Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 14 February 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Good faith (towards Peter Damian)

I'd like to see the community extend some good faith to Peter Damian. I know he's done some socking since his ban, but all of it has been constructive and related to article work (even if some of it's been pointy). I don't see anything to be gained by punitive punishments or expectations of complete submission. As long as an editor is willing to contribute constructively, it seems to me that leniency and extensions of good faith are the best way to garner less animus and more good will. If someone is willing to abide by our rules upon their return, I don't see any reason to keep them in exile. If they make trouble it's easy enough to show them back out the door. Let's be magnanimous for once. Any takers? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, support, give him a break. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He was banned for violating an arbitration ruling... So is he going to abide by it on his return? –xeno 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

People often respond well to a little good will and trust. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He was given a fair amount of both, and still refused to abide by his restrictions. Allowing him back is (yet again) saying "This is your really really final chance, for realsies, we mean it this time." Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got a link to those restrictions he broke? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

- next time, look at the block log. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is much better off without him. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As he was banned by community discussion at ANI, I think that is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Given that he socked as recently as yesterday I wouldn't expect that to go very well. The argument that he had no choice and had to sock is contradicted by the many users who have been blocked or banned and were allowed back because they managed to demonstrate that they had the self control to refrain from socking for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As recently as today: John Watkins LLD (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion: Peter Damian). Jarkeld (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be helping himself much, a six month block with good behavior is pretty much good enough to get most people back editing, he appears to have socked his way out of that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is he can edit as he pleases as long as he stays anonymous. It's a defacto reality of whispered truth that editors can return as long as they do so quitely and remain anonymous. If they identify themselves they have to blocked. It's Misplaced Pages's version of Kabuki theater.

If it's a sock of his, which seems likely, it seemed to be working constructively on article improvements. Differentiating between clean socks and dirty ones would be useful. Like so many acronyms we often throw around terminology without distinction or meaning.

I think it's unfortunate that we push talented academics into the shadows because they got frustrated and into trouble. The whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow to me when we so consistently fail to extend it, even when it costs us nothing. It is almost effortless to reblock if problems reemerge, so it makes us out to be petty and vindictive in cases like this that we demand punishing terms, ritualistic humiliations, and exile before allowing a return. I'd much rather be part of a forgiving and welcoming community that leads by example. I don't think we should be a church in attempting to recruit supplicants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith was extended, many times... Tan | 39 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's one more time? I think it's been a while since the last go round. And think of the gloating you can enjoy pointing out my mistake if I'm proved wrong. And if by chance Damian should return as a productive contributor, think of the new chapter of light and redemption we can open. A new dawn. A Misplaced Pages Renaissance of Enlightenment and reasoned consideration for our fellow hominids in which good faith and olive branches are extended and good favor bestowed upon us in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much of a gloater, but I am confused - you said, "the whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow when we so consistently fail to extend it", meaning that Peter Damian is getting the shaft because we fail to AGF. But now we need to do it over and over? Where is the line? Is there one? Tan | 39 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the virulently offensive types of users, I would think we should always be willing to at least listen, sure. But is there a request for an unblock by Damian himself? I'd rather see something in his own words rather than some sort of request-by-proxy appeal. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've lowered his block to allow him to send email. At this point that's as far as I'm willing to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting a response to Tarc's question before allowing talk page access: are his words so ungood we can't risk them being posted to his talk page? (If he is really seeking to be unblocked; if this is just an out-of-the blue suggestion by CoM then I suppose it can remain blocked) –xeno 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with PD is that he is so clever -- he is perfectly capable of doing a long series of perfectly good edits just for the sake of setting up a drama, and when the drama plays out it goes on for ages and sucks in dozens of editors. Even Jimbo has been sucked repeatedly into PD's dramas. We've been through it often enough. If he were the usual bonehead the cost of giving him another chance would be limited, but he isn't. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ecxinfinity) I agree he is clever which is why it would be good to have him back contributing to articles. The service in exile meme seems a strange tradition and an arbitrary tribal ritual to me. Let's show some respect to the man and see if we can't get some in return. I've restored illuminationism (from being a redirect), and if that's the type of contribution he's interested in making, I think it would be good to have him back among us. If the test run fails and there is disruption, it won't be hard or costly to shut down the experiment. I disagree with the idea that it will be enormously drama filled to end it if it spins out of control. It's a one button operation and I'm more than willing to receive my share of I told you so's if I'm suffering from delusions of grandeur. But it seems wimpy that there are none among us willing to give good faith a try when it's such a commonly preached refrain. And I don't think it's really been tried before, not since the previous episodes which as I recall were quite a few months ago? I don't recall him being allowed to return to open editing as a respected member of the community any time in the recent pass. The first step would simply be to initiate a discussion: Hey there young man, how are things going? Are you interested in editing here? We've had some problems in the past, if you returned would it be fore the right reasons? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we've essentially done this before, right? So if this doesn't work, what will stop you (or another editor) from saying we should do it again? No one cares about telling you "I told you so"; hopefully we're all out of sixth grade. We (read: I) care about wasting yet more time on a proven incorrigible editor. Tan | 39 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess nothing. Nothing will ever stop good faith editors from suggesting that someone with a history of very solid article contributions, but other issues that got them banned, be extended some respect and good faith in the form of an opportunity to at least discuss a return to community membership. What is there to lose? I'm not going to be writing any aritcles on Medieval philosophy, but I think it's a subject that's worth including if we can find someone who's willing to work on that subject. They may have some good ideas about other aspects of Misplaced Pages that can be improved on as well. Who knows? The stongest argument against trying to be gracious and welcoming is Looie496's well articulated position that we'll just get burned again. If we follow through, he may be right. But I still think it's worth the endeavor of trying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I could see working is an unblock, with a restriction in place to only allow Peter Damian to edit article or talk pages. His previous misdemeanors stemmed from Misplaced Pages/User talk space contributions and I think he could edit constructively in article space. Anyway - that's just my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense at first glance to me; what do you think of that, CoM? Tan | 39 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless that is a programmatic restriction (as in he is technically incapable of editing anything other than mainspace and article talk), we all know he will simply not abide by it. Why are we doing this? It's a waste of time. → ROUX ₪ 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I told myself I wouldn't get into the "one final chance" argument, but I actually think this would work. If he edits another namespace - well, he gets a swift block without further discussion. His terms would be that he's only allowed to edit article and article talk pages - if he breaks them, it would be obvious so no drama would be caused by a swift reblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You have far more faith than I, Gunga Din. It is a virtual certainty--one I would wager on, and I am not a gambling man--that wehn (not if) PD breaks the restriction and is blocked, someone will stir drama on ANI saying "Oh it was just a minor infraction." We all know he will push the envelope specifically to make that happen; an innocuous projectspace edit here, a template edit there. It will be the death of a restriction by a thousand cuts, and once he has inured people to his minor infractions, he'll go right back to the usual drama-mongering. As has been pointed out above, PD plays the long game and thinks nothing of taking time to start his shenanigans.

While I understand where you're coming from, you are unusually misguided in this case. (And yes, I am unavoidably reminded of my own support of Betacommand in his "no really, this is final for real" days before someone put a serious leash on him.) Which, yes, one could argue is precedent for this sort of last chance. Unfortunately, the situations are different. Betacommand took a "my way or the highway, and damn the torpedoes" approach; Peter Damian is explicitly out to disrupt things around here. As such, he requires different handling. More to the point, given all the disruption, I do not feel--even if Satan skates to work and he abides by his restrictions--that he can be trusted in articlespace. → ROUX ₪ 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Can someone reach out to him or unlock his talk page so we can see what he has to say? Maybe he's not interested. Who knows. But I wanted to read about immediacy (philosophy) and it's a redlink :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I have no horse in this race, so I initiated a topic over there to see if the party in question is interested. Only a slight bit of Tarc Snark(tm) was used in the process. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of the history, but I think one of the problems in the past was his making edits here to promote discussion and controversy there. So putting it up for discussion in that forum doesn't seem desirable to me as far as encouraging good faith on Misplaced Pages involvement that is free from ulterior motives. But never mind. What's done is done.

I've expressed my opinions as far as blocks go, and they apply to this situation as well as others. Maybe I'm just being dim. Cheers all. Thanks for listening and I'll try to leave it up to others going forward so I don't become overly involved are start to sound too much like a skipping record. For what it's worth Peter and I were in disagreement as far as our previous onwiki editing interactions go. But he's clearly capable of contributing good content. Whether he's interested in doing that or prefer to try and shake things up going forward I have no idea. I haven't had an opportunity to ask him, and I try to do as little e-mailing as possible about on-wiki stuff, apart from occasional chit-chat, for transparency sake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I support unblocking him. He has always made excellent contributions—he just got into some feud way back when. The encyclopedia should come first. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent PD socks I am aware of:

• User:John Watkins LLD: edited 17 December 2009 - 9 February 2010
• User:Short lived account: edited 7 February 2010 - 8 February 2010
• User:The Rationalist: edited 16 February 2008 - 28 January 2010
• IP 86.184.211.76: edited 7 February 2010
• User:A history of the modern world: edited 20 November 2009 - 30 January 2010

So at least three different accounts at the same time, and probably a whole host of sleepers and active socks besides (perhaps someone should run a checkuser to get as many of those as possible, so that we get a complete view of his recent editing here, and not just the image he wants to show us?). He could have quietly edited for six months with one account, showing that he was perfectly capable of being a long-term contributor without running into trouble. Instead, he chose to avoid his ban by mass-socking. Keep banned, and let him use the ArbCom unban requests if he wants to be unbanned. Fram (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot one: User:Editor with a background in philosophy, edited 21 January 2010 - 27 January 2010. Fram (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there any problematic activity from these accounts, or were they blocked for ban-evasion only? Tarc (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, please don't even think about suggesting ban evasion isn't a good reason the block the accounts - I support an unblock, but please don't go down that route. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh, calm down...of course I think it is a good reason. What I was getting at is if the same behavior that led to the main account's block has been seen again in the socks. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• A general observation: the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. → ROUX ₪ 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's really not, look it up. Tan | 39 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your smartassery has trumped mine. I doff my cap to you, sir. → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea making a comment like that when you've just come off a block for incivility? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to fail to see the intent of the comment? It was a compliment. AGF, FFS. → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux and I's current spat aside, Ryan, we generally see eye-to-eye. I took no offense at his comment; on the contrary, it was well-played. Tan | 39 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to see Peter unblocked. He does good work, and the current situation is that it's being deleted because he's banned. There's a philosophy article he wrote recently, Illuminationism, which was deleted by Fram, who also redirected the title to a different topic. I asked Fram to consider undeleting, but she said I'd have to take responsibility for the contents. That's an awkward thing to ask, because the sources aren't online so it would involve quite a lot of work to check them, though I see it has now been reproduced by Child of Midnight. I'd support an unblock for him to work only on articles and article talk, plus no interaction with editors he's had problems with in the past. If things work out—after, say, a year of editing with no problems—he can ask to be allowed to post in other areas too. SlimVirgin 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And how can we have any confidence at all that he would abide by those restrictions? He is banned and restricted from socking, yet he's doing that. He was banned for failing to abide by restrictions. How many times must he be caught with his hand in the cookie jar before we grow a collective brain and move the cookie jar out of reach? → ROUX ₪ 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with ChildofMidnight, Slimvirgin et al that it would be a good idea to unblock Peter Damian: when sets his mind to it, he can be an excellent editor. Just my two centimes worth :) Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not redirect it to a different topic, I reverted it back to the situation it was before PD came in: someone else had created the redirect to that topic, not me. As for the "awkward thing to ask", namely that you take responsability for the edits, this is not awkward at all, but comes straight from our WP:BAN policy page: "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." It is in general useful, when discussing things like unbanning a prolific sockpuppeteer, to actually check the relevant policies, instead of making unwarranted sweeps at another editor. Fram (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not realised Peter Damian had been rebanned. I think he should be unblocked and personally do not think it necessary to impose any restrictions on his editing. If his contributions are disruptive, that can be addressed then by neutral parties. The more I reflect on his contribution to the project, the more I think he was treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. If he's still interested in contributing, I think we should welcome him. WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've no reason to trust a Sock Master. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have said they'd like to see Peter Damian unblocked. So would many of us, myself included. The problem in the larger picture is that we ask people to refrain from socking. How can we expect banned users to take that message seriously if socking can prompt a discussion that ends their ban the next day? Peter has plenty of talents that he's welcome to put to use right now at other WMF sites. If he does so for three months without socking here, I'll initiate an unban discussion for him myself (see WP:SO for details). That's a fair offer. Durova 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Durvova, this did not happen to Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had multiple socks, so why should Peter Damian be subjected to this kind of probation? That seems quite arbitrary. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly more than one year ago Peter Damian was granted an unban on the heels of a socking episode; the result did not turn out well. Misplaced Pages:Standard offer usually works; am not aware of that Mutawandi example and would have made the same offer there. Durova 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I see it rather differently. I am not very concerned by people evading bans to produce good quality consent. If someone shows that they have evaded a ban and that their contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think this is in itself a good reason to consider unbanning them. It rather suggests that either (a) there was something wrong with the ban in the first place or (b) that the user has changed. I concede that this approach incentivises evading bans but, provided the contributions to the project made are good, it doesn't seem so bad... WJBscribe (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a difference of wikiphilosophy, then. This website does not have a good track record at dealing with editors who contribute worthwhile content in article space while being disruptive elsewhere. The question is whether an individual willing to abide by the same standards the rest of us observe. Does content work amount to an exemption from behavioral policies? We've allowed case-by-case discussions on that point to consume inordinate amounts of volunteer energy. Refraining from socking is a minimal demonstration of respect for policy. Those who wait for several months are more likely to make a successful return. Durova 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone in contact with Damian? It seems like it would be helpful to hear from the man himself as to whether he'd like to return and, if he does, what his editing interests would be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've just gotten an email from Peter asking for talk page access. Seeing as consensus is not close to unanimous one way or another, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to let him speak directly via his talk page while this discussion is ongoing, any relevant comments should be copied over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only just caught this thread, but would support Peter being unblocked. His overall content contributions outweigh other issues. --Snowded 08:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 8 accounts have already been found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian, and it seems very probable that more are to come. Note that some of these were created long before the current ban, indicating that he was a sockpuppeteer back then as well. Note also that User:I love SUV's was blocked late December 2009 for 48 hours for ‎ Personal attacks or harassment. Another sock, User:Think of the children, was blocked for five days for disruption. So that makes that of the currently known socks, at least two have been independently blocked without any relation to being a PD sock, one for personal attacks and one for disruption. Unbanning such a user is really beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his socks tried twice to whitewash the Think of the children fallacious argument, and then used that same argument on Jimbo. That was 10 days ago.

I once argued for PD's unbanning, and shortly after unbanning he decided to retake his long-time argument with FT2, and got re-blocked for it. PD needs to show that he is really interested in improving the encyclopedia, and that he won't go out of his way in trying to destroy his perceived enemies inside wikipedia. He contributes good content not for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of getting himself blocked after he reveals his identity. He does this to support his point about good editors being blocked for political reasons. As far as I know he will just do the same thing again: 1) contribute an amount of good content, 2) make a POINTy argument that he knows that will get him blocked, 3) brag in Misplaced Pages Review about how his point was proven once again. PD has to show that he is willing to break this dynamic and limit himself to article work.

By the way, as far as I know, his pledge to do all in his power to destroy wikipedia is still standing..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here is Peter's reply, copied from his talk page:

Thank you for unblocking the talk page. I notice that a number of perfectly innocent accounts have been uncovered, and some content has been deleted. Damnatio memoriae. All I can say is how upset I am about this. I can't believe that the people who did this care anything about building a comprehensive and reliable reference source. Deleting these articles is worse than common vandalism.

The attacks on the WP:AN are just too horrible. I have nothing more to say. The cruelty of human nature is limitless.

• As you can see, it does not contain a request to be unbanned, so I suppose that means we're done here. He also posted a list of articles that he feels were unfairly targeted for deletion, but I didn't see any reason to re-post that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that we're deleting articles that Peter is creating when there's nothing wrong with them, and in fact they look quite good. These three have apparently now been deleted: The_Pheasantry, Jenny_Kee and Linda_Jackson_(designer). Is it policy that articles created by socks be deleted? SlimVirgin 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The usual "...created by a banned user..." would seem not to apply in the case where a user in longtime good standing, with extensive good content contribution, is judged to have later gone astray in a non-article related manner. No matter what policy and precedent say here, I think that IAR should override and the articles should be reinstated across the board, unless a particular article has a specifically identifyable problem. I haven't had time to more than briefly scan them, but I haven't found any problems so far. Please stop deleting and put 'em back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The relevant policy, to answer SlimVirgin, is WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Edits made by banned editors, including articles created, don't need to be deleted, and the policy specifically states that "obviously helpful edits" are an exception. So I agree with GHW, except I don't think we need to IAR because the rules specifically allow for this. -- Atama頭 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with some of the bio ones and am checking and adding references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried to just be a sort of mediator so far in this because I didn't have any previous involvement with this user, but my patience for his games is now rapidly wearing thin. I have gotten some more emails in which he asks me to restore articles that he created with sock accounts, while at the same time stating that he has no desire to return to editing Misplaced Pages. Does anyone else see a rather large contradiction inherent in that statement? If he really had no interest he wouldn't be creating sock accounts left and right and asking for all this stuff to be restored. In any event, since he has stated that he does not want to be let back in the unbanning discussion is moot. In the interest of moving forward, I propose that those users already evaluating his recent contribs proceed, but that any future socks be dealt with in the usual manner and have all contribs reverted or deleted on sight in order to discourage further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've this to offer, which I placed on my own talk-page following a brief but productive interaction with Peter about his linking of the term Latin West. Our discussion was ended by the subsequent abrupt disappearance of his alternative talk-page (or "sock", if that's preferred).

I responded with suggestions for disambiguation or de-linking - if the context of the term wasn't clear, it should at least not confuse the reader. An admin closed the user-page soon after; it had been opened to evade a permanent block. I was surprised to find all this editor's contributions and others' responses on his talk-page erased, as if in damnatio memoriae; I thought we evaluated contributions on their own merits. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've read here has changed my mind. It's reasonable to delete worthless articles, which these aren't. I think Peter's claim to not want editing rights disingenuous, but not underhand; the guy probably wants to edit, desperately. If there have been problems in the past, I hope he acknowledges them and negotiates a return but that'll only happen if he's allowed a voice. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronald Mckay/Allen Mills

Any suggestions on how to deal with pages such as this one? It's the subpage of a perma-blocked sock.

It also raises issues about abandoned subpages/userspace drafts in general. Do they just hang around forever? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have a regular article, so the question is whether it's salvageable as an article. If so, you could move it and tag the then-almost-empty subpage for deletion. If not, you could tag the subpage for deletion. An admin can tell you for sure, but my guess is that they do stay forever unless someone takes the initiative to handle them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't do any of those things. IP editors are not able to move pages or create them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But any IP is free to create an account at any time. And you know that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And when it becomes mandatory, I'll consider it. Until then, I'm looking for answers not criticisms. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. So stay away from where you don't belong. *shrugs* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody actually answered the IP's question, and I'm curious about it also. Is it correct to say that a page like that, left untended, will stick around indefinitely? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No Bugs, it won't. If you stare at it long enough it will vanish right before your very eyes. That's what happens to unsourced BLP's in sockpuppets user pages. something lame from CBW 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you have known about it if it hadn't been brought to your attention? Also, it doesn't exactly vanish - it undergoes a red shift. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Seb, that's an entirely inappropriate response, and especially so from somebody whose actuall logged-in account is pretty illegible. Woogee (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And still no answer to the general question of how to deal with old user subpages. Anybody with knowledge of the issue care to respond? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have an account then send them to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. If you don't have an account then you will need to get someone to finish the nomination as it requires that a page be created. Of course it's also possible that any given user subpage could be tagged using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. And to Bugs, no I didn't know it was there until I saw this. something lame from CBW 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a relatively easy way to identify such pages? I suspect that there are tens of thousands lurking around with no easy way to find them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some users who are regulars at WP:MFD that specialize on ferreting out this sort of stuff. You might ask them what methods they use, I'm a bit curious myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who has blocked most of the socks of this account, I must confess, I often let these subpages remain, because the new socks would always come back to edit them (among other articles). It was a fast way to identify them and block them. If you're interested in deleting other subpages, just go through the contributions and subpages of the other socks of this account. I haven't blocked the latest sock incarnation as they "appear" to be attempting to make useful contributions. If another admin cares to block, feel free. I'm beginning to tire of following these socks around. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the old leave-some-bait-for-the-sock game. Played that one a few times myself, it does wear thin after a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is honeypot. I've always like that term, I imagine some espionage agents trying to capture Winnie-the-Pooh. -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In Alaskan parlance a honeypot is a bucket that persons who don't have indoor plumbing use as a toilet on cold nights to avoid a trip to the outhouse, taking it out and emptying it in the morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean a gazunder :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments , especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him , leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person , although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please attend to this asap, please. It had been archived by the bot. User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge are definitely block evasions. See Sarastro1's talk edits. --86.134.60.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You should use the WP:SPI pages in future. The admins there are more adept at reviewing the claims, and the "file" on the sockmaster is maintained. I have, nevertheless, actioned this request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gooddday

Gooddday (talk · contribs) appears to be GoodDay (talk · contribs)'s stalker. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a long-term banned editor, impersonating him for the lulz. Indefblocked. What's weird is that my own (cellular) IP address showed up in his /16 IP range. Wow - Alison 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and semi-protected GoodDay's userpage - Alison 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mick & Alison. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello all...assistance requested at Wikiquote!!!

Hello Misplaced Pages.Over at Wikiquote we have a severe problem going on regarding Kalki and BD2412. The evidence is pointing that they are Sockpuppets of each other. See This. We request input of Misplaced Pages users familliar with Kalki and BD2412 at the discussion here. I'm also writing to let you know preemptively in case there are any issues at Misplaced Pages in the future. Cheers! Stayinganonfornow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note this account has been blocked as being a sock of a cross-wiki vandal who is harassing Kalki on Wikiquote. Tiptoety 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that. There are other socks, now also blocked - Alison 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which account? I assume you're referring to User:Stayinganonfornow, but it isn't immediately obvious from context. --Zarel (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one - Alison 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, he was harassing me too. What am I, chopped liver? bd2412 T 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'fraid so! :) - Alison 03:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion

There is currently a major backlog at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion. Unfortunately, I can't close most of them, since I am the nominator or a participator. Can someone please close them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of War Crimes

Can 1 admin please block user Uncle Dick who has now blatantly violated the 3RR by reverting a 4th time to his preferred edit. Please also note that this is a disruptive user who is wiping my warnings to him and other users and reinstating his to mine on my talk and it is totallt unfair because he has been the No.1 opponent provoking me in my onw disputes. He is not qualified to stand neutral when he is constantly reverting my edits. Well a rule has been broken and as I see things, users normally get banned on this note. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See sockpuppet investigation. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe breaking the 3RR spells instanrt ban. Sockpuppeting is purely circumstantial and less important. I have obided by Misplaced Pages rules and Uncle Dick has not. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick has been putting a good deal of time and effort into combatting obstructive editing by Z Victor Alpha/Neutral Solution 100/Warcrimesexpert, who are clearly all the same user. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Uncle Dick is constantly edit warring on my own talk page and in doing so - removing a comment made by a totally separate independent user, so he is shooting himself twice in the same foot a) edit warring and b) removing other people's remarks. Furthermore, he is signing himself as JamesBWatson so it is obvious that this is one and the same user and the sockpuppet can't remember how he was last logged in. Ban the lot of them please. I mean the best evidence is how these users pop up all at the same time to help each other. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) The "totally separate independent user" is a sockpuppet of Z Victor Alpha, as a consideration of their editing histories shows. (2) As far as I am aware Uncle Dick has never "signed himself as JamesBWatson". If he has I should be interested to see the relevant diff. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ZVA blocked for 12 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks in their edit summaries, also pending outcome of SPI. Feel free to change as necessary. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request

User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Request_for_posting_a_review_on_Administrators.27_Noticeboard Gerard 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for these two diffs; . On a personal note, I find CoMs commentaries to be extremely unhelpful and certainly not inline with a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages. He seems to feel the need to comment on every single controversial issue on the project. If something's kicking off, you can be sure to find CoM somewhere close by offering his advice. I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll (and with first edits like this and this, I'd bet my last penny that this isn't his first account). That being said, I wouldn't have blocked him for those two diffs - I don't find them to be particularly uncivil - I probably wouldn't warn for them. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the need for this "protective" block (for what other sort is there?), the need for it to be so severe, so sudden and without warning, or for the unblock request to be so vehemently denied. ChildofMidnight was uncivil and deserved a warning, maybe a sanction if they kept it up afterwards, but not this. I wouldn't disagree with any of Ryan Postlethwaite's comments either, but a block like this is unwarranted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Overturn. While the tone was less than measured, there is no way to interpret CoM's comments as "personal". Rather, they are specific criticisms of an administrator's use of the administrative tools. Misplaced Pages should not censor critics of those who have tools that are supposed to be "no big deal" and are not supposed to be unilateral policy makers. _matic 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - My god, again? ChildofMidnight has a penchant for attacking admins and ArbCom members in a over-inflated plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people fashion. If this is to be lifted I'd like to see some sort of prohibition of this lashing out in the future. If there is a dispute with an administrator with allegations of abuses, then it should be brought to a public forum for discussion. If we start to see repeated filings that turn out to be frivolous, then that can be dealt with as appropriate. I will remind all here that we went through an RfC on ChildofMidnight recently where this sort of behavior was discussed. The end result? CoM attacked the closing admin. I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock. I disagree with CoM far more than I ever agree with him. But this hair-trigger blocking surrounding anti-AGW editors is just beyond the pale. It has stop, or soon enough arbcom will need to become involved. This was a pathetically ill-considered block, and should be overturned right away. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Seems rather than a block, some sort of long term restriction on the types of disruptive behavior Ryan Postlethwaite describes above may be in order. The two diffs provided as triggering events for the block by themselves were simply examples of long term behavioral problems. See the recent Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight RFC closed last month and his response to the closing note. ChildofMidnight's response to the current block has been to attack the blocking admin rather than focusing on his own behavior immediately after saying he would "... apologize and refactor if it will shorten my block". Whether or not the current block is upheld, the disruptive behavior and personal attacks need to stop - and I see little evidence that will happen without some sort of community sanction or ban. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Tabula rasa, the comments in question are pretty trivial. But CoM has a very long history on AN/I, with ArbCom, and on RFC, and has at each instance chosen to interpret the results as not his fault. This is a problem, and given the problem the block is not out of order. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, see Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#ChildofMidnight for a recently filed topic ban request and the evidence contained therein. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here seems to be that most of us have issues with CoM, but not the particular edits that led to this block. Since it seems this is finally reaching the level of ArbCom, I am going to unblock him so he can speak in his own defense and let them deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The block should have been directed through the General Sanctions for community input. The editor should be free now to respond there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've fine with lifting the block, but something really needs to be done here to address the general situation. We also need to separate the ongoing problems with global warming articles (about which I know little, but where there seem to be behavioral issues galore) from ChildofMidnight's behavior in particular, which has been a problem all over the place. I agree with Vsmith's point above that we need to deal with this given the strong consensus that there was a problem at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight, C of M's complete dismissal of that effort at dispute resolution, and the continued problematic behavior. Beyond the two diffs cited as reason to block, see also the following recent comments by C of M where we see phrases like: "Get the fuck over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd"; "I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me,"; "childish jerks," etc. Or see how C of M responded to a perfectly polite note from another editor here (that conversation is very telling). The problem here is that if you look at just one or two diffs one might say, "that's not so bad," but this has been going on for a year or so, and there seem to have been a bunch of problematic comments just in the past couple of days. We need a long-term strategy for getting ChildofMidnight to stop with these constant ad hominems and incivilities and stick to the business of helping the project of which he is quite capable. Discussing the general problem of the global warming articles should probably happen elsewhere. Unfortunately I have no good ideas as to what to do about C of M. Banning from noticeboards (as has been suggested before) won't do much given that a lot of the worst comments happen in user or article talk space. Fresh eyes on this problem would probably be good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that kicking off this thread with the comment that one editor was a "drama loving troll" was a pretty terrible way to start the discussion. Let's try to avoid labeling others and just deal with the issues at hand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock without restrictions The two comments cited by BozMo were within a gray area of incivility (and don't approach personal attacks or violations of any other policy or guideline). Editors subjected to an admin's actions (like warnings) need to be able to criticize that admin on the admin's talk page. These editors naturally get upset when an admin action takes place in connection with a long-running, heated dispute like the AGW area. So when we've got a gray area, where a comment might be interpreted as a serious violation of WP:CIV or just as easily might not, lean toward leniency. The fact is, numerous comments made against CoM in this overall thread could be just as easily interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV, but admins traditionally give people some leeway because it's more important to the project to allow criticism. The behavior restrictions on AGW-related articles don't apply to admin talk pages. It was a bad block all around, therefore it should be completely overturned. If CoM's other behavior is at issue, this is not the best time or place to discuss it: the issue is too clouded by the bad block, especially for this page or AN/I, and this thread proves it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply and explanation regarding civility, hounding and admin abuse, what this is all about

Thank you all for having the decency to recognize that bad blocks should be reversed. It took a while, it's cluttered up my block log with more abuse, but at least I can edit again, which in theory is what we're all here for.

I would just like to reply briefly with a few points:

• Ryan Postelwthaite's statement that "I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll" is ironic on many levels given the bogus nature of the block I just endured.
• As to the allegations that I stick my nose in when there are controversies, he should have taken the time to look at my proactive comments even in the last few days before spouting off with a heaping pile of hateful attacks.

  This thread might be worth reading and reflecting on for admins big and small:. The admin enforcements that followed it have gone a long way to feeding new disruptions, incivility and disgruntlement.

  And here's another OUTRAGEOUS comment by me that if it had been heeded would have prevented a whole lot of drama and wasted time.

• But I don't expect RPG to be blocked for his uncivil personal attack. Blocks are for the meer peon editors so they can be bullied according to the whims of abusive admins who can then invoke their "lengthy block logs" as they engage in further abuse down the road.
• And if anyone wants to know what this conflict is really about, it's about an editor who has a clear COI involvement in the climate change subject area and who operates an advocacy attack site off-wiki against his ideological opponents, using this encyclopedia to push his personal beliefs on everyone else. If you don't believe me go read our global warming article and then read the encyclopedia Brittanica's article. Go read the entries on Dictionary.com (including the one from a science dictionary at the bottom).

What you'll find is that we've narrowly redefined the whole subject of global warming to give the impression that it has only ever existed in the 20th century. Yes, despite the fact that understanding anthropogenic warming and greenhouse gas impacts needs to be understood in historical context, including how recent changes differ and are similar to past warming events, a group of editors and their admin allies have completely thrown out the science. And that's just one example of the distortion.

In a push to make an argument, they've abandoned common sense in favor of misleading and distorted article content and have used awkward and innaccurate titles like Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. That's the convoluted description we use for events related to unfavorable disclosures of collusion, insular exclusion of opposing viewpoints, and illegal violations of the freedom of information act by a group of climate scientists in England that has resulted in an independent inquiry, people stepping down, apologies, and further investigations into grossly innaccurate information, unscientific reporting, bogus data, and new independent bodies being established that aren't tied to the wrongdoers.

Yes, these editors and their admin friends including BozMo, who when he's not making improper blocks is defending an editor calling others "old fruits", and 2over0, who's passed out a half dozen blocks and bans but not a single one on the most disruptive uncivil and antagonistic editors in that subject space, are working to chase off anyone who disagrees with them.

So don't let the real trolls and abusive stalkers fool you with their smears. The rot goes pretty deep on this one ladies and gentlemen. But if we stick together we can root it out.

That's what this block is about. It's about abuse, intimidation, censorship, and bias. I will not remain silent about it, and it's incumbent on every member of this community to stand up to the bullying and intimidating abuse that is corroding the editing environment at this encyclopedia. It's destroying any semblance of collegial collaboration, but it can be nipped in the bud if we just say no to it. No more abuse BozMo. No more abuse 2over0. ENOUGH. STOP IT! NO MORE! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan's comment was not okay in my book, and you're right that comments like this stemming from the global warming imbroglio are uncivil and unacceptable. But can you not see that your comment above has the same problems? You object to someone calling you a troll (as you should), but then turn around and complain about the "real trolls and abusive stalkers," which unfortunately is very much part of a long-term pattern for you. I'm not defending what Ryan said or what WMC said, but how do you defend yourself when you speak in exactly the same manner? I'm asking this in seriousness, because you may not realize how incongruous it looks to many observers who watch you complain about a certain behavior and then engage in it yourself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bitimepeace, Tarc has been hounding me and stalking me for months now and you haven't said boo about it. I didn't mention him by name, because if I call someone a troll I'll get blocked for it. But other editors are allowed to make bad blocks, attack me, and make all kinds of insinuations. Did you read some of the comments I posted below the block that have been directed at me and other editors by the AGW acolytes? They're outrageous, but no one says anything about them. There are trolls and abusive stalkers, but I'm not one of them. So if you want to help get rid of them PLEASE BY ALL MEANS DO SO! I'm here to work on articles with editors who agree and disagree, but are willing to work together in good faith without disrupting or abusing their status to enfore their will improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you and Tarc to avoid each other, and quite recently I told Tarc that would be a good idea via an e-mail. If at some point you ask for some sort of mutual interaction ban between the two of you I would probably support it. But that's beside the point I am making above and I'm not going to get sidetracked by it. You notably did not answer my question, and I think you should. If it's not okay for others to call you a troll, why is it okay for you to call them trolls? (And above you basically did do it by name.) Please note that "because they are trolls!" is not the right answer. I'm genuinely trying to get a reply from you on this, because it seems you truly do not see comments like the above to be problematic, when most others do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTP, I don't believe in interactions bans, they are ridiculously bureaucratic, red-tape laden responses to user conduct issues that fill the boards with never-ending "can I comment here?" "can I go there?", "what if he/she is already in this article?" eDrama and nitpicking. We all saw that in the aftermath of the interactions bans (of which I was not a party to, for the record) following the arbcom decision. I have done no more than you, or 2over0, or Sandstein, or Connoley, or any of the dozens of other users and admins whom Com has savaged over the last year; I weigh in whenever this user is dragged to yet another policy or enforcement page because I truly believe him to be a detriment to the project. I do not post on his user page, wiki-hound any edits to any articles I do not usually edit...hell, I only have the slightest input into the whole global warming imbroglio, there is no conflict between him or myself there. So please, do not single me out for seeing how much of a problem ChildofMidnight is; as we can see above, that is becoming a near universally held point of view. As for the e-mail, I have not seen it, as the account attached is one I rarely log to. Perhaps I should note that somewhere on my talk page. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace has a long history of going after editors who don't share his leftist agenda. He promised repeatedly to stop harassing me and to cease interacting with me. He has no involvement with me on any articles and has no dispute with me, yet he was the one who launched an RfC for his buddies Tarc and a few others who had to be restrained from stalking and harassing me.

Basically, he played the same role on the Obama articles that 2over0, BozMo and a couple other admins are fulfilling on the climate change articles. He has promised to leave me alone repeatedly, but continues to pursue me relentlessly including with an RfC. When the spammers and the abusive POV pushing editors needed a go to guy to push their agenda they shopped around until they found someone with his aggressive, disruptive and abusive approach to enforcing their viewpoints on article content. He's been more than happy to engage in abusive conduct and intimidation.

These actions are inappropriate and wrong Bigtimepeace. Stop it. Don't seek out conflict with me any more. We don't work on any of the same articles, so you need to cease bullying me and chasing after me. If you want to be proud of yourself that you were the go to guy for POV pushers who distort our article content to your favored perspective and stalk, harass and chase those they disagree with, so be it. But this dispute doesn't have anything to do with you (or your buddy Tarc) so maybe you should start keeping your word for a change and leave me the heck alone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order - I thought CoM was unblocked to defend themselves at ArbCom. Proofreader77 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The unblock notice didn't give a direct link to the arbitration subpage. CoM has commented at his/her userpage that s/he didn't realize where to respond. Which is a reasonable confusion because the wording of the unblock seemed to suggest an arbitration case request rather than an enforcement request. And CoM is accepting feedback: per a request s/he refactored the worst part of the comment above. It is counterproductive to allude to it; would you consider a real refactor in place of the strikethrough? That said, one alternative worth considering is instead of unblocking an editor solely to respond to a discussion at one page is to use a transclusion template. That mechanism allows a blocked editor to participate directly in one discussion without resuming disruption elsewhere. Durova 05:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Proofreader77 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously C of M's comment wasn't an answer to my straightforward question, but okay. I'm not going to bother rebutting all the accusations above, but if anyone wants to look into the "promised repeatedly to stop harassing me" claim please see the first paragraph in my reply here. The RfC speaks for itself and was originated by me and no one else. No offense to Tarc, but we aren't particularly "buddies" (nor "enemies"). A further comment from C of M to me and my reply on my talk page can be read here. I'm going to disengage from this direct interaction now, but there is a need for a discussion about how to handle some of the problems with ChildofMidnight's editing, so I'll start a new section on that and leave it for others to comment if they so choose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note on the unblocking Sorry all if I wasn't clear, I suppose I assumed everyone was following this conversation as well. The above linked ArbCom motion/discussion/whatever I was supposed to call it at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#ChildofMidnight is what I was referring to, it seemed only fair to let him speak in his own defense, and also the conversation here seemed to indicate that there was a general feeling that the particular edits he was blocked for did not merit that reaction. The unblock is not intended to be any sort of ArbCom reply only conditional block, it is a normal, full, unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We need a remedy

I'm going to start this conversation (hopefully) and then largely step back from it. There was a clear consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight (which closed a few weeks ago) that there are some issues with ChildofMidnight in terms of editing behavior. As the summary said the perception for many was that "he has difficulty interacting in a productive manner, especially on project pages and with almost anyone in a perceived position of authority." Those problems have continued since the RfC closed, resulting in a couple of blocks which were overturned but where the comments upon which the blocks were based were clearly problematic. I mentioned some other recent troubling remarks by C of M above. This is a long-term problem, dozens of editors commented at an RfC in an effort at dispute resolution but that yielded no mutually agreeable solutions, and the issue is clearly ongoing with no end in sight.

What are the appropriate next steps in terms of dealing with this editor's behavioral issues? I'm not sure there are easy answers, but I think we need to start thinking of some possibilities. Personally I'd most want to hear from folks who have relatively little involvement with ChildofMidnight since they might have a fresh take on the situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop seeking out conflict with me Bigtimepeace. You have promised in the past and since we aren't working on any articles together there's no reason for you to continue hounding me with your intimidating threats. Please stop this activity here and on the Climate change noticeboard where you have no history of involvement and have just now "appeared" to antagonize me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM, please stop accusing Btp. In my experience, Btp is not a problem at all. Not everyone who has a problem with you is "seeking out conflict" with you. I didn't support Bozmo's last block of you, but your accusations against Btp are just out of line. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion CoM's style seems strikingly akin to WMC, a well known climate change editor who can be equally productive, verbose and drama prone while skirting admin action in many noticeboard cases. Ironically, these two might be considered on opposite sides of entertaining a POV. Whatever solution is found for transforming WMC for the better, may likely have an equal impact following on to CoM. (Bigtimepeace, you remind me of me in pursuing peace.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from ascribing a POV to me. I would like our articles to be clear, accurate and to reflect the most notable aspects of their subjects according to our long standing policies regarding weight and neutral point of view. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your intentions. My applogies, I tried to avoid assigning a specific POV. It's best to leave a specific POV out of this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Take care of yourself and stay out of trouble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to BTP, what is required is something similar to the remedy that was recently enacted against Tothwolf - another long time very productive user who has issues with civility and seeing conspiracies everywhere. In otherwords a prohibition about being uncivil, ascribing motives to other users actions and making baseless personal attacks. Something along the lines of

CoM is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should CoM make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, CoM may be blocked for a short duration not exceeding one week. After 5 such blocks the maximum duration of any block shall be increased to one month. In particular CoM is reminded not to cast unfounded aspersions without providing detailed diffs to support their claim

While draconian, I have to say that CoM's behaviour has really gone too far now and they seem to be unable to engage in any discussions on wikipedia right now without importing a battleground mentality that is far from helpful. Spartaz 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a site ban of ChildofMidnight. I have frankly never come cross this editor's name except in the context of massive drama caused by his apparent difficulties to interact productively with others. I am of the opinion that we should not allow our time to be wasted by people who do not have the skills to work without massive friction in a collaborative environment. (Though to be fair one would have to apply the same remedy to some of the editors in the climate change area he seems to be in conflict with, but - one thing at a time.)  Sandstein  07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that a site ban goes way beyond what I think is needed here. I don't doubt that you've only come across ChildofMidnight's name in the context of massive drama, but if you look through his contributions you'd see he is doing a lot of article work (it's not an excuse for poor behavior, but to suggest that he's only involved in drama is simply not true). We have not really tried anything in terms of a community-imposed remedy, all we've had are some sanctions from ArbCom in one topic area (Obama articles) and a number of blocks, some of which were clearly problematic or at the least controversial. We should not be jumping from there to a site ban, or even to a long block. The goal should be to limit or put an end to the troubling behavior so ChildofMidnight's positive contributions will be all that we see around here. Personally I like the sound of Spartaz's suggestion. It's not ideal, but it could be effective, and there seems to be some precedent for it. I'm curious as to what others think about that idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeesh I'm just coming off ANOTHER bad block in a long line of them. Let this thing die. If any sanctions are needed they're against BozMo who continues to make a series of poor judgments. You don't get to play the, well he wasn't guilty but let's make some new shit up and punish him anyway game. If I make a personal attack, I'm sure I'll be blocked. It should be for 24 hours, and a warning and an opportunity to fix things would really be appreciated. That's a courtesy that's never been extended to me, and I am human. What also needs to stop is the abusive and disruptive hounding by Tarc, Mathsci, and now Bigtimepeace whose abusive antagonistism and intimidation I thought was over and in the past. It's very frustrating and upsetting to see him stalking me and hounding me to new forums again. I'm here to do aritcle work, and if these abusive and harassing actions would stop I'd really like to get back to it. Please leave me alone and let me write articles. It's something Tarc and many of the rest of you should give a try. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• CoM, Denis Healey famously said the first thing you should do when in a hole was stop digging. This comment is the complete oppposite of this. Please do yourself a favour and stop adding fuel to the flames. Spartaz 08:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As completely uninvolved, the length of time and the breadth of venues this guy has played you all in is a breathtaking example of how bad you all are at grabbing the nettle. The guy is here to be a disruptive timesink (well, that and occasionally writing about disgusting bacon confections). Just restrict him to only articles involving bacon (or siteban him) and be done. Or keep doing this, over and over and over, which i must admit is more amusing for those of us in the peanut gallery.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Bali, you're a left-leaning editor who makes sharp comments on a bunch of pages (and I'm a right-leaning editor who's done that, too). I can recall some sharp comments from you I saw just within the past few weeks. You're "completely uninvolved" only in the narrowest way -- if you haven't been in the "breadth of venues" with CoM it's by chance. And CoM points out that he's been attacked by editors who themselves haven't been sanctioned. A site ban seems out of place, especially coming from you. The whole AGW mess is inevitably difficult to deal with because of the nature of the controversy and the difficulty in getting consensus there. You, of all people, should understand how frustrating these things can be, and that should be easier to see the less involved you are. Back in the day, you made similar comments on my talk page, and you were pretty much on the money. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • John -- You really don't know my politics. CoM is just here to fight, whatever his politics. I can't remember ever making any comments on your talk page about global warming (I don't think i've commented on global warming here at all -- my opinion on that matter is that wikipedia as governed is incapable of dealing with global warming and many other topics in a competent matter, given the nexus of obsessives, fringe politics and the need for nuance in areas where at least some of the key science is unsettled. But this complaint is a structural one).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No, you didn't make those comments on my talk page (not about global warming, but about this kind of frustration). My mistake. No, CoM is not just here to fight. When he points out bad behavior and points out admins allowing that behavior to continue, he can be on the money (although I don't see how his comments on 2=0's talk page are accurate), and that information can be valuable. And he's been given bad blocks, including this one. My main point stands: You know exactly how frustrating it can be to participate in hot political topics on Misplaced Pages. That's not irrelevant here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The whole thing is more involved than an A/N discussion can get to the bottom of, and RfC has been done. It would be better for CoM and for the project if he walked away from AGW-related edits and complaints, as long as everyone realizes that CoM walking away won't come close to fixing the general problem there, and it would do no good to ban him from there -- because it looks like it would reward the people goading him. It's almost impossible for someone who hasn't been following the AGW situation to figure out if admins have been lenient to one side and harsh on the other without just reading the whole damn archives. Maybe this whole thing should go to ArbCom. Are the AGW general sanctions working out? If not, it should definitely all go to ArbCom. When this general sanctions regime was set up, I said it would be better to have ArbCom appoint admins to deal with it. Those admins would be directly answerable to ArbCom and would be less likely to make a block of the type we see here (and maybe more likely to make other, necessary blocks). Self-selected admins are naturally going to be open to more suspicion, and this is a really difficult area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's important to separate the issue of ChildofMidnight's behavior from the issue of AGW-related articles. From the little I've seen the latter are clearly a (large) problem, I personally don't feel like getting remotely involved as an admin given the level of vitriol there, and you could be right that ArbCom needs to help sort things out. But that's a general issue of which C of M is just a small part (it was a problem well before he ever got there). There is also the undeniable issue of ChildofMidnight's editing style, which was found to be problematic in the recent RfC. Leaving the AGW stuff to the side (it's not the topic of this sub-thread), we need to have a way to deal with this problem. Simply saying C of M cannot edit global warming articles won't do the trick—the problematic behavior goes back many, many months across multiple topics and in multiple forums, and we need a general way to handle it. If you want to pursue a discussion or form of dispute resolution about AGW articles (which is probably a good idea), you should probably start that afresh somewhere separate from this much more focused discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the editing restrictions proposed by Spartaz above. Such a restriction would allow Child of Midnight to concentrate on writing content and help him avoid the drama minefields where the civility problems arise. Vsmith (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptions that need to be addressed

These were uncivil and antagonistic comments were made just in the last few days by vaious AGW acolytes:

• "..."old fruit" is categorically inoffensive."--BozMo talk 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This relates to WMC calling other editors "old fruits". BozMo came in to defend him because, you know, calling people you disagree with old fruits is a really good idea and should be encouraged, especially from someone who considers "Will" a personal attack when used in reference to an editor named William.

• He "is deliberately misusing this page." He "has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. " He "should refrain from manufacturing events " If "he has nothing sensible to contribute, he should be banned from posting on this page or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)"
• "At the moment he is gaming the system and misusing this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 "
• "Absolutely. Another example of baiting and gaming the enforcement system based on very little knowledge of the facts. I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) "
• "On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" In this diff Bozmo defense William Connolley's personal attacks and uncivil disruptions.

• What remains is the same trivial mudracking we've seen before. It's a spurious pile-on request and should be discarded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Calling trolls and POV morons trolls and POV morons isn't incivil, it's the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation. -- 166.135.160.248

• 2over0 calls another editors work "tendentious and unproductive"- 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a small sample of the nastiness and incivility that editors working in that subject area have to put up with constantly. It needs to be addressed. Admin 2over0 and BozMo have only encouraged it by going after editors they don't agree with and protecting the William Connolley crowd. It really needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that in addition to the relentless trolling of my contributions by Tarc, who isn't involved in any articles I'm working on, and the harassing intimidation engaged in by Bigtimepeace, who's also not working on any articles with me and isn't involved in any disputes with me except those he's now seekign out here and elsewhere, I'm also being taunted by sock puppets like User:संपादक who was just indefinitely blocked, and PhGustaf, who had no edits today, suddenly popped up to taunt me when I was requesting review of my block. So if we want to deal with abusive trolling and harassment, I'm all for it! Let's get started on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase was 'old fruit', not 'old fruits', and is British slang, similar to 'old bean'. It is possible but hasn't been demonstrated that the reference was meant to mean an old gay person. I guess I should also point out that this was discussed ad nauseam by a number of editors, not just BozMo. It came up in a request for enforcement against WMC at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement by Mark Nutley, but I've just noticed that Mark actually struck through that particular complaint. There is now a request for enforcement against CoM there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM, I was the individual referred to as the "Old Fruit", and I certainly didn't get the "pip". Under your specious arguments, it is very fortunate that WMC did not conclude his comment by saying "Tally Ho!" I shudder to think what your reaction to your understanding of the meaning might have been... To mix a British and an American term; stop walking around with your fanny in your hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why CoM has included my comment above. It's another instance of the comments made about his project space edits on the recent RfC/U. His edits do seem to be disruptive at the moment, following this unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for BozMo

Bozmo, you blocked CoM at 18:32, 12 Feb, citing Disruptive editing: offensive language, assumption of bad faith etc on the block log and referring to CoM's comments that RyanPostlethwaite links to at the top of this thread. But nine hours a little over a day before the block, you made this comment on the "General sanctions" report page , defending a comment William Connolley made -- against ChildofMidnight:

On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010

What I don't understand is how you could decide that Connolley's statement about "malicious edits" (which, in fact, can only be made by a "malicious editor"), directed to an editor Connolley knew might get upset, were acceptable, while CoM's similar comments to an admin were blockworthy. It looks suspicious to me, but perhaps you have a reasonable explanation. (I don't think Connolley's statement should have gotten him into trouble either, because implying that an editor is acting maliciously in a particular situation is in the gray area of possible incivility on the AGW-complaints page where Connolley made the comment. We need to allow some leeway on complaint pages -- just as we need to allow it when editors are complaining on an admin's talk page -- where angry editors need a little allowance in making a complaint.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am interested in seeing his answer to this. It appears to me as though his hand has been caught in the cookie jar. Jtrainor (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Misplaced Pages policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Disruption from an administrator

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3)

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard

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.

Unified discussion now at the thread below this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

see also: wp:ani#A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard — Jack Merridew 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm at a bit of a loss to know where to post this, so I've also posted on WP:AN/I. Please feel free to remove from either one. However, I was wondering whether the following topic ban proposal for myself should be conducted here or on ANI? And if not, where should it be announced so that an appropriate cross section of the community gets to comment? Also, who will be the admins who administer this ban? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the last, I would be content to allow you to administer it; you do have some aptitude in adminning, and you are fundamentally a sound individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... he's the SUBJECT of the ban. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What, administer my own ban? LOL! I don't think that would regular, surely? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

On my own initiative, I am archiving this thread. I hope any similar threads will be archived as well. Tbsdy has indicated that he is heading off for the night; hopefully when he comes back online tomorrow, things will be more rational. If a new thread is started tomorrow, could it please be held here, on the Administrators' noticeboard, with no subheadings? Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• DOCUMENTATION: diff of archiving and suggested constraints: "no subheadings." Proofreader77 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Note, this was originally held on the article talk page. The discussion has been removed from this thread by the nominator. Sorry, I'm tired, this is not the case, the comments are still in the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Based upon Tbsdy's behavior at Talk:Blenheim Palace particularly--and towards Giano in general-- and commentary both there and across several other pages, I propose that Tbsdy be banned from editing Blenheim Palace and interaction-banned from Giano. Clearly, from his commentary at that talkpage, nothing else will get him to disengage. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (topic/interaction ban for Tbsdy). Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is basically already the consensus, but I suppose formalizing it with a poll might be the only way to get it enacted. If you'll take a look at WP:ANI#Bounty board template and article ownership and Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise, you'll see that it has been recommended to Tbsdy, by nearly every editor that came to comment, that he refrain from editing the article in question and that he stay away from User:GiacomoReturned. He stated in no uncertain terms that he actually plans to pay extra attention to this article and Giano's edits. We'd therefore like the de-facto ban formalized. Equazcion 20:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - for the record, I think that given the circumstances, I have been extremely civil towards Giano. Giano has told me to shove a olive branch up... somewhere. He's told me that I'm a liar, has already banned me from the article (see the talk page), has threatened to have me banned as a vandal, has informed me that I'm incompetent, has been harassing another editor I wanted to collaborate with and basically intimidated them so badly they left the article for good and has categorically rejected suggestions for improving the article. The one who has submitted this ban proposal recently started edit warring with Jeni to remove the bounty box from the talk page, and eventually when they were asked why they removed it were pretty much forced to readd it back in. You'll have to forgive me for feeling that all of Giano's proponents have popped up and want to lynch me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You really need to put down the stick about the bounty box. It's a hackneyed, tired argument, and Equa and I reached a suitable compromise, of which you had no part. You've been a problem at that article, and all surrounding Giano for several days now. It needs to stop. Hopefully this does it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Well, you did edit war, and you did make a claim that the editor was being WP:POINTy about the bounty box, in other words you accused them of being disruptive, when they did no such thing. I note that the admin discussion that was ongoing there was shutdown by one of the supporters of me being banned, this seems to me to be no coincidence. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Put down the stick. This is about you, and your actions surrounding that article and Giano in general. Stop trying to deflect and dissemble. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You started a thread here about him. Do you expect him not to participate? Beach drifter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not, I'm merely stating the fact that you are not what I'd call an uninvolved party. In fact, your edit summary was almost precisely the same as Giano's when he removed the template. Every one of your assertions against that editor proved to be false. The editor was not violating WP:POINT and the template was not cluttering up the page (you moved it down the page - your actual reason was you didn't like the picture of the pirate). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't speak to anything else here, having had little to no experience with Tbsdy or Giano outside of one page, but I have to say that on that one page Giano is really being an A$$. he's contributed nothing except a protracted string of 'this is a stupid idea' type comments mixed liberally with open or veiled complaints about Tbsdy, administrators, and wikipedia in general. If I had to choose which editor I wanted to deal with, it's a hands down no-brainer in favor of Tbsdy. you are all seriously worrying about the wrong person here. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure of this thread

• I hope you don't mind, but I got rid of the poll structure. It's really not necessary and encourages factionalism. Tbsdy, my advice to you from the ANI thread still stands. NW (Talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, why is this showing a collapsebox? I'm confused. So confused. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I collapsed the portion of this thread that dealt with moving it off the talk page, as it's already been moved. Equazcion 20:10, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. And into the drama pit you enter I also see. Nice :-) Thank you for doing this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • What point do these type of comments serve, other than as baiting other editors? Placing smiley's doesn't ameliorate your actual commentary, Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Er... I thanked you for taking this here, even if you think it's a drama pit. Nothing untoward there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think it's appropriate to hide these comments. I do feel they show that UnitAnode is taking everything I say, even polite things, fairly badly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about interaction on Misplaced Pages talk:Incivility blocks

• So a question is - if I am not allowed to interact with Giano (nothing would give me more pleasure), then does this mean that I can still shepherd in the Misplaced Pages talk:Incivility blocks proposal? Giano has basically camped out there, and it was really at his invitation that I reviewed the Blenheim Palace article. I think it might be a little unreasonable to stop me from using the incivility blocks talk page, given that I've been driving it through. Really, Giano has said some horrible things about me, and managed so far to derail discussion at every turn on that page. Would it be reasonable to ban me from Giano's article but allow me to edit the proposed policy page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  No. Your moving his comments around as "shepherd" of that page is part of the problem. If it's a good policy proposal (in my view, it's awful), it will be fine without you "shepherding" it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I believe you made this point before, to which I responded and you then told me I was harassing you. Did you wish to discuss this now? I can if you would like. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would someone get this guy to let it go? I'm tired as hell of dealing with his continual deflections. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Er, you raised the point about the move of the talk thread, not me. My question is whether I get to continue editing the Misplaced Pages talk:Incivility blocks article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing that up; my take on that proposal is that it is clearly intended to be a mechanism that is to be first-employed as a schedule for blocking Giano which, of course, requires an incident to invoke it. Who's involved in all of this? Jack Merridew 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not at all - in fact, if you look at my comments in the start of the talk page you'll notice that when his name was brought up I couldn't work out what was being talked about. I more had editors like Nothughthomas in mind. I guess this might apply to Giano, I don't know as I'd not block him myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I know that you've had a few years at a lower level of participation and that you've probably missed stuff. There's enough on that page, that you now know where to look. You guess this might apply to Giano?? It seems tailor-made for a down-on-Giano agenda. And there are all those ANI threads someone ought to post a list of. I guess this page needs clerks. Anyway, I'm glad that you see that you're not one to be doing any blocking of our bear of an editor ;) Oh, I vaguely recall Nothughthomas, but not the details; I note that the user is blocked, but didn't look at by who or why. I'll assume it's for the best. Anyway, I'm not signing above as I hope you'll be agreeable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (see today's userpage;)

  You are rather seeing a conspiracy that doesn't exist, or at least I have not been involved if there is one. The only thing I remembered about Giano was how upset he was when years ago I took his article to FARC, because I thought it more like an essay than an article. I distinctly remember him insulting me then, as he does now. But really, the incivility block proposal has nothing to do with Giano and I wasn't targetting any one editor. I was genuinely surprised when his name was mentioned. If I knew the drama that would ensue, I wouldn't have asked for clarification, believe me on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Could be; I've not stepped through those pages in detail. You say above that you're tired, and I see why. Take NW's advice, below, and get some rest. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to stick but if you persist, something will. Overall, I'm not much fussed about language; they're just fuckin' words. See my new userpage; it's dynamic like my talk page edit notice, but *moar*. Come back in 8 hours after sleep and then caffeine. Jack Merridew 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I freaking love that talk page notice. I'm seriously going to steal it some time, if you're OK with that. Time for bed - I can't believe I've stayed up all night because of this! Damn. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ya, you can use my code; any time after I hit 'save' at least. Use other quotes, though; LotF is mine ;) Jack Merridew 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Subheaders in this thread

• Hey, why is this being subdivided up again? Another admin took out the divisions - I don't really think we need an unofficial artificial section header. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is your problem? I'm trying to offer the thread a bit of organization with some subheaders. Why are you removing them? I've left the discussion subheader removed, but the others can stay. Why have you removed them? Equazcion 20:40, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not really long enough to subdivide. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • And if I think it is? It might not be all that long, but it is confusing to look at, especially to those who aren't privy to the situation. Do you have any particular reason for objecting to some subheaders? Equazcion 20:42, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think section headers will cast any real light on the situation. Perhaps you might like to rewrite the summary to make it more clear why you are proposing the ban? Wouldn't that make things clear to the uninvolved editor? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Do you have any reason to object to subheaders? I didn't ask if you think they'll help. Will they hurt the situation in some way, even if you don't agree they'll help? Why have you reverted them? Or are you just being difficult? Equazcion 20:46, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
            • I've re-added the subheaders. There's no reason to remove them. Equazcion 20:48, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
              • People are adding more and more comments to the bottom of the thread. I do hope you will be maintaining a new section heading for each comment, or this could get confusing. Up to you, it's your baby! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Dude, I was about to reply to Ludwidgs, but you are moving comments around so much I can't find them! Can you please remove the subheadings? They are getting in the way of discussion. Seriously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Tbsdy, I know this isn't really your fault, but can you please go off and do something else for a while? Fixing this one page isn't really that critical of a matter. If this thing can die down, we can resolve it amicably in a few days or weeks. NW (Talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm actually about to go to bed. But, uh, I didn't start this ban proposal! It's really got nothing to do with me... others decided that they wanted me banned, so I don't really think there's much I can do about this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Page creation problems

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question:

Is there a technological way to prevent an editor from starting new pages? We've got an enthusiastic newbie that has started a number of stubs. Most of them have been promptly redirected back to the main article. For example, Symptoms of influenza was redirected to Influenza#Signs and symptoms within a couple of hours. There is usually far less information in the new page than at the original one.

The editor has been told, by myself and others, that he (or she) needs to search for existing articles and to add new information to the existing articles, and the advice has been received politely, but it doesn't seem to affect his behavior. Is there a way to simply turn off his ability to create new pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way to do that that I am aware of is to block them. I tried to get policy tweaked to require autoconfirmed status to create new articles but the proposal was rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only ones who can't create pages are IP's. Note that this particular editor has 1500 edits so the autoconfirmed thing wouldnt affect him anyway. —Soap— 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's untrue. I've seen several pages created by IPs. HalfShadow 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace pages? I mean, they can create talk pages, but Im pretty sure they cannot create new articles. If I go a title like dghdfhgdfgsfd as an IP and try to create the page, I get the "Unauthorized" message telling me to create an account so that i can start the article. —Soap— 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Older pages I'm sure. I think the restriction that you needed an account to write an article was put in around 2005 or 2006, soon after whenever the Seigenthaler thing happened. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may be looking at either talk pages (which can be created by IPs) or pages created through the AFC process (in which an IP can create a page and have it moved to the mainspace). TNXMan 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I'm sure I saw one a couple of days ago, but it was deleted pretty quickly, so I can't even prove it one way or another. I'll assume an error on my part, though. HalfShadow 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles created through the Articles for creation project would show up as having been created by IPs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

I'm on my way out for the rest of the day, but I just fully protected the article on Nodar Kumaritashvili, the young man who died on the luge course in Vancouver. I expect there to be a lot of requested edits, and there is at least one user who already wants to AFD it, so the more eyes on this while I'm off at the local homebrew competition the better. I'll check back in when I'm over my hangover tomorrow. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrator user page message

Anyone who knows this administrator, please look into this.

(Note: The above edit took place after an exchange on Talk:Jimbo Wales took an unexpected turn/tone.)

Someone who knows this administrator's history can perhaps interpret the situation appropriately as to response.
-- Proofreader77 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could apologize? Just a thought. Equazcion 03:30, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards