Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 29 November 2008

• 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)

Appeal of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Ease of editing section break

This is also posted to the Arbcom page. However, this case was handled so badly by the arbcom, that I would like a parallel community re-evaluation. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

• Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Misplaced Pages to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)

• No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

• At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

• "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

• "You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 . Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

I will gladly provide more evidence on request, however, I believe that this thread is already quite long.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I was not involved in or even aware of the "Matthew Hoffman" case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this appeal (the lengthy and somewhat confusing submission above does not help). However, as a procedural matter, I strongly suggest that this thread be archived without action. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday has also submitted the matter to WP:RFAR, which is where it should now be considered, not here. Moreover, WP:AP provides that "remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales." Shoemaker's Holiday has not shown that he has exhausted this venue of appeal before coming here. Finally, there is currently no policy providing for an appeal of Arbitration Committee decisions to the community. This means that any discussion here would probably only lead to fruitless drama. Nonetheless, I wish Shoemaker's Holiday all the best with respect to any personal problems the arbitration may have caused or aggravated. Sometimes, it's best to just let things go. This is only a website, after all.  Sandstein  05:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SH has a right to ask the community's input IMHO, I've not read the details but note that a recent RfC made by Charles Matthews is meeting with a very different fate.:) Sticky Parkin 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Sticky Parkin. The issue here is oversight - who polices ArbCom wehn ArbCom screws up? The ultimate oversight is the community as a whole, and AN provides a location for editors, especially admins who as a rule have been around longer and have demonstrated commitment to the project, a venue for discussing anything of concern. Clearly this is an example of something of concern to us. This is a website afte all - a website that functions only because of the voluntary labor of its editors, and we always need good editors. In fact, there are many essays on the problem of losing good editors. Shoemaker is or at least a valued editor and a good example of the kind of editor we should fight to keep and not hang out to dry, in my opinion. Am I wrong? Let us administrators review the facts and weigh in with ideas and opinions and suggestions. It is nice to think ArbCom has second chances to reverse its own mistakes, but when a real travesty of justice is possible, the community ought to examine the case and weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this looks to me like venue shopping. It is as good as stated above that the main reason for asking for "community" input is that ArbCom won't change their minds. Anyway, what are we being asked to decide? Even if the block of MatthewHoffman was 100% solid there were other FoF points as well. Sure, people have got away with worse, including me, probably, but this seems to be a simple case of an appeal based on not liking the outcome rather than any policy grounds. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reformatted to a transclusion of Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman in the interests of preventing forest fires.--Tznkai (talk)

Stubs

Basically, I attempted to deal with this group a couple of weeks ago. The whole lot of stub sorting project pages don't mesh well with Misplaced Pages. The stub sorting project has essentially created their own walled garden where they decide what should and should not be used to categorize short articles. I made a stub category, and the day after I made it (last year) it was put up for deletion because I hadn't proposed it. Last month, when I was going through articles and making new ones that fit into that category, I found it was deleted without any sort of notification made towards me. I'm fairly positive that there are only a handful of administrators out of the ~1000 we have who are active are involved with the stub deletion process.

Either this group needs to be reformed or this group needs to be dissolved. I would like to bring that up for discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always found the stub sorting people work hard and do a good job. Editors are encouraged to be bold in creating articles, but I don't see that mandate extending to boldly creating stub types. There is a sound argument for keeping the stub sorting coarse enough that each "type" of stub can be expected to be somewhat populated. SO I don't see the stub sorting project as a problem. Frankly, I'm glad there are some people who want to handle that sort of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is always good to have folks who don't mind handling such things, the Stub project has set up its own little fiefdom when it comes to anything stub-related, where their word is final. Last I checked, this isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the decision making at the stub sorting process as any different than UCFD, for example, and both have a long enough history that their decisions are somewhat authoritative. Sometimes a little process is beneficial, and this is one of those times.

It appears to me that Ryulong is complaining because he didn't follow the well-established process for creating a new stub type and then his new type got deleted. I think his new categories did fail to meet the accepted guidelines for new stub types, and if that's right then their deletion is hardly a surprise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to be bold in whatever they do on Misplaced Pages. That applies just as much to creating new categories for stubs as to fixing spelling mistakes, creating new articles, proposing new policy or anything else on Misplaced Pages. Wikiprojects are supposed to concentrate attention on their topics, not to act as final arbiters over them. However when they've set up a sensible process and standards, ignoring those standards may be an overly bold decision. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don' view the stub sorting people on the same terms as a random wikiproject. They are much more like WP:UCFD: an out-of-the-way group that helps keep the wiki organized. And it is not true that editors are meant to be bold in everything they do. The last thing I want to see is the collection of Category:Mathematics stub templates expanded from 17 to 68 because some editor decides that each one needs to be split into 4 new ones. The stub sorting people take care of that sort of thing, and I appreciate their work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what administrator action is requested here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This board is for discussions which admins may be interested in. Admin actions are usually requested at ANI. —kurykh 23:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even really understand why we need such elaborate stub categories, other than for the sake of giving people stub work to do. No one, as far as I've ever seen, actually uses the stub categories for anything other than stub sorting. No one is going through improving all stub articles on 1950s basketball players, or even using the stub categories to identify such articles - except for the purpose of doing further stub sorting. Once you get beyond maybe 100 generic stub categories "Sports stubs", "Science stubs", etc. I just don't see how they accomplish anything except giving people busy work to do. Which isn't a very good purpose at all. --Rividian (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not list the deleted categories at WP:DRV? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With categories like Category:Stub-Class rail transport articles, do we need stub categories at all? It seems like an outdated system that's been superseded by assessment templates and categories. --NE2 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They do seem redundant to the WP:1.0 classification system. (Wait, did I really just agree with NE2 on something?! ) —Scott5114↗ 09:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are long standing guidelines for stubs (they must reasonably apply to around 60 articles); Ryulong created a stub that didn't meet the guidelines so it got deleted, nothing amiss in that. He should have been warned true, but sometimes mistakes are made. It is no more of a "fiefdom" than WP:N and WP:AFD. Icewedge (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

obscure processes like these create a burden on users & the decisions can affect many other people; the burden is partly ameliorated if notice is given. For a project like this is omit doing so is not a trivial error, and calls for reopening the discussion without the fuss of a DRV. I'd say about two or three orders of magnitude more people see and contribute to AfD than stub sorting If they are going to conduct their affairs this casually, perhaps that process should be combined with something more visible, such as MdD. DGG (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've long stayed away from stub sorting, having found that the process-wonkery, line-the-blocks-up-neatly mentality that I really can't work to has eaten that project alive. Complaints shower down on editors who dare move a block out of its row - creating a stub template with one less article than they've decided a stub template requires (result: deleted with insults), creating a stub template that fits the naming conventions of your Wikiproject but not theirs (result: renamed with insults), tagging an article with a faintly "wrong" stub template (result:changed with insults)... not one single good experience of dealing with the stubs project in years of editing here.

So I agree: stubs are redundant to other methods, tell us nothing that a category can't anyway, aren't useful for editors other than a flag to say "I'm only small, don't delete me!" (better to change that attitude than to have a giant all-consuming shrubbery to prevent it), and waste editorial time on finding the correct one, applying it, having it changed, having it deleted, recreating it, jumping through hoops to "propose" a new one (er, wiki, anyone?) etc etc. Time to abolish stubs and stub-sorting and let the project members find a different place to put blocks in neat rows. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There actually are a lot of place-block-in-neat-row jobs that are useful... like uncategorized pages, orphan pages, etc. It's always seemed ironic that that the one maintenence area with little backlog is stubs, which are decor at best. If there's ever a serious effort to formally declare stub sorting redundant to the newer processes, hopefully someone will let me know. --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Has this project been superseded by assessments? --NE2 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

People who owe their edit count and reputation to stub sorting are going to oppose this by reflex... you're probably going to want to get input from people outside the stub sorting scene. --Rividian (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

About the issue of the process of proposing stubs, I would like to point out that in the MfD there were some users who voted keep while either taking no position on the necessity of this process or opposing it. Alai, Ruslik, Gavia immer, Terraxos and I (Od Mishehu) all made such statements, and in the closing statement explicitly mentions that the MfD was the wrong way to go. This noticeboard isn't the place either - we don't decide on policy here. I would say that WP:VPR is probably the best place, although a request for comment may also be. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the justifications for the stub sorting project are that people will hopefully catch other problems at the same time and b/its a suitable activity for beginners. DGG (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When I used to tag for WP:USRD I would fix or at least template obvious problems.--NE2 01:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban request for User:PierreLarcin

I would like to request that the community make a decision on the actions of PierreLarcin (talk · contribs) and his marching band of IPs, which have been disrupting Rotary International and related articles for more than two years on a regular basis.

This report provides an overview of why I am requesting this community ban. The executive summary is that Pierre is a long-time tendentious editor who has disrupted Rotary and attacked editors not sharing his viewpoint (read: everyone else) through two accounts and a whole range of IPs. Specifics are available in the report. Recently, he has begun to stalk editors' contributions - not to a large scale, yet, but it appears he's decided to use that as his latest approach when the Rotary article and talk pages are protected. We would not be setting a precedent with this decision; he has been indefinitely blocked on the French Misplaced Pages.

If the community accedes to this request for a ban, I will block the accounts here as an administrative move (they already appear to have been abandoned) then seek out checkuser assistance to determine whether a range block can be applied to shut down the IP flood. Failing that, I will use the strength of that ban as the basis for an abuse report with the ISP. I appreciate any input. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support such a ban. I remember Pierre Larcin insisting on some text in the article explaining how links work, and that was years ago. A glance through the talk page shows to my satisfaction that the community's patience for this guy has been depleted. —Scott5114↗ 09:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - looking at the history, I'm amazed this has been allowed to go on for so long! --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - a ban should streamline future efforts to reduce & prevent disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support after reading the report. Clearly not here to contribute productively.  Sandstein  17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This should be used to file a WP:RFCU immediately. If you think he is using those IP's in violation of WP:SOCK, then filing it under code G will work. The checkuser should be able to see if he has made any other sleeper socks at those IP's. This will be more effective then banning him, waiting for him to evade the ban, then filing a RFCU with a code F. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My intention here is to ensure that there's an iron-clad consensus behind any further actions that I take. The problem here is that it's obviously at least a somewhat dynamic IP, though there are multiple uses of several of them over time; I suspect there won't be any sleepers, as he's abandoned his named accounts; a checkuser would be an attempt to pin down any specific ranges he works from, and see if a rangeblock will shut him down. Plus, a ban will be an unequivocal statement that his advocacy is not needed or wanted. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• May I consider this an expression of consensus? I'd appreciate if another admin would confirm this and close this section so I can get onto the next section; Pierre hit one of my contribs again tonight, it's time this was stopped. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll confirm it. Ban. dougweller (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You can count me as supporting this as well. Lankiveil 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

• Exactly the kind of missionary we can do without. No judgement on him as a person, an activist, or the merit of his campaign, just not here, thanks. So yes, ban for inappropriate advocacy. Tony is on the money, and is being nicer than he needs to be. I have blocked Pierre Larcin and ancourage anyone to review that block and the comment I left on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Guy, I appreciate that. Unfortunately, as he's abandoned those accounts some time ago and is editing specifically through the IPs (another one today), blocking the named accounts will be more symbolic than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but block / ban evasion is a bright-line rule for checkuser purposes. If you want me to block any of the IPs, drop me a note or send email. This one needs to get, and stay, gone. Some of that crap can probaby be oversighted. I'm amazed you've put up with it this long, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Niggerati talk page

I am attempting to start a talk page for the above article in order to explain my rationale for adding a notability tag with the aim of nominating it for deletion as unencyclopaedic. However, I am unable to do, receiving a message informing me that it is impossible due to vandalism concerns and to raise the matter here.FrFintonStack (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) N.b. Have attempted to follow articles for deletion proceedure, but have received the same message when following the 'pre-loaded debate' linkFrFintonStack (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Have done it for you; please replace my placeholder rationale here with your own. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help.FrFintonStack (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's kept, I would propose an IAR-based eternal full-protect. Can you frickin' IMAGINE the level of vandalism such an article would attract? It would be its own personal Misplaced Pages Hellmouth.GJC 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The article has survived for over three years with no vandalism at all. There's no justification for protection, especially given that the only editors who have so far actually contributed content to the article, rather than just juggling categories, hyperlinks, and tags, have been editors without accounts. Why protect an article against being expanded by the very people who are actually writing it? This article is yet another reminder that quite a lot of Misplaced Pages has been written by people who do not have accounts. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
        • So then what was all that "unable to start talk page due to vandalism concerns" stuff that FrFintonStack ran into? If there's been no vandalism, why would such a measure be needed? And if it wasn't needed, who did it and why? GJC 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Nobody did anything, according to the logs. Neither the article nor its talk page have ever been protected. So your questions, being based upon a false premise, are unanswerable. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD A9

Why isnt CSD A9 including non-notable movies and computer games too? I think it schould be included. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and change it and see if it flies. Or do it the more boring way and propose it at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that i can just go in and change the template? The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can, and someone can revert it back, which is probably what will happen within minutes. Discussing it at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion would be a more prudent method.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. Worse that can happen? Someone reverts you. Not a black mark (you're not vandalising), just a revert. And then you'll need to discuss it. But if no-one reverts, then it has consensus. Mad, but that's how we do it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

and indeed, it will happen, because I will immediately revert you. Very poor advice indeed to add criteria for speedy without prior discussion. And considering earlier discussions there, it is rather unlikely to gain consensus. The point of A9 for albums s that we had the notability of the artist to use as basis. This is not true for games, and much more diffuse for movies. DGG (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's increasingly common around here to bash editors who want to help by promising to blind revert them for being bold. Being bold in editing is one of our central tenets and you, DGG, should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces: "Be bold" generally does not apply to policy pages—WP:CSD is marked with {{policy}}. 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be simpler to change A7 to include all products. But the more urgent change would be as per Uncle G's proposal, unsourced BLPs. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But why would we do that? It is not like there is a problem, is there? We surely don't have completely unsourced (and tagged as such!) pages on living persons stating for almost four years that they were nazi concentration camp guards? Oh well, luckily we can apply G10 in such cases... Fram (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"CSD A9" doesn't say anything about "notability" except that it's not dependent on notability. This is a common mistake. --NE2 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

Krimpet has recently blocked Kristen Eriksen without offering any evidence to justify her action, or even so much as posting a block notice explaining why the action was taken. When queried about her action, Krimpet offered only the unsubstantiated accusation that Kristen Eriksen is a "sockpuppet of a serial cross-wiki vandal." However, Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Confidential_evidence expressly forbids blocks on the basis of secret evidence, as occured in the User:!! debaucle. In performing the block, Krimpet also enabled the "e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" options, preventing Kristen Eriksen from appealing the block, without any evidence of talk page or e-mail abuse. While some concerns were previously raised relating to Kristen Eriksen's familiarity with Misplaced Pages in comparison to the age of her account, Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets provides that

While precocious editing skills may give the appearance of sock puppetry, the Arbitration committee has ruled that evidence that a user is familiar with Misplaced Pages editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet. Such users might be visitors from a non-English Misplaced Pages. They may be familiar with our software, though they have not contributed here before.

There appears to be no other potential justification for the block, apart from a Misplaced Pages Review thread containing nasty and irrelevant personal attacks against Kristen Eriksen, to which Krimpet posted shortly after effectuating the block. If "IRC blocks" are bad, then this sort of "Misplaced Pages Review block" is even worse. John254 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

John, have you seen this post--Alison's done a checkuser on the account in question.--Maxim_(talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The post appears to refer to the account "Krimpets Tasty Cake", not Kristen Eriksen. Since don't normally conduct Misplaced Pages's administrative business on the basis of ambiguous Misplaced Pages Review posts, it would be helpful to have on-wiki clarification of what accounts Alison checkusered, and what results she found. I will contact her shortly. John254 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No secret evidence - there is only evidence which you neglected to enquire about before starting a thread on WP:AN attacking the behaviour of another admin. Get your priorities straight John. Viridae 00:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Krimpets Tasty Cake" is a phenomenally-obvious trolling account and Krimpet is right when she says it's a cross-wiki vandal. However, it's Johnny the Vandal (JtV/TIV/etc) and I'm not sure where Kristen Eriksen comes into it. He's probably finding this highly amusing right now, no doubt - Alison 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, priorities. Like deciding to leave a rude comment about someones lack of knowledge instead of enlightening them with it. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) (EC - this is in response to Viridae)

You imply that I have the evidence (apart of course from the insanely obvious injecting oneself into the most contentious areas of WP both behind the scenes and in the article space, all in one hit.) JOhn you have been sucked in by a female name and a pretty picture. Viridae 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you made the implication when you said No secret evidence - there is only evidence which you neglected to enquire about. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No that differentiated between secret (refuse to disclose) and secret (No one has told me yet). Viridae 06:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did inquire as to what the evidence for this block was, before making a report here. Unfortunately, Krimpet refused to provide any evidence whatsoever to support her actions, beyond bare accusations and non-responsive comments . I didn't ask Alison about the checkuser results before making a report here because her post didn't appear to contain checkuser results for Kristen Eriksen -- it was only later that it was so construed. John254 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Which is the main account? If this is a sock account, it should be tagged. If somebody wants to email me the evidence I will be glad to look it over and give an opinion on whether the block is valid. Jehochman 01:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that there isn't actually any checkuser evidence against Kristen Eriksen, and apparently no other evidence against her, I would ask that her account be unblocked. The fact is that we need more users who have an excellent understanding of biology and are interested in preventing the promotion of fringe theories . John254 01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be sorted out ASAP, for the sake of the accounts blocked here. Ok, Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Krimpets Tasty Cake (talk · contribs). The latter account belongs to a well-known prolific vandal. I recommend unblocking Kristen Eriksen - Alison 01:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I poked Krimpet via IRC, she did not object to me unblocking, so I've gone ahead and do so per her and your advice.--Maxim_(talk) 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hang on Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs) = Crimp It! (talk · contribs). Admins, look at Crimp It!'s deleted user page. Jehochman 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Eriksen previously explained this issue at User_talk:Kristen_Eriksen#Comment_by_Krimpet. John254 01:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a checkuser address this explanation, specifically, is the following statement credible: "That's probably my crazy ex-boyfriend Chad, who also attends my university." Jehochman 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, given that she exclusively uses shared IPs and her BF could well be part of that institution. However, the account is now  Stale - Alison 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible but highly unlikely... Do you need anymore evidence that KE is a troll? Viridae 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... an account that was indefinitely blocked three months ago and a stale checkuser result -- that's really good evidence. Why wasn't this dealt with three months ago, when a checkuser inquiry could have provided more useful information? Now, which is the more parsimonious explanation for these events?

(1) That Kristen Eriksen's ex-boyfriend, who likely has a serious grievance against her, spent a few minutes to create the Crimp It! (talk · contribs) account and use it to nominate her userpage and an article she had written for deletion, all from the comfort of his own dorm. Or,

(2)(a) That someone created the Kristen Eriksen account, and used it to make extensive and genuinely valuable contributions, for the sole purpose of ridiculing Krimpet over the speedy deletion of a few userboxes, most of which were retained in the subsequent MFD discussion, by deliberately giving the Crimp It! (talk · contribs) account an IP address sufficiently close to Kristen Eriksen as to draw attention to Crimp It! (talk · contribs)'s activities through an extensive multi-checkuser investigation culminating in an accusation of abusive sockpuppetry, when most users might expect an obvious troll account such as Crimp It! (talk · contribs) to simply be reverted, blocked, and ignored. (This was essentially the accusation made against Kristen Eriksen three months ago) And,

(b) Someone continued to edit with the Kristen Eriksen account, for the purpose of further ridiculing Krimpet by convincing her to block Kristen Eriksen on the basis of checkuser evidence which wouldn't actually exist, because she would misinterpret Alison's post on Misplaced Pages Review.

Wow. Not only does this Kristen Eriksen hold a serious grudge over a minor incident, she's also an evil genius, and practically psychic! Or, perhaps we might want to give Kristen Eriksen a slight assumption of good faith, instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories and vilifying a user to such an extent that we're willing to block her over imaginary checkuser evidence. I might even venture to suggest that we simply ignore the fulminations against Kristen Eriksen on Misplaced Pages Review, just as we ignore their bizarre conspiracy theories concerning SlimVirgin, and similar nonsense. John254 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping an eye on User:Kristen Eriksen. If she edits well, no action needs to be taken. If she engages in drama mongering or provocation, the past incident may be relevant. I am marking this thread resolved because I do not see any possibility of further administrative action at this time. Jehochman 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, doesn't anyone remember this three month old conversation anymore? Three months to the day... GRBerry 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In that discussion, it was determined that Kristen Eriksen should not be blocked immediately, but should be asked to provide an explanation of the events. When she provided a satisfactory explanation, the issue was closed. There's little new information here, since Kristen Eriksen was recently blocked on the basis of non-existent checkuser results. John254 15:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Hello,

Firstly I would like to apologise to everyone for my funny spell! And I would like to assure you all that I am back on my medication. I have been banned from editing and I am also on a 5 year Wikibreak so i am unable to log on to challenge my ban. I would like to appeal against my ban as I was not mentally stable at the time of the ban. Also a quick check through my history/details will show an impeccable account up untill the ban. Thanks. So firstly I would like an admin to remove the Wikibreak from my monobook.js and secondly I would like to challenge my ban. Thanks. user:Ponty Pirate 89.243.19.99 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what preceded the block: ? If you want to remove the wikibreak, you can simply disable Javascript, log into the account, and blank the page. Without confirmation I'd rather not personally, though someone else may step in. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Cant edit my monbook.js as I am banned from editing. 89.243.19.99 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For more info, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here. This trolling has honestly got to stop. --Flewis 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Those appear to be all within a span of a few days; if his story is true, he should probably be unblocked, since a quick look at his earlier contributions don't show anything bad. If that doesn't work, Ponty, there's always Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name --NE2 06:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm notifying the blocking admin. L'Aquatique 07:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(Blocking admin here) The block was for abusing multiple IP addresses -- one literally every few minutes. I ended up having to protect AN for a brief duration (16:15, 21 November 2008-19:15, 22 November 2008) to stop the deluge of frivolous requests. We don't delete talk pages, and bugging the hell out of everyone at AN and elsewhere with varying IP addresses is annoying and a waste of our resources. We conducted a courtesy blank, but that was layered with {{adminhelp}} and CSD tags. Abuse your talk page and it will be locked, which was done by another administrator. Here is a short list of his IP addresses:

78.150.57.14 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.150.17.75 (talk · contribs · block log), 89.240.115.33 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.150.29.130 (talk · contribs · block log), 89.240.119.134 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.145.90.190 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.145.174.100 (talk · contribs · block log) seicer | talk | contribs 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Messages such as this, this, this, this, this,

And he really doesn't get the fact that we don't delete user talk pages. And here, here and even here.

Frivolous admin report (I'm not Saucer, and I didn't protect his user talk page after he was abusing various processes). And you don't abuse your talk page over and over with this, this and this.

Oh, and this is a gem: "All morning nice got me nowhere you COCKHEAD. GO FUCK YOUSELF YOU FAGGOT.". At one point, he admitted to joking about suicide.

Far too many strikes for me to even consider unblocking Pointy Pirate. seicer | talk | contribs 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked his monobook but only as a courtesy. This way, we can check if it is Ponty Pirate, and then decline the unblock with confidence that it is him. Woody (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, like I said I was ill and now I am OK. Apart from the above I haven't done anything bad since I joined Misplaced Pages. Anyway. Isn't it better to unblock me and monitor me rather than force me to start fresh with a new account where I cannot be monitored? I'm coming clean here its up to you. Cannot edit Ponty pIrate talk pages after loggin in so Cannot prove its me. 78.150.54.4 (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think enough of us have said "no", especially considering recent invicility and threats. Take this "no" as a "no". --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with asking me if I am Bipolar? ] 78.145.53.208 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFC

In an attempt to gain wider community input on an issue which has been in dispute for at least the last three months (and the issue itself been debated for the past two years apparently) I asked that the Date Linking RFC be included in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. That request was denied because there are two RFCs being conducted at the same time and the administrator who denied the request feared confusion would cause the RFCs to fail. He suggested merging the RFCs together, but the situation at WT:MOSNUM is such that I believe that would be impossible. Please read the following exchange from that administrators talk page:

Here's the breakdown of events over the past week:

• Over a week ago Masem (talk · contribs) suggested creating an RFC as a way forward in the dispute at WT:MOSNUM.
• During that discussion, Masem created an initial draft of the RFC at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC.
• That draft RFC was worked on/edited by numerous participants in the dispute.
• Tony1 (talk · contribs), for reasons only Tony knows, decided to create his own RFC comprised entirely of questions worded by him practically on the eve we had planned to take the other RFC live.
• During the beginning of that RFC we attempted to add some background information about the discussion so far and it was aggressively removed by Tony and his supporters.

For these reasons it's highly unlikely "merging" the RFC would be possible as Tony and his supports seem to believe this is some kind of holy war. An uninvolved admin, Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was alerted to the issue of the spontaneous Tony RFC twice attempted to blank it but was quickly reverted by Tony's supporters. As delisting and closing the other RFC isn't possible, and merging them isn't possible, do you have any suggestions on a way forward so we can get input from the larger community? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could be more helpful, but I'm not really sure how to take care of the situation, either. You may be right that in the end the only thing to do is to go through this farce of having two duplicatory RFC's. Something else needs to be tried first, though. I would ask you to post this issue on WP:AN for more input, since I'm afraid I don't have any brilliant ideas on how to do this. The thing that concerns me is that, if the two RFC's come up with conflicting results, we haven't achieved anything. Even if the RFC's will come out with exactly the same result, it's stupid to ask editors to vote twice on two separate RFCs. I am interested to find out what more senior administrators think on this matter, though, so bringing it up on WP:AN is probably the best idea.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for input on this to try and salvage this situation (preferably in such a way that we can still use Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC as a discussion area for the wider community and not just regulars of MOSNUM or MOS). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'first RfC' (by Tony1) is now listed in {{Cent}}. Locke only listed the 'second' for reasons he may care to explain. I have amended the template so that now, the fact that there are two RfCs is made equally clear within the template, and on WT:MOSNUM. The real reason there are two separate RfCs (which has been explained ad nauseum by Tony and me in WT:MOSNUM) is that the one 'in the pipeline' was being bogged down with 'the committee' not being able to prioritise, and hesitating to ask questions in a simple and unambiguous way. The 'second' contains two, maybe three questions are sufficiently unambiguous (or are being rendered unambiguous by the overwhelming responses attracted). However, when the 'second' RfC is ready to close, it will still require a considerable amount of parsing of the finer points which contains a whole spectrum of points and 'wish-lists' to find out exactly what the Consensus is.

The situation was just beginning to calm down, and I feel the above request could certainly have been made without quoting the exchange, which I feel is rather inflammatory: it contains partisan remarks and Cole's usual insinuation of lack of good faith on the part of Tony, as well as apparent justification of blanking or attempted curtailment of an ongoing RfC which Cole's side may have perceived to be a threat. The two RfCs appear to be gathering steam, and I believe the only thing we require further is good amount of publicity. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm searching high and low and can only find one such RfC (the one I've participated in). I'm having an attack of the stupids - can someone post the link for the other one, please? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's at WT:MOSNUM, at the top of the page currently. The one you linked is transcluded into the page as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LC asked, "Has the whole world gone mad?" at WT:MOSNUM. It's the same question asked by wrong-way drivers staring at a long string of headlights fast approaching them on a superhighway – and a nice example of famous last words. What, no gloating allowed? OK, then remove my comment :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Response by Tony1:

• User Cole has taken a hostile attitude, intensifying over the past month or so, towards the community's decisions at MOSNUM talk against date autoformatting (August 2008), and more generally towards the much older position against the free linking of chronological items (see also WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK); all three are parts of the Manual of Style.
• I first want to extend the hand of wikifriendship to Cole, since nothing is served by the highly emotive environment that has developed at MOSNUM talk. I dearly wish the anger he clearly feels towards me and several other people could be redirected into more productive areas.
• I'd be much more comfortable with a neutral account above. For example, the assertion above "Tony1 (talk · contribs), for reasons only Tony knows, decided to create his own RFC comprised entirely of questions worded by him practically on the eve we had planned to take the other RFC live." could have been expressed as "Tony1 launched an RfC to seek formal input on the dates and links debate practically on the eve we had planned to launch ours, into which much work had gone over an extended period. We felt undermined by this and were upset that there was no warning; we felt that his framing of the changes in the negative, i.e., in terms that we knew he disagreed with, was ingenuous."
  • I would have replied that I had already expressed serious misgivings about the RfC draft that appeared to be taking a long time to develop and had significant problems in wording and structure. I used a "negative" frame because I believe that it is the simplest and most straightforward way of presenting an RfC: in terms of proposals to change existing text in a styleguide. User Masem took me to task shortly after I launched what I considered to be a much more practical, simple RfC that proposed three straightforward changes to MOSNUM; he partially agreed with my concerns about his draft (see MOSNUM talk "Meta-discussion"). I had no idea that the other RfC was within sight of being launched, and had lost interest in following the related discussion because I felt it would achieve nothing. I suspect that had I not taken action, its development would have dragged on for some time, and it would have been much vaguer than it has turned out to be (this vagueness was one of my key criticisms to Masem after I launched mine). I don't mind extremely negative commentary on the RfC itself, but not where it makes wholesale changes to the text and falsifies the process.
  • The second (more detailed) RfC is yielding interesting results. I don't disagree with some of its design, and find serious problems only with the first question (absolutely redundant given mine) and the last question (some people, including me, don't know what it means, but no response on that yet—see the bottom).
• Back to the account above: "During the beginning of that RFC we attempted to add some background information about the discussion so far and it was aggressively removed by Tony and his supporters." No, it was after dozens of responses had been registered for each of the three issues on the basis of the existing text. There have been:
  • (1) sudden additions to the opening text in an attempt to undermine it,
  • (2) several insertions of negative commentary just beneath the original lead, and later above it (in which half of the original lead was split in half and the first sentence rendered hanging at the top as an introduction to a series of objections to the RfC, the rest of my lead in place as originally,
  • (3) the deletion of the whole RfC, and
  • (4) prompt reversions of attempts by me and several other editors to restore the original text and structure that had been the basis for some 80 responses. These reversions were in spite of attempts to explain that those responses had, in effect, been falsified by the changes. The fact that some of what was virtually vandalism of the RfC was conducted by administrators was very disappointing.
• I have pleaded with Cole to avoid personalising the issue and to stop vandalising the upper RfC, to little avail.
• During this period I was unable to visit WP except on fleeting occasions due to extremely heavy work commitments in RL. I'm grateful for the active support of other editors, who have done most of the work in preserving the original RfC.
• I'm not much interested in expending more effort on this ANI section, and hope that Cole does not feel he needs to respond in inflammatory, personalised terms.
• Some two hours ago, in consultation with Ckatz, the one-sided notification at Template:cent has been changed to refer to both, I have inserted an "arrow" to the second RfC after the lead of mine, and there is a note at the top of the ToC announcing both. I don't understand what the problem is. Tony (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with it (and the reason I declined to add both RFCs to the watchlist notices), is that there are now two competing RFCs. Originally I supported the request to post this on the watchlist, because this issue keeps dragging on and on, needing to be settled. However, with two competing RFCs, I don't see what's going to get settled by this. It's like if you had two competing elections for a national president/prime minister. If the results are different, how do you reconcile that? Both sides would claim to be the winner, and you'd have to have another election (and/or revolution) to achieve consistency. So, here's my recommendation: scrap both RFC's for now, and try to at least come to terms with each other enough to determine what questions to ask the community. (Disclosure: I participated in the original discussion that recommended deprecating autoformatting. I was, and still am, in favor of that deprecation.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Valid points, but fortunately, it looks like both are heading to similar conclusions. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand why they're being framed as "competing". Tony (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I propose that we focus on what to do with the watchlist notice instead of producing useless user conduct drama, which I don't care for. By now, both RfCs are ongoing and cannot be usefully merged. But they seem set to reach approximately the same result, so that's not too much of a problem. Why not include a watchlist notice in the vein of: "A discussion about the linking of dates in articles is ongoing. Your input is appreciated." and leave it at that?  Sandstein  14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If the RFCs really are going to reach the same result, then it appears my fears are unfounded, and I have no objection to the watchlist notification. I was just afraid it was going to be a big inconclusive mess.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Typically, RFCs last for 30 days in the exception that it is snowballing. In the event of that, would one or two weeks be appropriate for the RFCs to run concurrently? seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if we're just going to let them run as is, I'd prefer that they both run until conclusion. That way, nobody can come back claiming that they lack validity because they were cut short.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if the RFCs are allowed to continue (note the proposal below suggesting a six month moratorium, which I support) then they should run for a full month (and I would prefer it be a full month from the time they're added to the watchlist notice). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to predict how long they should run for. Best to revisit in a week or two. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

This is a dispute by two camps. Tony et al. (which I happen to be part of) don’t want date linking or autoformatting. Apparently now, 90+% of editors are in this camp too. The other camp has a differing point of view and dominated the discussions when formulating their RfC. As often happens with work product of a committee that must meet divergent views—the wording of proposals gets watered down. Tony clearly didn’t like what was being considered. I took a hands-off approach during that committee effort. Once they finally posted it to MOSNUM, I could see why Tony didn’t like it. So…

Tony, as correctly stated above, posted a very succinct RfC that cut to the chase: three binary questions that asked the user community “Which wording do you want on MOSNUM(?): {this} wording or {that} wording. As you can also see, the community response to that RfC has been enthusiastic and overwhelmingly in favor of getting rid of autoformatting. And notwithstanding all the theatrics and fainting of the complaintants, Tony didn’t pull a “Boston tea party” and throw their tea in the harbor; he built his own ship and stocked it with his own tea. That his ship has its decks crowded with visitors speaks volumes to the virtues of its simplicity.

The behavior of the anti-Tony crowd has been simply atrocious. One editor green-div’d the section (declaring it an archive) after only 14 hours of voting. Tznkai then Two admins (Ckatz and Tznkai) collaborated to deleted the entire RfC and all its votes! I fully intend to come back here and see to it that Ckatz, who Tznkai up to the “dirty work” (or both) is blocked and has his admin-privileges revoked. Their behavior there has been absolutely outrageous. It doesn’t matter how unwise he thinks the wording of Tony’s RfC is, his deletion had the effect of throwing away the votes and opinions of dozens of editors.

The behavior of Locke Cole has also been outrageous, and his coming here to complain doesn’t surprise me in the least. He was extraordinarily tendentious and disruptive by inserting debate and {I dispute this, the voting is invalid} comments into the RfC’s hat statement, as well as other stunts like archiving it after only 14 hours of voting. My response to all these provocations has been one simple message: “The proper response to bad speech is better speech. It doesn’t matter if you think Tony’s RfC is incomplete or flawed; scores of editors have voted on it and continue to do so. Stop molesting it, deleting it, archiving it after 14 hours, suggesting that everyone is now a disenfranchised voter and their votes are meaningless and new voters are wasting their votes because the RfC is invalid, and otherwise acting like children, and just go start your own RfC; if it’s fairly worded, the outcome will be the same anyway.”

What is very important is that we get this issue of date linking/autoformatting settled once and for all. It has raged for months, if not years. Since the voting on both RfCs is going in a highly parallel manner, the two RfCs are not mutually exclusive. We need to be able to let both run out for what we now agreed will be two weeks (at least in the case of Tony’s RfC) and we need the RfCs (or at least Tony’s) to be properly spotlighted in the proper places (watchlist notice) so we recruit the greatest amount of input from editors. After this is all over and the MOSNUM guidelines call for deprecating autoformatted dates, editors will undoubtedly come to MOSNUM with their hair on fire over how their blue dates are no longer blue. We need to be able to point to the RfC archive and unblinkingly and correctly say “this was properly and fully discussed and the consensus was clear.” Please let Tony’s RfC go forward and please instruct complaintant’s party to leave Tony’s RfC alone and stop posting declarations about lack of validity, which are clearly intended to inhibit voting. We need the greater input, not less. Greg L (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ckatz

When I first saw Tony1's post here, I considered replying, but thought it best not to risk further inflaming the situation. However, I cannot let Greg's comment go without a rebuttal, as aspects of it are a) outright distortions of the truth, and b) in conjunction with Tony1's post, a demonstration of what has been happening on the MoS page. (Note: it should be clear that I'm commenting on this as an editor, not an admin, due to my involvement in the MoS discussions and the fact that Tony, Greg and I do not see eye to eye.)

Greg's outrageous claim that Tznkai and I "collaborated" is further compounded by the fact that Greg has already made this accusation elsewhere and has been told that it is untrue. Tznkai - whom I've never met or even heard of before this - has already told Greg that he came to MoS of his own accord, having seen the issue arise on the ANI board, and that Greg was mistaken in accusing me. I have also made it clear to Greg that I did not "contact" Tznkai, and that I did not have any part in the deletion of the RfC (here and here, among others). Another editor even went so far as to contact Greg (on Greg's talk page) to say that Greg had made a mistake, and that he should apologize. Greg also acknowledged - when I challenged his error - that he could not be bothered to study the talk page before making his mistaken accusation ("I don’t want to go through the history and figure out who did what."). And yet, despite all of that, he insists on further perpetuating the lie.

As for Tony1's response above, I'm not going to justify Locke's actions. However, Tony is not the "white knight" protecting an RfC (and MoS) under attack that he might wish others to believe. The dysfunctional situation at MOSNUM is far more complex than that, and I'd only ask that anyone responding to his comment above consider it in light of the recent talk page contributions and edit summaries of all parties involved in this mess. There have been far too many instances of uncivil comments, unsupported accusations and threats, and other such incidents. --Ckatz_spy 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're not the devil incarnate vandalising it. Tony (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal and apology

Oh, jeez Ckatz, chill out and close the valves on your verbal flamethrower. You’re an admin?!? No, I didn’t lie. But I was mistaken about the facts and do owe you an apology. Why was I mistaken? Because of how Tznkai explained why he deleted the whole RfC. He wrote “I was responding to an AN/I report from another admin who said that this whole conversation was spiraling out of control…” I thought he was saying that he was responding to a request from you (“another admin”). I’m very sorry for not understanding the proper facts and have struck the offending text. It was Tznkai who exercised atrocious judgement for an admin; you just don’t delete an RfC with dozens of votes. It was a knee-jerk reaction but he did allow me to revert it. So I don’t have a problem with him or you. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg, I'm not sure where the confusion could come from, given our conversation from two days ago where I stated that I had not requested assistance from anyone. However, I do appreciate the retractions you've left here and on my talk page and am quite willing to consider this closed. --Ckatz_spy 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Very well. No hard feelings. My fault. Greg L (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, what now?

Disregarding the "second" RfC, there are the following serious (IMO) concerns with Tony's.

1. His statements as to the "status quo" are disputed
   1. That the consensus present text reads "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so."
   2. That "any proposal to allow the linking/autoformatting of only dates of birth and death would require a change to the following requirement in MOSNUM, and is not under consideration in this RfC: "Dates in article body text should all have the same format.""

   Hence, if there is not consensus about those, then the RfC is seriously flawed.

2. He's opposed to the proposed changes, so that the significance of a consensus for "oppose" would be unclear, except that the specific wording is opposed.

If there is a consensus established, what would it mean? I can see there would be a consensus that autoformatting is generally bad, but not really that it should never be used, except for a strained interpretation of "Dates in article body text should all have the same format."

I think we'll need yet another RfC, with undisputed wording, and with Mediawiki:Watchlist notice, to confirm the results. If Tony would rescind his RfC and reissue it with only undisputed text, then only the second concern would be a problem, and we could establish consensus about something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's too confused for me to follow. But what we do not need is a third RfC and associated drama. Two RfCs on this subject are quite enough.  Sandstein  21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we probably do need a third RfC, as neither RfC supports the assertion that all year and day-of-year links should be removed, which Lightbot and company were claiming as supported by the current MOSDATE. The proponents of bot unlinking still do not have consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See Carnildos proposal below, that seems to be a better way forward (even if it does delay an outcome to the dispute). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain that reasoning Arthur. By my read of Tony’s RfC, it is clear that the consensus is that dates shouldn’t be linked to trivia, that autoformatting is worthless and undesireable, and that bot activity doesn’t require another wave of voting for permission to go about whatever bots do. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about RfC2/Q2; if it doesn't show at least a weak consensus against ever autoformatting, it suggests that enough tags be left so that autoformatting can be done later. RfC1, as the "changes" are opposed to the proposer, doesn't imply anything more than it says. And RfC2/Q4 shows, at the moment, a weak consensus in favor of sometimes linking raw years, in spite of your assertion that there's a consensus against it. If either of those holds up as the "final" consensus, then mass-unlinking is not supported by consensus. RfC1/Q3 is not relevant, as there then wouldn't be a consensus for mass-unlinking. But I agree that both RfCs should run at least a month after being put in the watchlist-notice, and we'll see what happens. If consensus is established in RfC2 that autoformmating is never desired, and RfC2/Q3 and RfC2/Q4 have a consensus for never linking, then the bot should go ahead. Otherwise, not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• RfC1 shows only that Tony thinks that all of those are the case; we'd have to look at the individual "oppose" statements to see if the other editors support it. The wording he chose is not appropriate to support those assertions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Voter exhaustion is a major problem here: with all the drama that's been going on around MOSNUM and date linking, uninvolved editors are staying far away from the subject, leaving only those with entrenched views -- hardly an environment conducive to solving problems. I propose the following:

1. A moratorium on date linking. Anyone caught linking or de-linking a date in the next six months gets a six-month ban.
2. A moratorium on MOSNUM date drama. Anyone bringing the subject up in the next six months gets a six-month ban.
3. After six months, a totally uninvolved editor is roped into running an RfC to see what the community consensus on the matter is.

--Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh hello ... the community is speaking very clearly that it does not want date autoformatting. Are you going out to catch people implementing both the existing wording at MOSNUM, MoS, MOSLINK and CONTEXT, and adhering to the overwhelming consensus against DA expressed in both RfCs? What you're proposing smells of the Stalinist state, and is entirely impractical. Thousands of people delink (and link, unfortunately, because they see linking elsewhere). Going to arrest them all? Creating a square-brackets police force? Tony (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at "Stalinist state". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Many people (presumably not only those with entrenched views) are now participating at the two RfCs now underway at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and preliminary results at both RfC indicate a clear consensus that the linking of dates is to become (or remain) deprecated. We should just leave these RfCs to run their course and evaluate them when they're done. If they arrive at the same conclusion, as seems likely, neither side will have much to complain about in terms of procedure, I should think.  Sandstein  21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The community is now participating fully in both RfCs and seems to be making a very clear statement in both. Throwing away this input after so many editors have gone to so much trouble to gather it would be deeply unwise. I oppose Carnildo's proposal completely. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein & TimVickers; the two RfCs should be continued to their natural conclusions. It's unliklely they'll bring differing results that conflict, but if they do, that will have to be resolved. If their results are in harmony, that will provide and even stronger indication of consensus and would be helpful in referencing when questions come up later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's let it run its course then. It's clear that the preliminary results indicate a clear consensus that the linking of dates is to remain (or become) depreciated. Evaluate the results at the end, but ending the RFC prematurely will only stir additional drama and we'll be back here in another two weeks. seicer | talk | contribs 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I said this on the RFC, and it probably bears repeating where someone will read it, deprecated does not mean "removed as fast as possible." Even if there is consensus that date linking be "deprecated" that is not the same thing as agreeing with a bot to go and delink every link. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A cooling down period on this wouldn't be a bad idea considering all that's gone on for the past few weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer, anything that—in the end—allows MOSNUM regulars to point to the vote and say with a straight face that it was done per all procedures with fair notice at all the proper bulletin boards is fine by me. I just want it to be over. We’ve had a horrible, long-running experience with a couple of editors over “IEC prefixes” (words like “kibibyte” rather than “kilobyte”) and they endlessly complain that there “was no consensus” for deprecating the IEC prefixes. If Lightmouse gets busy with his Lightbot and automates the process of “de-bluing” dates, then a small army of editors will come to MOSNUM with a WTF reaction. They will with-out-a-doubt complain that they weren’t consulted. There’s little consolation when these editors hear “sorry, we thoroughly discussed this, but you missed out and it’s settled.” It really would be fabulous if everything has been done fully and by the book and that every editor has been given the maximum available notice to participate in the latest vote. Greg L (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As Arthur rightly notes above neither RFC would give Lightmouse (or any other editor) blanket permission to unlink dates. All that's been discussed so far is deprecating linked dates, and as far the second RFC seems to be leaning away from a system where all date links would be bad (which by definition would preclude removing them in an automated fashion). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• This debate will just go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on: At this stage, it is already clear what consensus is being formed at the RfC. It is also clear from statements above that some editors will never accept the outcome. These "conscientious objectors" are likely to try to win by inflicting extreme boredom. 202.123.64.42 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ix-nay to Carnildo's proposal above. Let the RfCs run their course (by now, it could be argued that all three of Tony's questions can be WP:SNOW closed). I foresee some trouble ahead when it comes to tallying the responses to the other RfC. The authors made the mistake of not proposing exactly what wording they want in the MOSNUM. Figuring that out – transforming the responses into new MOSNUM verbiage – still lies ahead. My personal preference would be for the second RfC to be junked on these grounds, but I do not foresee many editors agreeing with me and so I am not seriously proposing it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't snow close things that have been this disputed in less than a week, especially when the wider community still isn't even aware there are RFCs over this issue. Given the dualing nature of the RFCs and the fact that most of those opposing in Tony's RFC seem unaware of the current situation re: date formatting (note many of the comments) it's clear to me that Carnildo's approach would be the ideal one for all involved. Also Goodmorningworld, I'm sorry you dislike the wording of the second RFC, perhaps you should have weighed in while it was being discussed? Certainly it didn't seem to be an issue for the dozen or so editors who participated in it's development. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you (Locke) and User:Carnildo are used to coitus interruptus, but I suspect "pulling out" would incur the wrath of the over 50 people who have partaken in the RfC so far, as well as perhaps countless others who have not yet commented. When I suggested snowing the debate, I did so in jest responding to your cry to close it after the attempt to blank it failed. Strange volte-face from you. Oh, sorry, you only wanted to close Tony's RFC! How daft of me for forgetting... It is on record that I did participate in commenting while the second RFC off the starting block, but Masem rejected my suggestions because he wanted the RfC to consider all the options. I also know any attempts to change any of the text would have been reverted and attracted protests for attempting to spoil it, so I only commented. I always have a good laugh reading the "camel" you created, I don't blame you for being a bit sore seeing the horse tony built - speeding away and sending a very clear message. Arriving at a consensus based on the responses received in the second RfC will be long and drawn out. Good luck finding the outcome you were looking for! Ohconfucius (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• And you lost me at "camel". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess it's a reference to the expression, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee". --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost?

If we could get a prominent mention of the RfCs into the Signpost, that'd help ensure the widest possible participation and the lowest possible "WTF" effect if in a few weeks bots start running removing bluelinks from dates. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The best method would be what I've suggested before either RFC was launched: put a notice in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. On the talk page (MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details) there's a message with links to both RFCs ready to go, an admin just needs to edit the interface message. That would get far more exposure than being included in the Signpost (not to say doing that also wouldn't help, it would, but I think it's a given that far more people would see the watchlist notice). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I'll go discuss it there, but FWIW, I disagree with that proposal and still believe Signpost is a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is: no consensus

One thing that is obvious to me is that there is no consensus. Therefore there should be no widespread linking or delinking, the parties should go away and talk until they come closer to agreement. This ridiculously escalated dispute over a matter of unbelievable triviality has become farcical and disruptive. No votes, that is just a way of trying to replace lack of consensus with mob rule, let's see if they can't identify what the hell it is they can't agree on and fix it. And if they can't fix it, just delete the damn page and leave people to get on with business. MOS wars are the lamest of the lame with a side order of lame. And some lame for afters. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I agree and I wouldn't have bothered with participating were it not for the fact that people were using WP:MOSNUM as an excuse to delink all dates in thousands of articles via automated means (see Lightbot (talk · contribs), Date delinker (talk · contribs), etc). This is also why I supported Carnildo's proposal above (the cooling off/ban of linking/delinking). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the above two posts are beyond absurd. I see now that well-known terminology like “clear, wide-spread consensus of the user community” has been replaced by terminology like “mob rule.” Other than some unhelpful, uhm… *intervention* by Locke Cole, wherein he archived a competing RfC after only 14 hours of comments, the behavior of editors who are actually responding to the RfCs has been extraordinarily civil and peaceful.

  Other than the fact that the general consensus is clearly contrary to the wishes of some proponents of one of the RfCs, there is no reason in the world to call a halt to it all (in the name of a “cooling off period.” Such requests are just wikilawyering and a clear attempt to circumvent the clear will of the user community. I could use some other analogies here to express what I really think of such tactics. Such analogies would use words like “censorship” and would mention “China.” Notwithstanding that this would be my fair and honest opinion of these tactics, I would no-doubt be accused of “failing to assume good faith” and “engaging in personal attacks.” Perhaps these words accurately convey my thoughts: the above two posts and this thread’s section title of “The consensus is: no consensus” are pure bull shit. (indeed, that conveys my sentiments very precisely). Greg L (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Philipp Lenard

I recommend to check this article completely. I have a doubt that is is not written from neutral point of view, also most of the sources does not seem to be relevant, this is why I marked it by the template. --Wizzard (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So you complained on the talk page, somebody explained to you why you are wrong, and instead of answering you bring it here? That isn't going to get you anywhere. looie496 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this appears to be a content dispute not relevant to this noticeboard. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I will try to resolve it at a talk page or in the article. Maybe I should not bring it to here. --Wizzard (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening a discussion on this here noticeboard header up top

While mulling over arbcom candidacy questions and answering, I discovered that I had not seen this board - Misplaced Pages:General sanctions - until today. It also occurred to me that the box up top was filled with so many things I found I was not reading the contents. I was also thinking that there appeared to be overlap in content between AN and AN/I and noth were very busy pages, but that maybe some rearranging of teh template at the top was in order. I am writing this to initiate a discussion over there. More eyes on the trouble spots of biographies and cultural/ethnic wars are good, so was musing that one bar at the top could be coloured salmin pink and contain trouble pages (welcome to insert better word), including Misplaced Pages:General sanctions, theMisplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard next to each other, as well as cultural/ethnic noticeboard. input welcome. I was figuring we have all the policy to deal with these, but more actual and closer attention was needed. thoughts welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I rearranged the navbox up top here - can someone colour the trouble areas bit orange or salmon pink? I find the one we have now odd as things I think of at the same time (eg SSP vs Checkuser, and the BLP noticeboard, and BLP log) are not near each other. I was musing whether making the trouble area bit orange would make it higher profile and maybe get it on admins' radars a bit. Anyway see what y'all think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 2 users.

2 users have been found of tendentious editing. The users are User:Viriditas and User:IronDuke. The evidence is in these links. and User talk:IronDuke#Osama Bin Laden. --Mixwell! 01:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure they're joking around there, doesn't look like there is any real dispute, although you could try asking them--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. 1. Have you asked them? 2. What do you expect us to do about it? 3. Have you told them of this thread? 4. Are you serious, because I don't think they are? --Rodhullandemu 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this Arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker --Mixwell! 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this? for starters its nearly 3 years old?--Jac16888 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and it seems to have no bearing on either of the links you provided. I suggest if you have anything of substance, bring it here, otherwise certain conclusions might be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What I do see, to my utter dismay, is that two days after being unblocked early, Sceptre is already edit-warring on Osama bin Laden. looie496 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And also that Mixwell appears to be in a dispute with ironduke--Jac16888 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

<- Is there some reason Sceptre went shopping for sanctions against IronDuke and Viriditas on IRC (with the exact same language used in Mixwell's original complaint, no less)? I sure hope it wasn't to perform an end-run around his ban from project space. east718 // talk // email // 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, drama here we come--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this section actually be titled Three tendentious editors as sceptre is acting disruptively and edit-warring at Osama bin Laden immediately after coming off his previous months long ban. Recruiting IRC meatpuppets to proxy for you seems like a no-no too. 75.175.27.170 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Governance issue and solution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

nevermind

I've dobbed all the bureaucrats in in a new idea for a safety valve/point of redress/check and balance/good governance/etc. --> here

My idea would be this was a low volume committee which could be established by any five 'crats for the situations described. Has something like this been discussed before? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, per WP:BURO. Not needed. Should we ever get to that kind of way-out-there edge case, I'm sure we'll find a way to handle it. // roux   06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A few people have been hounded off the wiki for ideas like this ;-) I've added an example of where it might have been useful on the talk page. No harm can come from (re)thinking about governance. We are supposed to be an agile project after all. John Vandenberg 09:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I will mark this as historical/archived in a minute as TenOfAllTrades has poked enough holes in it to make me ditch it. Feel free to archive folks, or I will rummage round for a template in a moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:55

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations

Any help clearing the backlog at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 07:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Most used IPs

Submitted for consideration, the following is a list of the /24s and /16s that have the most anonymous edits associated with them. It may be worth considering whether some of these should be treated with greater restraint when blocking based on the heightened risk of collateral damage. In addition to the anon edits, I would also guess that most of these are associated with a number of registered users as well. Dragons flight (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. For comparison the range 82.148.*, which is listed at Misplaced Pages:Sensitive IP addresses as encompassing the nation of Qatar, has only 7956 anon edits associated with it. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you gain these figures?211.30.109.24 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The API has a way of pulling these per /16 or /24 e.g. . Then you filter all the registered users with a program. MER-C 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay... So these ranges have high concentration of anonymous addresses... What are we supposed to do with this knowledge? Unless this is an assumption that anonymous account equals disruptive/vandal editor and we may as well block the ranges (and who needs oil from Qatar these days, anyway) I don't see the purpose of noting this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dangons flight's point was that we should be aware of the collateral when blocking (especially range blocking) these addresses. A high number of IP editors probably == a high number of registered editors, so an IP block could rattle through to many registered accounts. These addresses will also have a high amount of vandalism but also a high amount of good contributions, so blocks need to be proportionate. Then again, this is all good general advice, even without the statistics to back it up. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like none of the /16's which cover the "Sensitive due to public relations implications" ranges are included in the list of top /16's, nor are any of their /24's included on the list of /24's. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, not necessarily. For example, AOL is likely to have a higher proportion of silliness than an ISP specialising in metropolitan broadband. But the point is valid, that any rangeblock will have more effect if there are more anons. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Has G2bambino exhausted community patience?

G2bambino was handed a three-week block on November 13 by FP@S for filing a bad-faith RFC against Roux that was merely thinly-disguised harassment. He recently posted a third unblock request, which I declined, after which I locked down his talk page for the duration of the block.. I initially locked down his talk page as well--but unlocked it after a suggestion from WilyD. An aggravating factor in my mind was his Nonetheless, as I reviewed the case, I couldn't help but notice his block log. He has been handed 13 distinct blocks since 2007. Granted, two of them may well have been excessive, but with a block log that long, you have to wonder--is this user really here to build an encyclopedia? I therefore propose that the community put him on notice that if there's a next time for this behavior, he should be indefblocked and banned with no further preliminaries. Call this, if you will, a statement that the community has lost patience with him and that his standing here is hanging by an eyelash. Thoughts? Blueboy96 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A block log on its own is perhaps not decisive. G2bambino is an editor of rather narrow interests, but there's nothing wrong with that. Some 20 new articles in 20000 edits is not prize-winning, but there are admins who would do worse and this isn't Conserv*p*dia where five-year plans must be exceeded, or else. Harassment and stalking are serious, but a three week block seems to be in the appropriate range, if perhaps a little mild. I have no strong view on whether anything does need to be done, but if others do feel that way a topic ban would work just as well. Whether G2bambino would want to edit much outside the subject of monarchy, narrowly defined, is another question, but it has happened and so far as I can tell it has been trouble-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Block logs shouldn't be used on their own to decide sitebans, I realise. But Blueboy has a great point. 13 blocks is absolutely ridiculous, even if some are too harsh. I don't think the community's patience with him is very strong. His standing here hanging by an eyelash made of liquid. Garden. 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't lost patients. I'm waiting to welcome him back on December 4 (2008). GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

All this was discussed before his last block and this current length of block decided, I'm sure bearing his past blocks in mind, plus he is under 1RR and stuff on some pages I think when he returns. He hasn't done anything new that's aberrant unless you count asking to be unblocked and saying he's innocent of some of the 'charges'. Why not wait till he does something new before rehashing a discussion about the old stuff- perhaps in the hope of a different outcome? :/ Sticky Parkin 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion: re SlimVirgin

The motions above have been closed at the request of the Arbitration Committee. By motion, administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee, and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for a period of six months. The final text of the discussion and motions can be found at the link above.

— Coren , for the Arbitration Committee, 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• No wheel-warring over arbitration enforcement is good, no blocking Giano without consulting the arbs first is waaaay overdue. How dare the ArbCom undermine the drama potential of Misplaced Pages like this? Fie on them! Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not no wheel-warring - that was already forbidden. This is new: no undoing any admin action taken to enforce an arbitration ruling. And of course, SlimVirgin is desysopped for unblocking Giano, and it's now forbidden to block Giano. What this means in practice, we'll see. Tom Harrison 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it only says no blocking Giano to enforce his civility parole. Other than that, Giano is subject to blocks for disruption, vandalism (not that he ever has), or civility just as any other user is.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Vandal Problem(s) spurred from external source

See: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7g2a6/reddit_i_have_an_experiment_for_you/ Someone has already created a[REDACTED] page on prowebstinating. Don't know if more will arise from this "game" so I'm posting it here as a heads up. Might also apply to wikitionary. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyslee

User:Fyslee keeps removing an image of the Pope from the Man article stating the image is controversial because some people see him as the Antichrist. User:Fyslee kept removing the image from the article and then only brought it up in the Talk:Man page after I kept reverting his removal of the image. He states on the Talk page that his views are now to be considered consensus, even though consensus with editors has always been for the image as none have ever tried to remove the image or ever brought it up in the Talk page. I have tried talking to him on his User Talk:Fyslee but still insists on removing the image for seemingly absurb reasons. Please see the articles I have linked to see what has been going on. Usergreatpower (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute with no need for Admin intervention. I suggest you and other editors leave it on the article talkpage for consensus, if any, to develop. In the event of edit-warring, the page can be protected if necessary. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wizzard

From my talk page:

I thought that since you are already familiar with this particular user from Talk:Franz Liszt, I feel it necessary to point out a few of their recent edits, see  ;  ; . I have a serious issue with a person going around and changing biographical information to suit their own predispositions (POV’s) or nationalistic views. From the very inception of this user account, this user’s purpose has been exactly this (in fact, if there’s any doubt to user’s mission, see the user page <– to me such “grand” ideas are very dangerous). Unfortunately this user has what seems very much like only one purpose in mind: edits directed against one particular nationality. It is one thing to improve articles relating to your own nationality but something entirely different to direct one’s time at depriving another nationality of its identity and inciting nationalistic-based edit wars (see here, somewhat reminiscent but, in fact, more disturbing than the Liszt talk page). To me, all of this just doesn’t seem to be constructive and, in fact, seems very disruptive of Misplaced Pages.

On a lesser note, I should also point out potential sockpuppeting by this user (). I have been an active editor for almost three years now and this is one of the most disturbing cases that I have come across. It would be a great shame if Misplaced Pages had no mechanisms to weed out such disruptive edits/editors. I do appreciate very much and look forward to your input. Best Regards, aNubiSIII 04:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards