before or immediately after, but may have assumed that you were monitoring this thread and saw his 02:04, 20 November 2007 above. The incivility I found was 26 July 2007 removal of GlassFET's post on 82.35.40.145 (talk · contribs · logs) talk page. July 26, 2007 removal of AntiSpamBot post on 82.35.40.145 (talk · contribs · logs) talk page. Despite warnings from GlassFET, 1 August 2007 3RR His 19 November 2007 use of "harassing warning" "Both the linking to erroneous information and the warnings based on its maintainability are illegal." are unfortunate, but not legal threats. Also, he meant that they were illegal as not meeting Misplaced Pages's policies. I don't think a block was warranted for his November 2007 activities. -- Jreferee t/c 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• While I don't think Thegone made a legal threat, the editor appears to only be here to POV push and troll. I have a hard time seeing how Misplaced Pages is better off with this individual editing here than not.--Isotope23 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I just went back and reviewed some of TheGone's edits, and they do appear to be improper, but I'm not sure they were vandalism (replacing refs with alternate refs that are WP mirrors). If we are to AGF, this might have been simply a mistake by someone who didn't understand the difference. However, that being said, TheGone has at least been warned, and if he doesn't repeat, then all should be well, but if he persists in such behavior, a block would be entirely appropriate. AKRadecki 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal? Which particular country's laws did I mean was broken apart from Wiki-land? And that from an aspiring lawyer? I prefer gardeners personally.

None of my points have been answered where Wiki laws have been broken (disinformation and warnings based on my protests) as I showed above by someone who refuses to answer various unrelated people if he is a certain banned editor & even in the attempt to block me indefinitely. As for my incivility it is subjective: there are facts (earth goes round the sun), consensus (majority of every army thinks snipers are not honorable men) and subjective opinions (such as mine that violence produces heavy karma that creates great suffering after one's passing for a very long time and the person needs to immediately start purifying that karma). I was called ranting by 3 immediate rambling messages and more. Still I didn't complain as these are subjective opinions. The main point of my initial post was the 2 suggestions for admins. Some admins above have self-nominated themselves for that position which I would oppose. And maybe they think there is too much freedom in the current world order. They love the mop of censorship.

Another worrying trend replacing 'organized' misinformation I have noticed is wholesale deletion of large sections in pages. Keep an eye on that. I never edited much if at all despite quite a few post-grad qualifications in various fields. But like Archimedes was futile in telling Syracusians not to be complacent I can't do more and every process has its cycle and everything has always been perfect and will be. Educating people as in Wiki is in fact a sacred act and the standards should be kept as high as possible. You are the guardians of this space and it is a much more important responsibility than one can imagine. Keep your sense of humor too and know that this work also accumulates great positive karma as long as your intention is to benefit beings on various mental levels. So I wish you all the best.

Now those few can 'rudely' insult me again and re-block me indefinitely, 'illegally'. --Thegone 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, don't tell us your accusations, prove them, or don't make them at all. Secondly, read up on our policies before making any statements about our workings here. Your posts here reflect none of the advice I have just given you. —Kurykh 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here my post was primarily the 2 suggestions. I proved them on a previous occasion. If you go to the two tulku sites you will see the second photo's caption belongs to the first photo who lives in US (containing not even a name but the title of all 3, only 2 mentioned in the erroneous link). There are sites in my erased portals links too both in English and Chinese, both of which I believe you can read as well as in Tibetan which has survived the genocide. --Thegone 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You continue to remark that the removal of the information you added and the warnings applied are "illegal," when in reality there is no such concept here except in cases of physical and legal threats. We don't need you to make condescending remarks towards us on how we should do our jobs. Anyways, whether the information you add or not is to be debated on the relevant talk page, found by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of the article, but not to be brought here. This board is specifically for conduct issues. This is a wiki; there are plenty of smart and educated people out there who may disagree with your edits, not everyone who disagrees with you are conspiring criminals, and because your edits are rebuffed and (mistaken?) warnings were issued does NOT excuse you from our rules on civility. —Kurykh 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Tezza1 is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" dispute

There is an ongoing debate (or, should I say, dispute) about whether Image:Arrivavoyager.png and Image:Arrivasupervoyager.png are usable under WP:NFCC. (See also here, here, here and here, as well as the histories of the two image files, especially the first one. It really requires an administrator to make a ruling quickly, before it escalates. Thanks, RFBailey (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reference: --RFBailey (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

proxy

i found a proxy that works on wikipedia http://www.browser4all.com/index.php im using it now to post this message, i think you should block it--76.164.193.90 (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nice catch. Should be blocked per Misplaced Pages:Open proxies. — xDanielx /_C\ 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, I retract my commendation. You could have just come here originally, instead of using less polite methods. I would still go ahead and block the IP, as it seems very dubious that someone intending to make substantial contributions would edit from such a dirty proxy. — xDanielx /_C\ 09:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've blocked it. Please report open proxies to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies in the future instead of vandalising with them. See WP:POINT. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

School IP range

Hi. The IP address 216.11.203.107 is owned by a school district, and I have gotten several admin warnings to the effect of "Your recent edit of containing has been reverted. Don't do it again." Just block the IP. Please. There are elementary schools that share this IP, and I'd rather they didn't see that kind of message. The school may have an entire class C IP address range, actually. I'm not sure. Thanks. 216.11.203.107 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've been getting warnings, it hasn't been at this IP: - 216.11.203.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only contribution is to this board, and the talk page is still a red link. Natalie (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, normally, we don't preemptively block IP addresses, so without more information on the other addresses there is not much we can do at this point. Sorry. — Satori Son 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is 30 active IP ranges for 'Oakland Schools' within 216.11.0.0-255.255. Aproximatly 10,000 edits. depends which school location--Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume the IP poster here is a school administrator of some kind, but did not identify him/herself that way, so it's probably not a good idea to block based on this request. I suggest, if the administration wants to have the range or addresses blocked, they should contact Misplaced Pages through WP:OTRS, so that someone can take responsibility for verifying the request before we act. Mangojuice 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can consenus ever trump Misplaced Pages's policy guides?

I am writing to enquire if WP:CONSENSUS can trump official Misplaced Pages policy? The WikiProject Airports has persistently said that they have gained a consensus for including un-encyclopaedic lists on all articles about an airport, listing destinations. Not only is there no proof of a consensus apart for a couple of members of the project but they breach many policies. The ones I have found so far are Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide, Misplaced Pages is not a directory, Misplaced Pages does not include trivia, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Misplaced Pages articles must be based on reliable sources, Verifiabilty nor can they ever be totally up to date. These are just a few of many policy guidelines which it breaches. Recently I moved the lists from Manchester Airport to sub-articles, one for each terminal, as I felt the list was not directly relevant to the airport and more based on operations, which the airport do not themselves carry out, that is the job of the airlines. Promptly this infuriated a member of the Airports project and the lists we're quickly nominated for AFD. The result of the AFD at first was keep then after a lengthy discussion at deletion review they were grouped as one AFD and the result was delete. If you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination) you will see that the votes for delete all bring up the policies I listed. The members of the airports project have chosen to ignore the fact that the votes were to delete the content as well as the articles themselves and have continued to add them to the Manchester Airport article claiming consensus allows for them. I am not bothered about the lists on any other Airport article as my main concern is Manchester Airport with it being a top importance article at the project I work mostly on. Please can somebody sort out the mess the airport project is causing to the Manchester Airport article with no intention of ever improving it? Also the lists are subject to constant vandalism by IP addresses adding stupid destinations to it which can easily be found to be false. These lists are neither helpful, formatted nor sourced and should not be allowed on Misplaced Pages. Please can an administrator get back to me as it seems the project members will only listen to someone with authority. Thank you. _└┘talk 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's don't have "authority" - we just have tools. Is there some way admin tools should be used in this issue, or is it better handled in dispute resolution? Natalie (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the tools, we are to enforce policies and guidelines as well as determine consensus on a voluntary basis. It is this part of the job description that And-Rew is calling for action. I'm unfamiliar with the case presented, so I've no opinion to offer on that. Keegan 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that And-Rew is asking for admin intervention in a content dispute - "can somebody sort out the mess the airport project is causing the Manchester Airport article". That is the sort of this that is explicitly not the purview of these noticeboards. And-Rew, you may find one of the suggestions listed at dispute resolution helpful. Natalie (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We have tried discussing the issue with the airports project and they are refusing to budge on their opinion and simply tell us there is "consensus" for the content to be included. Can you agree that the lists are an obvious breach of policy just by looking at it? If you agree they are breaches this could be used in debate as they think consensus trumps all policy. _└┘talk 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why dispute resolution is being recommended. When discussions halt, outside help is needed. Leebo /C 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you agree that the lists are an obvious breach of policy just by looking at it? _└┘talk 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent to address the actual issues). First, the question of whether Consensus trumps other policies...Consensus is a policy itself, so it needs to work in conjunction with other policies. By and large, even the other policies have been crafted over time by Consensus, and so reflect the larger consensus of the community as a whole. Because of this fact, usually, the consensus of the whole is seen as a greater weight than the consensus of the smaller groups that can be found within a project. That being said, however, WikiProjects are sometimes afforded a bit of latitude away from the "norm" (such as strict adherence to WP:MOS) in order to deal with unique situations presented by the types of articles that each WikiProject handles. An example: the page layout guide given by MOS is different than that used by WP:AIR, because there was typically additional information that needed to be in aircraft articles that MOS didn't give guidance on; the core aim is for standardization, and because AIR's page guidelines provide for carefully thought-out solutions to the unique problems of standardizing these kinds of articles, this is a place where the lattitude is a net-benefit for the encylopedia. Now, for the Airport issues...I realize that there's been discussion of the issue in conjunction with the AfDs and DRVs, but has the core issue of how to handle such lists been addressed on the Project's talk page? You've said that there's no evidence of a consensus, which tells me that there's also not been a centralized discussion at the project. I would suggest that you start with that, and ask the project members to address how such information meets the policy requirements that you raise. If, as a result of that, you still feel that there are serious policy issues that are resulting in a net-effect of harm to the encyclopedia, I would suggest you refer to the dispute resolution process to work through things. AKRadecki 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

There is a nasty backlog starting to form, I thought I would tell you guys before it got any worse Rgoodermote  17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, at 08:24 UTC, CAT:CSD was empty (save for the perennial "dated deletion categories". Good work, people! Bencherlite 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret evidence

I would like to draw everyone's attention to something Kwsn and I added to WP:BLOCK after a long community discussion about a block based on secret evidence. The change Thanks. - Jehochman 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. And I'll abide by my pledge. Durova 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate.--MONGO (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Confidential Evidence. — Satori Son 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That link to the ANI isn't good, because at some point, that's going to get archived off of the page. The link should be to the archive page, once the discussion is removed. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that discussion is on a permanent sub page, not the main board.- Jehochman 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I missed that it was a slash instead of a pound sign.  :) Corvus cornix (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Individual administrators acting on secret evidence!?!!! Me ............................ Loop. -- Jreferee t/c 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Good call. I tweaked it slightly - I think the problem is not that it's Sooper Seekrit but that Durova felt that she could not expose it to peer review; the community likes to see checks and balances. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Is it new policy to simply re-list old AfDs, as was done twice at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ZEDO (rather than a new nomination marked as "2nd")? --ZimZalaBim 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The first relist was correct, the second wasn't, but I wouldn't sweat it. --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unintended effects of sub-pages on ANI: IMPORTANT suggested modification

Recently, ANI has started to have sub-pages. The excuse is that it shortens ANI. The real danger is that discussion will end in 48 hours because there will be no further comment on the main ANI page (all of it taking place in the subpage).

Eventually, I expect this to be abused. Rather than keeping ANI shorter, it will be a tool to hide debate.

I propose that neutral volunteers with absolutely no contact or editing of the same articles or talk pages with any of the major participants of the discussion make a summary of the dispute under the link to the sub-page and continue to post that an ongoing discussion is occurring. The topic would then only go into the archives after updates are no longer added. Even this safeguard risks loss of discussion and hiding of discussion as most tasks in WP do suffer a backlog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chergles (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't timestamp the subpage notice, the notice will stay there forever (it says this at the top of AN/I). Once a subpage has run its course, the thread on AN/I can be archived manually. east.718 at 20:37, November 20, 2007

Yes, I think not time stamping those sections, and then after a review manually archiving is better. Then also, perhaps another set of eyes will look at the discussion for closure/action/archiving/thoughts for the future. (just a thought). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of change to mediawiki:newarticletext

Improvements to ParserFunctions now allow us to distinguish Commons-only images from images hosted only on enwiki. So I have proposed changing mediawiki:newarticletext to transclude the image or something similar because right now, if a image: link to a Commons-only image appears in any of the logs, it will go to the image edit page which makes it look like the image does not exist at all. Suggestions are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Change the image edit page for Commons image?. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Confidential evidence

Following certain recent events where editors believed by many to be of good conduct were indef blocked on the basis of "secret evidence", a number of editors proposed an addition to WP:BLOCK covering confidential evidence. The section gained a strong positive response.

The issues related to confidential evidence are too large for a subsection, and in any event, they extend outside the narrow limits of blocking policy. So a proposal emerged organically, for a separate policy page covering cases when misconduct may be alleged on the basis of evidence of a confidential, secret, or similar nature.

• Proposed policy: Misplaced Pages:Confidential evidence (provisional title)
• Comments and discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Confidential evidence

FT2 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Need content

Could someone get me the content/code that was at this deleted page, ,please? Copy it to my user-space and leave a note on my talk when done? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 23:05, November 20, 2007

User: 74.36.127.88

This user wants to be banned for some reason. He has admitted to using a sock puppet here (diff). He has repeatly stated that if he is not indefiatnly blocked he will cause havoc until he is. Nn123645 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a Catch-22. However, barring OP, we do not block IP addresses indefinitely because of collateral damage. -Jéské 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef on an IP is a bad idea, yeah. But a quick glance at the contribs makes it look like some block is in order. Nothing but disruptive edits, going back at least a week or so, it looks like. One or two meh edits. Only specifically good edit I saw was in mid September. Looks like it's been the same person, all along. Gogo Dodo has blocked it for two weeks, and that sounds like an okay enough time, for me; we can escalate, from there, if disruption continues. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Since I'm being accused of not being "neutral" and since it's been implied that I have some sort of vendetta against an independent alternative newsweekly publication here in my hometown, I wanted to get outside opinion... This newsweekly owns a wiki type site. On this wiki type site, is an article about the newsweekly, that being the newsweekly that owns the wiki type site. This wiki type site doesn't use sources/references in its articles. The newsweekly is using its own article on its own wiki type site as a source for its own article here on Misplaced Pages. Is this acceptable since its owned by the subject of the wikipedia article and since its a wiki type site in itself that uses no sources? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure there's such a thing as a "Quick Question" on WIkipedia.:). Could you provide difs and the name of the article? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

At least one source independent of the publication must exist. If there are none, the article should be deleted. Quatloo (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would help if we new which article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick answers, in the two parts you asked. Anyone can set up a wiki using MediaWiki. It is free, you can set up a website using it as your software at no cost.

The newspaper can run its site as it sees fit. It is simply using the same software.

Now, if they have copied and pasted the article on itself from Misplaced Pages, they have to source it to here to comply with the GFDL. Anyone may copy and modify any text, as long as they source it.

Hope that helps. Keegan 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the subject linking to itself, that's a valid external link but I don't think I'd consider it a reliable source. Keegan 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears from what is being stated that they're trying to source their Misplaced Pages article with their own wiki, not copy the Misplaced Pages article onto their own wiki. Wikis cannot be used as reliable sources because they're far too mutable, regardless of article. -Jéské 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it Jeske, they are sourcing their Misplaced Pages article with their own wiki. See this edit: where jackpedia.com is used as a source. The article in question is Jackson Free Press and using the wiki they own, Jackpedia.com (a play on the location of Jackson, Mississippi) as source in their WP article. As I said, I've been accused of not being "neutral" and it's been implied that I have some sort of vendetta against Jackson Free Press since the owner of the paper banned me from the paper's online forums several months ago due to a disagreement of opinion over illegal immigration. That's why I brought this issue here before I remove their own wiki as a source in their Misplaced Pages article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance the newspaper being discussed in public can get in here? I believe the only thing Jackpedia is referencing is the circulation information of the paper, which Allstarecho keeps deleting, and the history of the Mississippi Free Press, which is widely available in books and historic volumes (the paper learned about it in a book about the history of the Black press in Mississippi). There is no way to verify circulation/readership numbers online otherwise (does that mean it can't be true???) However, there is a phone number on the Jackpedia page where people can call to have the information verified by a fax of the materials, which my bosses will be happy to fax to Misplaced Pages administrators. Also, we have a very legitimate concern about the neutrality of Allstarecho, as he has indeed been suspended from our site under the User Agreement, not for disagreeing about illegal immigration, but for violating our rules of decorum. We can agree to disagree on our user rules, but is he neutral when it comes to these decisions? We urge everyone to look at his posting history as it pertains to the JFP and our owners. Frankly, we're not mad at him about anything, and don't wish to hurt or expose him in any way. All we are asking for is fairness in his editing. Nothing more. Also, even though he knows staff people at the paper, he has never asked for information about Jackpedia to back up his assertions. This would be easy to do; we have nothing to hide. Newspapers factcheck all the time. Jackpedia is a new local wiki experiment, and our staff did post a lot of content to get it going (including information about past Best of Jackson winners). However, many people from the community have posted to it and continue to, including AllStarEcho who put up a page about him and the organization he runs.

We apologize if we're posting where we don't belong, but we feel as if we are being treated unfairly by someone not telling the whole story here. Please look into this. We're not asking for excessive PR here (and haven't deleted negative posts by Allstarecho and others as you'll see). I guess our big question is: How do we challenge the neutrality of a Wikpedia editor in the name of basic fairness? User talk: jfpwebguy

Again with the "neutral" accusations. I brought it here to the admins, which speaks volumes about my neutrality. The fact is, using your own wiki, that lacks 3rd party sources itself, as a source in your article here on Misplaced Pages seems to be itself un-neutral and in violation of WP:COI. Indeed, I invite everyone to review my editing history. They will find, as someone who lives in the backyard of most articles I watch, that I edit with clear conscience and neutrality. Hell, just today during vandalism patrol, I reverted vandalism to George Bush's article and anyone that knows me personally knows I loathe that man. But I follow Misplaced Pages policies without prejudice. Unfortunately, because of past history months ago with Jackson Free Press, I'm immediately labeled un-neutral and implicated as having a vendetta. I'm not here for those accusations but here for outside opinion by administrators of Misplaced Pages. But thanks for putting all of my personal business out there... -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably to the editor(s) of the paper involved:

The issue is with citing yourself as a reliable source. Just as you would not use any self-reference beyond a direct quote without verification by a reliable source, you would not print it. To the best of our ability we maintain editorial standards equivalent to journalistic ethics. In light of this, I hope you can appreciate the inability to accept you quoting yourself. Simply leave those details out if they cannot be independently verified. As for the user in question, he is acting within our policies and guidelines. His outside participation in your community is outside of our purview. Thank you for your partcipation. Keegan 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keegan, great to talk to you. We can understand not quoting ourselves as a source. Makes sense. But the problem here is that allstarecho continually has deleted references, that we can prove, to our circulation numbers. This is clearly important information that appears on other newspaper Web sites, seemingly without the same scrutiny. (Not everyone is edited by someone who has been suspended from the site for violating the user agreement, we realize, so we must jump over more hurdles as a result.) It was easy enough to add a reference for the Mississippi Free Press being printed Brannon Smith, etc., but he seems to want us to prove that our owners named the paper after the MFP without sourcing the people who named it. So does that mean that can't stay in there?

Frankly, this was pointed out to us by concerned readers, who wanted us to source the page. But with allstarecho challenging our every attempt at accuracy, that is near impossible to do. It would really be nice if he recused due to his intense anger against us in the past. Perhaps you could keep an eye on the JFP site? All we ask for is the same fairness and neutrality that newspapers are provided. No favoritism. Cheers. User talk: jfpwebguy

As stated before, the issue here is with the sources. You need to provide independent, 3rd party sources/references. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am neutral. You don't have any more hurdles to jump over than anyone else as long as the article falls within the guidelines and policy of Misplaced Pages. It is fair to say that people edit articles on Misplaced Pages that they are close to, because of their familiarity with the subject. I don't check Seattle, Washington's newspapers for accuracy because, frankly, I don't live there and am not familiar with them. I am with Jackson Free Press, just as I am with the numerous other "local" articles I edit and watch. Try assuming good faith, another guideline of Misplaced Pages by the way, and realize that just maybe not everyone is out to get you nor does everyone find JFP that important in life to make it a conquest. At least, I don't. As a very active member of WikiProject Mississippi, all things in Mississippi on Misplaced Pages will eventually cross my fingers and JFP is just one of those among thousands. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So we have JFP willing to accept that their edits are not sources or verifiable, and we have Allstarecho willing to continue to work within guidelines. Allstarecho was behaving responsibly in this case, and JFP responded favorably to the problem that we are discussion. Sure, I'll watch out that the JFP article stays neutral, but remember that neutral does not mean favorable in all instances and that Misplaced Pages should not be used to tweak public image by conflict of interest. Leave the references that would otherwise be unsourced out, and Allstarecho please talk out edits on the relevant talk page if you perceive them to be controversial. Problem solved, for now. Keegan 05:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

jfpwebguy, you can avoid the reliable sources problem by publishing the info on JFP's own website. You can avoid the conflict of interest problem by mentioning that info on the article's talk page, for someone else to neutrality-check and add to the article. --bainer (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced info being discussed above is the *readership* number not the circulation number. (It is based how many people are assumed to look at each copy of the newspaper). We can leave it out of the article. In Misplaced Pages we don't seem to make a practice of publishing readership numbers for newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User claiming to have hacked another account

What should be done if a user has claimed to hack a relative's account and then announced the new password on Misplaced Pages? Should the "hacked" account be blocked as a preventative measure (assuming the password was legit and hasn't been changed since then)? Anyone could take over this account if it's true. I am purposely not mentioning the users involved for risk of that happening in the meantime, but they are both relatively new and inexperienced users who claim to be brothers. Leebo /C 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Test the password: if it works, block the accounts (hacker and hacked). If it doesn't work, block the self claimed hacker only, for disruption. Fram (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if testing the password would be appropriate, but I guess there's no other way to know for sure. It didn't work (as presented), so I'll assume the "hacker" was just being disruptive. What would be an appropriate block length in this case, 24 hours? Leebo /C 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Vandalism only account? Indef (my opinion, other people may be less harsh in this regard). IP address? 24 hour? Other? Up to you :-) Fram (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward a warning, considering the fact that the user and his "brother" both seem to be in middle school or younger. Most of their edits are to school articles, but not vandalism. They're not really grasping the gravity of their actions on Misplaced Pages yet. I'm trying to steer them toward contributing constructively, so I'll continue to monitor their edits. Thanks for your input. Leebo /C 16:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Trying to help these editors can't do much harm, and nothing that can't be undone if needed. Fram (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody's using us to store their dirty picture collection

User:Esskater11/Dirty images Somebody's using us as a server for naughty pics, and inviting others to add them --Orange Mike 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of those images have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons more than two years ago in some cases. Image:Aktfoto-2.jpg, Image:Orgasm.jpg, and Image:Keeani Lei 3.jpg are all examples of images that are free and whatnot. The only thing is that Misplaced Pages is not censored, and if someone needs to use such an image in an article in any language. He hasn't uploaded any of those images and he is merely suggesting that if someone finds an image that is not on his page, then they can add it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're all duly licensed... I'm a fierce defender of WP:CENSOR myself, so I won't complain. Somebody had brought the question up on a help page, so I thought this was the venue to bring it to. --Orange Mike 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any disruption to the encyclopedia stemming from this page's existence. It is rather bizarre, using Misplaced Pages to store your porn, but as Ryulong points out, we aren't censored. If desired, a MfD discussion could be filed (under WP:NOT#BLOG, File Storage areas), but otherwise the best course of action is to let it be. Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable use of User-space at all. The point of uploading pictures is to contribute to the encylopedia. This use violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Also, the items on Commons mentioned above are only linked to User pages on en.wikipedia. The point of Commons is to provide storage space for re-use of images in articles, not on user pages. I agree with WP:NOT#CENSOR, but insisting that things like this contribute substantively to article content is a completely different matter from tolerance via WP:NOT#CENSOR. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those images are of clear encyclopedic value. If they are all free images, I see no harm in having them here. Has anybody discussed the images with the user? Jeffpw (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ceyockey. I don't see much need for a page of someone's favorite dirty photographs off the Commons. Awhile back I became dismayed by the proliferation of amateur camera phone cock shots and self-promotional porn pics that were proliferating on the body part articles. In an attempt to "raise the bar" I asked a model friend of mine if I could photograph his body for Misplaced Pages, which gave rise to User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts (several photos have been removed for reasons as they relate to my other work on Misplaced Pages). Something like that contrasts with what seems like a "Wikifilth" blog on a User page (several of my photos are found on that blog). I'm extremely against censorship on Misplaced Pages, but I think User sub pages should have a purpose that advances either a person's work on Misplaced Pages, showcases their work or advances the Project in some way. I have no problem with people making political views or other things known on their User page since I think it aids us in understanding their perspective and edits. But not a gallery of "I like T&A and here's some dirty photos." I also think that some of those photos on that page have no encyclopedic value and should be deleted if they are not being employed on one of the projects. --David Shankbone 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike. As long as all the images are properly licensed (which they actually may not be, some of them have logos for other sites), then I see nothing wrong with it. GlassCobra 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

another one? Eh generaly not a problem athough a fair number of such pics tend to turn out to be copyvios.Geni (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup just deleted one from commons.Geni 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Geni's approach is the best one to take about this: if the images are copyvios, remove them. If this leaves enough open-source pr0n to raise a concern... well, as long as the user's collection is not disruptive, I don't see that it's worth the effort to remove this page from userspace. And seeing how it's simply a collection of image links, without any commentary, I don't find it disruptive -- although I'm underwhelmed at the kinds of "dirty pictures" this fellow has found on commons. (Two girls hugging each other is a "dirty picture"? IMHO, they look silly, not erotic.) He'd be better off subscribing to something like the venerable usenet group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica -- or whatever replaced it nowadays. -- llywrch (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:FT2 has boldly deleted the page in question; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=User:Esskater11/Dirty_images. Basically there's little chance of reaching a consensus on something like this when anyone can be WP:BOLD and impose their will on the community. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

...and I've boldly undeleted it and sent it to MfD, as I believe it might in fact have more than a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. Let's continue the discussion there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As I stated before, some of the photos have clear encyclopedic value (I'm thinking of the antique ones). Jeffpw (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Policy reminders: just reminding people of some policies here, I see some might have been misunderstood
• The policy titles may be misleading for example "Misplaced Pages:not censored" does not mean none of the pages on wikipedia are censored, it only applies to articles and images (re-read the policy if you don't believe me), for the policy on how user pages are censored please see WP:UP#Inappropriate content. Personally I disagree with this policy, however it is policy so we must abide by it, and avoid by any "widespread offense". This means for example user pages must abide by Islam which forbids representation of anything on earth or in heaven. (The Christian and Jewish old testament also forbids this, however due to the evolution of drawing techniques since Moses, it doesn't take into account most modern drawing techniques only carving or sculpting to my knowledge. )According to the policy we should also be aware of the laws of the PROC. When adding content to user pages we must be careful not to land Chinese people in jail for reading it, as it is likely this would cause "offense" to them.
• Also the deletion by User:FT2 was against policy, for a page to be speedy deleted it must meet one of the criteria listed on WP:CSD, however he did not say which one he was applying, and as far as I can see none apply. (note: the "article" category can't be used for user pages). Jackaranga (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Um could someone just go and re delete it? Seriously i was just waiting for it to be deleted anyway, Esskater11
  • Page speedy deleted under WP:CSD#U1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm coming late, but I very strongly feel that deleting this page is very inappropriate and has been so for the only reason that the picture are arguably "pornographic". Suppose one wants to contribute to pornography articles? Recently I made a picture gallery in the Felsic#Picture_gallery article and I intend to the same in mafic. Suppose I'd have a page userpage:victor falk/pictures/stones as a convenient way for overviewing, on what grounds should that page be deleted? Even if I had a bizarre sexual stone fetish? If I was an admin, I'd immediately undelete this page and leave a notice on the user's talk page to the effect that "i've undeleted the page per ; if you really want it deleted just say so." I'd prefer not to have to fill a formal DRV, but continue the discussion here for convenience's sake.--victor falk (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it is not inappropriate to delete in a user's subspace when the user requests it, as is what happened here. --Deskana (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by JzG

I and several others editors collaborated on a guideline proposal entitled Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment.

• User:LessHeard_vanU reverted a rewrite saying "I note the WP:BOLD rewrite of a edit which had existed with consensus since 8 November, am now WP:REVERTing it so it may be WP:DISCUSSed on the talkpage"

• JzG responds: Supposed consensus version was entiurely written by sockpuppets, including one banned user. How about letting some people who actually give a shit about the encyclopaedia have a go?

This edit summary is commenting on the contributors, not on the content, violating NPA. It false imply the guideline was written entirely by sockpuppets. It talks implies the guideline was written by people who "don't give a shit about the encyclopedia". As people are probably well aware, I have complained about these sorts of personal attacks in countless other venues.

Until NPA starts being enforced, I suspect there will never be any peace around here on this issue-- just continual edit wars. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards