Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 2 March 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

User page text copied

A recent User page, created by User:MrRohanM on 26 January 2010 has the opening text copy pasted from my Userpage, including the Babel tower and the Barnstars! The design format however is not mine original, rather a standard one. Are there any wiki rules that cater to this situation?!! If yes, please guide/intervene. Thanks! --Ekabhishek 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The user has been recently blocked for ignoring copyvio notices too. It is definitely a mis-representation of himself, especially indicating years of work on articles and displaying barnstars from established editors! Here is another complaint raised by an editor. prashanthns (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I presented the barnstar to Ekabhishek, not MRohan. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Material here is released by you per the GFDL guidelines. I will however leave him a note about this discussion and about the false use of barnstars awarded to others. JodyB _talk 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a followup, I left a note asking him to remove the false Barnstars. I removed the one from User:AshLin referenced above. JodyB _talk 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them all as they were misleading. I've run into users like this before who have copied a user's page, which resulted in 7 users being errniously added to a project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether somebody's User page edits are released or not, the person who copies them to their User page must still follow the attribution rules. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the licensing issues raised above, there is the issue of misrepresentation too. prashanthns (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages. As a side note, since user pages are often edited solely by their owners, the wikilinks for the page and author may be the same. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the immediate deletion of Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster

The creation of this page is simply insulting. A few articles that were not sufficiently paraphrased in sections does not invalidate my work on this project, which was always done to the best of my ability and always in good faith. Frankly, this is ridiculous, and I respectfully ask that it be removed immediately. Concerns with any article I have written or edited may be directed to my talk page and addressed there. I am working on rewriting problem articles, but doing so mainly off of Misplaced Pages to avoid unnecessary drama. FlyingToaster 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CCI is a great way for us to help you address the copyright issues. It is not intended to be insulting; we are simply helping out. Theleftorium 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm heavily involved with CCI, though I've had nothing to do with this one. But it seems that one of the SCV contributors found current problems in seven of your articles: Irish School of Ecumenics, Canal City Hakata (), Ars inveniendi (), Irving Morrow (), Morgan "Bill" Evans (, ), Uterine orgasm (), Parastichy (). Having only just seen this CCI, I have not evaluated these. In addition, a good many more were located earlier, as discussed at your talk page. The purpose of a CCI is to aid in evaluating for copyright problems when a contributor has been shown to have placed copyrighted content outside of policy in multiple articles. Even if your doing so was inadvertent, I believe this has been true for you. Is there any reason why your edits should not be subjected to review by others to ensure that they are properly cleaned? (I do see, though, that the list of contributions includes reverts. I'll see about replacing it if the page remains.) This CCI is one of two dozen currently open and is by no means suggestive of bad faith. At this point, AGF specifically discusses that policy and copyright here. --Moonriddengirl 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that it was filed correctly, at the appropriate page, and accepted per guidelines. I do not see there is any reason for removing it. I also do not think that you have the authority to propose a different way of dealing with the situation. You can either proceed in your own methodology of correcting the problems, or you can join the others within an established process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to review my work if they wish, but I feel an entire project page on the matter is both punitive and unnecessary. Phrases such as If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately are not applied to editors to whom good faith is being assumed. Editors' dedication to article cleanup and copyright law is laudable - I am objecting to this method and not the work. I'm requesting that since very few articles are insufficiently paraphrased, and the substantive body of my work is not a problem, you let me fix what needs to be fixed on my own, as I have been doing offline. FlyingToaster 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's policy; see Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations. It is part of the instructions placed at the top of every WP:CCI, along with the caveat: "However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal", which is also present in yours. As I said above, WP:AGFC specifically addresses this situation. It says, "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." This method is the simplest way of listing your article content and noting which ones have concerns and which ones do not. --Moonriddengirl 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing what Moonriddengirl says here. We should all be treated the same way. Don't take this to heart, and I urge you to follow LessHeard vanU's advice and join in with the established process. So far as I'm concerned, that's the best thing you could do and would show good faith. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me also note that these are not indexed, and as soon as it is fully closed it will be courtesy blanked. We have only kept a few with their content still visible because they are needed, as for images that are up for deletion on Commons. I can think of several CCIs where the contributors themselves have been (and in one case still are) very active in working alongside those who have been addressing the concerns. The point is simply to get any problems resolved as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. FT, it is undeniable that there are problems with some of your contributions and the best thing you can do is help these editors establish which, fix them and then we can all move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As a way "to avoid unnecessary drama" as FT says, taking something like this to WP:AN seems a bit counterproductive. I agree with the other comments above that deletion is not warranted in this case. But in future, WP:MFD is a more appropriate and drama-free place to take non-article deletion requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am incredulous that this editor is still not grasping Misplaced Pages's most fundamental and important rule. A few days ago, she was here wanting magical tools just handed back on a plate. Can someone please explain to her - slowly; just how serious this is. Otherwise, sooner or later, it will fall to me to explain, and it won't be in words of one syllable. If she's still not grasping it, then she has to be banned.  Giano  22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, your talents are many and I count myself as an admirer of them; "WikiLifeGuide", however is not one of them, and I would very strongly suggest that you do not make the attempt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I kind of think that was the point. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't find this comment helpful; many editors come here with good intentions, and find our policies and guidelines an extremely steep learning curve, and if they can't cope with that, despite well-intentioned attempts to direct them in the right direction, just give up. We've all made mistakes editing here, and I defy you to find me one editor who hasn't. On the other hand, talk of "banning" is premature; even you seem to have been rehabilitated for the time being. I accept re-adminning of Flying Toaster is unlikely in the circumstances, but I do not consider a page of collections of cpvios, for the purpose of validating our content, can be construed as an attack page. It is more an attempt to correct mistakes made in the past, for the benefit and protection of the encyclopedia, and no attack is intended. Maybe such a page might be better offline, but that makes the job of those trying to fix the problem more difficult. It can be here, for maintenance only, and only for as long as needs be here, and then it should go. It is already {{NOINDEX}}ed to prevent unnecessary external obloquy, and I think we've largely got it about right here. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

FGS, if people are so stupid that they cannot understand that we do not copy other people's work and pass it off as our own, then there is no place here for them. In short, it is ilegal and brings the project into disrepute.  Giano  23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The vast majority are totally fine and if a few editors have a little look the page will soon have been dealt with and gone. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. Tell me, from your own past experience, what limits, if any apply to the policies of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? These may not be legal requirements, but they are nevertheless regarded as critical policies. As regards copyright violations, many editors unwittingly introduce them into, for example, lists of television programme episodes, and it would be a full-time job to keep track of them. Fortunately, nobody has yet (as far as I know) successfully sued the WMF for breach of copyright, although I'm pretty confident that there have been a few emails to the Office in that regard. What is important is not that we act upon copyright violations when we detect them, but that we have a coherent system in place to do so. CorenBot is all very well, but it is not a catch-all solution, and does not catch subtle plagiarism. The alternative is that recent-change patrollers are alert to cpvios, as well as vandalism, but my experience is that there is already too much to do on that patrol. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• There have been many emails to the office about copyright issues, varying from the obviously valid to the batshit insane to the argument between two people over who owns the copyright on the content they used to share (and resulting in both sites being blacklisted due to their edit-warring over links). I think I'm right in saying that we have never received a valid DMCA takedown notice. This is largely, IMO, because our response to copyright issues is generally robust and small-c conservative, as is right and proper given our commitment to the free-as-in-speech part of free software: we prefer free content, freely given. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri

LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is co-founder of TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user's history shows that he has engaged in a prolonged campaign of promotion of his commercial interests, creating the article on his product (twice), and recently edit-warring over his insertion of his product at {{Cloud computing}}, e.g. where he describes removal of his addition of his product as "vandalism". I propose that LirazSiri be restricted as follows:

• user:LirazSiri is banned from TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library and from making references to TurnKey Linux elsewhere in the project, other than to point out simple errors of fact via talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library.

The history of the talk page and its deleted comments shows that the user cannot possibly claim, as he appears to do on the current version, to be unaware of the problems of his conflicted editing. He was warned in February 2009 about COI edits and when Abd warned him in Feb 2010 his response pretends he was not previously aware of this (note that edit also removes warnings about copyright, removal of deletion templates and so on). There is no doubt that this editor is aware of our policies, the history of his talk page indicates numerous previous notified deletions of material due to rights issues.

Alternatively, since this is effectively a WP:SPA I guess a siteban would be possible, but I prefer to think that if we could prevent him from spamming he might still try to contribute some useful content on areas where he has knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Despite their obvious potential in contributing to Misplaced Pages in an appropriate manner, their insistence on using WP as a promotional tool is presently a nett deficit to the project. Since there is the potential, I concur that a article ban is the best option. This may be reviewed should their contributions start reflecting policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, this may be a good idea, if only to avoid future problems. That said, the above description isn't entirely accurate:

• The editor did recreate the page after it was first speedied, but the current version was userfied and developed before being sent, by the editor, to DRV, where it was approved.
• The COI is in regard to an open source project, so it isn't clear that there is a direct commercial interest, and the editor is generally very upfront about the COI.
• As I understand it, the major spamming involved placing a link to the article in the {{Cloud computing}} template, where, when it was first removed, the editor sought consensus on talk.
• The current dispute, and accusations of vandalism, came after that template was modified, without discussion, by Samj with the somewhat inflammatory edit summary of "%!@$#! spammers!". Samj also accused the editor of vandalism for readding the link well before LirazSiri returned the favour, including placing a final warning on LirazSiri's talk. I note that LirazSiri suggested that Samj discuss the template rather than edit waring on at least three occasions () prior to either editor escalating to accusations of vandalism.

Short version - it looks like two editors managed to get caught up in a fairly wide ranging and heated edit war. While sanctions may be needed, I'm uncomfortable with coming down on LirazSiri without noting that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that LirazSiri wasn't necessarily the worst of the two. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I recall it was deleted, userfied, moved back to mainspace, deleted again, then userfied again. It was a while back, though. That doesn't change the fact that this is an account whose primary if not sole purpose on Misplaced Pages is, and always has been, promotion of his own commercial interests. And the template was first modified by LirazSiri , who added an "appliances" section as a WP:COATRACK for his product. SamJohnston was merely reacting to this promotional editing and was not the first or only one to do so, see Template:Cloud computing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It's also worth noting that when LirazSiri proposed the Appliances section on Talk (after he'd added it and it had been reverted), he neglected to mention his conflict of interest. Nor was it mentioned when a "see also" section was added to Amazon Machine Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with just one entry: . Nor was it mentioned when he added it to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), . Or Software appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Or Virtual appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Or Just enough operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Or Turnkey (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Or List of live CDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . And who might 79.180.13.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) be, I wonder? Because the only edits from that IP are adding TurnKey linux, for example where it's been removed from articles. In fact, I found it hard to find a single article to which LirazSiri has made non-trivial edits where those edits did not include linking TurnKey Linux, and where it's linked from other articles it usually turns out to be either LirazSiri who added it or an anon whose only edits to articles include adding links to TurnKey. The more I look at this the more blatant it looks, frankly. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was certainly a mess when the TurnKey Linux article was created, and a lot of argument, mostly instigated (or at least furthered) by LirazSiri. I guess my point there is only that that he seemed to get a clue, eventually, fixed up the article, and went through DRV. So the current article isn't necessarily suffering from the same problems, and he did improve his approach. I don't dispute that he is an SPA, and nor do I dispute that he has a COI. But I think the characterization of the editor's recent problems fails to take into account what was going on - while you're right that an editor had previously reverted the change from the template, LirazSiri took it to talk, and the result was (between the two editors) seeming acceptance of its inclusion. Then Samj turned up, two months later, removed it with an overly aggressive edit summary without discussion, and the two edit warred - with escalating commentary - over its inclusion, expanding the fight to TurnKey Linux. My hassle is that LirazSiri responded badly, and that he was arguably spamming the article with wikilinks, but it seems worth remembering that this wasn't the case of an editor reacting without cause, but two editors behaving badly, and that it was LirazSiri who seemed to be making moves to resolve the dispute (admittedly while reverting to his preferred version, of course). A topic ban might make sense, especially with the linking you mentioned, but it still seems worth keeping in mind what was pushing the reactions over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If that had been an end to it, yes. But one of those diffs, , is from December 2009 and the edit war that started all this is recent. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had planned to stay out of this but so long as I am being persistently criticised in a public forum using my real name by User:Bilby (who I note is a long-term contributor to the TurnKey article FWIW) I'm going to exercise my right of reply. First of all, and most importantly, my sole motivation is to maintain a very high standard in cloud computing related articles. In contrast, User:LirazSiri is a single purpose account for promoting TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (and indirectly the associated commercial entity, Sterile Security, not that a subject need be commercial to give rise to WP:COI).

I don't own the Template:Cloud computing article, but I did create it with a specific purpose in mind (now described in the template docs) and I do care about it. What User:LirazSiri did in adding an "Appliances" category to advertise their flagship product is comparable to adding a new layer to the 7-layer OSI model for the same purpose - obviously that would be unacceptable and would be immediately and persistently reverted by other editors (as was the case here - note that I was not the only editor to remove the category and the consensus is that it should not be there). Furthermore, the template is intended to illustrate by example each of the three main cloud computing layers (infrastructure, platform, application) using the best examples available - it is not intended to promote unknown entities. So far as I am concerned this is without doubt spam and given it changes the meaning of the template consider it vandalism too. Note that " is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages."

Also note that the template was a relatively minor part of the problem (albeit the one that initially caught my attention). There is also the far more serious matter of 10 problematic images having been uploaded AGAIN, containing TurnKey's logo grafted others' registered trademarks along with the claim that "I (LirazSiri (talk)) created this work entirely by myself". These were then persistently inserted and re-inserted into many non-image categories, with reverts summarised as "hotcat abuse"(?). When I then partially resolved the copyright problems by applying {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} (calling for fair use rationale) this was quickly reverted. I was heavily criticised by both User:LirazSiri and User:Abd for my cleanup efforts, for listing the images for deletion, and even for my choice of tool! When User:LirazSiri removed the deletion templates (more vandalism) he used the edit summary "reverted vindictive edits by SamJohnston" and repeatedly claimed in the debate that this constituted "more cynical wikilawyering and harassment".

Now I may not come across as the friendliest editor (especially to those who seek to abuse Misplaced Pages for self-promotion) and this one edit summary may have been a bit abrasive, but I feel little remorse for hostility towards such disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly in light of the abuse I have received both on- and off-wiki (here, here, here and of course this). Maybe I do take it "insanely seriously" but we have policies for a reason and they generally work well. User:LirazSiri has shown they have no respect for the rules and that they "will continue to express opinions and advocate for what believe in despite threats to censor for 'making waves'". It seems the only way to avoid continued disruption is with a ban of some sort.

P.S. If you're looking for an explanation as to how routine spam cleanup turned into a full on dispute snaring multiple editors then look no further than User:Abd who has a history of same and an editing restriction " from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties" that we are seeking to enforce. -- samj _in 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It was pointed out to LirazSiri at least a year ago that Misplaced Pages is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This has been studiously ignored. Only supportive comments have been accepted and the promotional edits have continued unabated. What we have here is a completely unrepentant promoter of their own commercial ends. We normally block such people, an editing restriction is definitely lenient here. But don't be tempted to start flinging mud at Bilby, he seems to me to be acting in good faith, I don't see any evidence you and he would have trouble agreeing on anything of importance if you set out to try. I know what it feels like to be on the end of one of Abd's crusades, don't let the feeling poison you against others who are trying to discuss the matter in good faith. The problem here is LirazSiri, plus the emboldening effect Abd has had, which has actively impeded LirazSiri's progress from a COI spammer into anything else. Now we're going to have to take action to fix that. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I would Support a topic ban rather than a block (and I should hope banning the TurnKey article will temper User:LirazSiri's interest in others, including the template where I see they have been busy even today criticising my work and pushing the point about linking). Alternatively, or perhaps additionally in light of the disruption caused, I would propose a short block (somewhere between a day and a month) in the hope that they finally understand that they are at fault as nothing else seems to be getting through to them. An indefinite block just gives them reason to criticise the project and to be honest (thanks in no small part to assistance from other editors, including User:Bilby) the quality of the TurnKey article is not *that* bad so they may yet become a productive contributor rather than a "net deficit". -- samj _in 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of User:LirazSiri's attempted outing of User:JzG in response to notification of this incident (grounds in itself for an immediate block per WP:OUTING) and their persistence on Template_talk:Cloud computing, I no longer believe that a topic ban would be adequate. -- samj _in 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on LirazSiri's status

I was unaware of this discussion until a few moments ago, but participants will likely be interested to know that I have just placed an indefinite block on LirazSiri. S/he just attempted to out another editor, and s/he should remain indefinitely blocked until s/he expresses an understanding of our harrassment policy. (Unfortunately, I was subsequently forced to disable talk page editing by LirazSiri, because s/he continued to attempt to identify this editor.) If any admin sees fit to unblock after that, I would stipulate that it be under the condition that any further attempt to violate any other editor's privacy will result in a permanent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri immediately took this off-wiki and violated WP:OUTING "for the record" for the third time. He also abused me about it even though I didn't enact the block:

• Warning: never use your real identity on Misplaced Pages. The rules of the game are rigged to punish you for transparency.
• @samj you are the most cynical and disingenuous professional I have ever come across online. And that's saying something. For shame.
• @samj I'm tempted to write a blog post exposing what really happened. With evidence. When you live in a glass house don't throw stones.
• @samj OTOH, this text MMORPG drama has wasted enough of my time and sociopaths like you self destruct on their own eventually. Good day.
• @samj Drop the Dr. Jekyll routine. You sound reasonable on Twitter but on Misplaced Pages you are a vicious (yet still clever) Mr. Hyde.

This was in addition to their earlier posts:

• @samj Wow. Just wow. Did you get on the wrong side of bed today? Take a deep breath.
• Why do intelligent people create unnecessary drama online? It is boredom? Hopelessly misplaced ape-like aggression? Here, have a banana
• staticnnonsense @lirazsiri because they're human. drama follows humans like flies, intelligent or not, intentional or not. we just sorta suck like that.
• darkuncle @lirazsiri http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ explains it pretty well.
• That penny arcade comic is hilarious. And true. Good combination. Thanks @darkuncle!
• This week's lesson: watch where you step on Misplaced Pages. Some people take it insanely seriously.
• Misplaced Pages is like this giant text MMORPG nation with a complex legal system and culture only an insider can truly grok

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid above, but now that it's done I think we have little choice but to leave the indefinite block in place until LirazSiri agrees to abide by the rules. -- samj _in 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will note as a follow-up that LirazSiri emailed me requesting an unblock, and forwarding me a copy of an email he wrote to Samj (after he, LirazSiri, was blocked) in which he threatened to extensively discuss details of Samj's identity and occupation. He also intimated that he would consider socking as a response to an extended block. I was not comfortable with unblocking under those circumstances, and said so. I am not prepared to get into extensive on-wiki discussion involving editors' (purported) identities, nor do I feel that I can unblock this editor in good conscience. If there are other administrators familiar with the issues here, I will defer to their judgement on when or how LirazSiri might be unblocked. (I further waive any requirement that I be consulted before further administrative actions. Frankly, I thought this would be a simple indef-until-you-promise-not-to-do-it-again one-off block; I wasn't expecting to get sucked into interpersonal disputes and emails full of private and semiprivate information.) Emails will be made available to BASC on request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to LirazSiri, while I felt there was a reason for some of his earlier actions, there's no justification for his later ones. It would take something quite different to continued threats to out a user in order to warrant unblocking. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly suggest a few other admins to have a look at the deleted versions. If AGF is given any weight at all, this wasn't exactly an "attempt to out" as is being interpreted here. LirazSiri's explanation (followed by "sheesh!") is actually quite plausible, bringing both the block and the talk page restriction into question, which in turn might explain (though not excuse) some of the email and twitter reactions. --SB_Johnny |  10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy's name is hardly a secret, as he had a link to his own wiki with identifying information on his talk page for a long time. I certainly wouldn't have thought of a mention of his surname as being "outing" - simply a statement of fairly common knowledge. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about JzG. But isn't the subsequent threat made in email to TenOfAllTrades re SamJohnston what's being discussed here? Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The mail was apparently made after the block and restriction of talk page editing. Again, that would explain, but not necessarily excuse the email/tweet stuff. If TenOfAllTrades' initial reaction was disproportionate (which it certainly appears to have been), I'd like to at least see someone else review the email and see if there is room for resolving the issue in a less heavy-handed manner. --SB_Johnny |  11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial block for "outing" JzG as Guy Chapman was incorrect, as JzG has identified himself as Guy Chapman for copyright purposes relating to Misplaced Pages images. See . DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was quite an over-reaction, yes. As did LirazSiri, it seems (admin only link, see bottom paragraph), and it's hard to see how his/her reply to Ten's concerns could be interpreted as warranting the reaction it got. I strongly support lifting the block under the circumstances. --SB_Johnny |  11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• My name is not really a deep secret (though it's fair to note that I don't currently make the link here and others, such as THF, have arbitration findings underscoring a user's right not to have a link made even if they originally made it themselves). The issue here, though, is that LirazSiri seems to be unable to accept that his conflicted edits are a problem. IMO the major cause of this escalation is that Abd has spent a lot of time bolstering his sense of injustice and entitlement, resulting in the user receiving a very mixed message. Instead of being steered firmly away from promoting his product he's been told, in effect, that he can ignore the advice and warnings he's being given because of the person giving them - of course he's going to want to hear that rather than that he should stop promoting his commercial interests on Misplaced Pages, that's natural. LirazSiri showed signs of donning the Spider-Man suit but later Tweets seem calmer - I don't know if he's been outing SamJ as well though. I don't have a problem with sticking to the original suggestion of a topic ban. I think he's angry, not evil, and we've failed to fix a bad situation caused by someone giving him the wrong kind of feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed on most points. My sense of the (since interrupted) discussion above is that you were looking for a topic ban to help things along, rather than an indefblock, which strikes me as a reasonable approach. --SB_Johnny |  11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly that. Obviously we need to ensure that the user receives sound advice in future and not axe-grinding, and this should include guiding him to stick to usernames, not take on-wiki disputes off-wiki and vice-versa, and all the other usual stuff. It's not really his fault that he's become a pawn in a game he didn't even know was being played, it is our fault for not realising that the involvement of grudge-bearers was going to have this effect on what is, after all, a pretty routine matter. It needs an uninvolved admin who is not obviously part of the dispute or "teh cabalz", is all. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing if there are no objections. Looks easy enough to unstir the teapot in this case, but closure to the topic-ban discussion would be helpful. I'll check back in a bit and unblock with appropriate warnings if there's no problem with that. --SB_Johnny |  12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Considering Guy's not too fussed about his identity being known, even if there was intent there was no harm done. The first attempted outing had a similar "I know what you did last summer" ring to it as the email (which threatened to "expose" me for a couple of uncontroversial edits I made when I first created my account 4 years ago as well as crying wolf about WP:COI) and I didn't see the second. As such I would (as the original originating party) again Support a topic ban rather than a block. I would even support lifting the topic ban if the user were to indicate that they understand and agree to abide by the relevant policies, in particular the suggestions in WP:COI. -- samj _in 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Now unblocked, hopefully the issues can be concluded without further drama. --SB_Johnny |  13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, let's see if this editor is able to contribute usefully to areas where they don't have a conflict of interest and a poor editing history. This is the kind of problem we get when editors listen to disruptive influences. Verbal chat 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unsurprisingly, it turns out this is not the first time we've discussed User:LirazSiri at WP:ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Handing_off. -- samj _in 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's another 8,000 words from a year ago following the usual pattern of "my subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, so let's change them": Notability_criteria_for_entries_on_free_software_projects -- samj _in 06:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The accused responds

Hi Everyone. This is as closest I've ever been (and ever hope to be!) "on trial". A lot has been written on my behavior and motives and it's strange to read that as a bystander. At least now that I'm unblocked I can respond.

I originally intended to include a description I compiled of SamJ's problematic edit history, cross referenced with his public employment record and peel away the pretense from his "I'm-just-trying-to-protect-Misplaced Pages" charade. But I won't do that. Not because I think it would be wrong, but mainly because it would be a big waste of my time to engage in a debate about this and that would be akin to the territorial retaliation I've been on the pointy end of this last week. I won't stoop to that. I'll merely conclude that this was an editorial content dispute that got out of hand and there is blame enough to go around. At a couple of points I did get angry and loose my cool in and off wiki, but I got my sense of proportion back pretty quickly afterwards and calmed down . For the record, I've decided to forgive Sam for any real or perceived aggression against a fellow editor and cloud computing enthusiast. To his credit he did seem to tone it down a notch towards the end . Unfortunately, this was just after he had me blocked for "outing" Guy so it's a mixed bag.

I haven't yet decided how involved I want to be with Misplaced Pages in the future. I've been contributing anonymously to areas of interest since not long after the project's inception (with the first Slashdot waves). I only created an account with my real name to facilitate full transparency regarding edits I had potential COI with. I was tempted to rationalize that there wasn't really a COI because there wasn't a commercial interest involved, but I realized what a slippery slope this was (there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing) and decided to consciously limit myself in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel that's made me particularly vulnerable to ad-hominem attacks which I am compelled to respond to in defense of my reputation. Instead of discussing content on its merits it becomes all too easy to simply dismiss edits as tainted with COI (at best) or even evil spamming. Last year the article on TurnKey was even "speed deleted" as spam instead of going through the normal AfD process for determining notability. It was then moved to my user space for improvement but since I had messed with the wrong admin it was speed deleted even from there. That felt abusive. Sure, the article was eventually restored by unanimous decision at Deletion Review but it was frustrating to have to go through that and get dragged through the mud first.

Misplaced Pages's anarchic bureaucracy suffers from many perversions. The attempt to codify good behavior in policy has created a complex virtual legal system that can be easily manipulated by savvy individuals to their own ends (e.g., my blocking for an innocuous, lighthearted greeting). To paraphrase Lincoln, we all link to the same wiki policies, but in doing so we do not always mean the same things. In practice, many valuable would-be contributors to the project are being driven away through attrition, leaving the most obsessive, territorial contributors with free reign. Bad things can happen to good editors with the best of intentions and for all the wrong reasons.

Fortunately just when your head is about to explode from the insanity of it all comes along someone like Abd and offers neutral, positive guidance . What troubles me the most about this whole affair is how much mud had been slung in his direction. Some people in the community seem to really have it in for him. That's a shame. Misplaced Pages embodies so much of the good and bad in human nature and we need more people like him to tip the scale and prevent the project from further disintegrating.

Cheers. LirazSiri (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Liraz, you emailed me and threatened to "expose" me for uncontroversial, factual edits to the Citrix Systems article like this one, for creating the completely neutral System Administrators Guild of Ireland article and then got into a whole lot of hand waving about how I had been "so successful in pushing a POV on cloud that serves employer's interests" and that "this makes one of the most cynical and disingenuous professionals have ever come across online" (conveniently ignoring the fact that I have literally just started working for my employer and that your accusations are conspicuously absent supporting evidence - presumably why you threatened to "out" me off-wiki with "a quantitative visual analysis of edit history in the last 4 years with correlation to your public employment record" rather than using the usual processes). We have a word for that. I explained to you why a WP:COI accusation absent evidence is a type of personal attack (An interest is not a conflict of interest) and yet here you go again, going so far as to call me a single-purpose account in your emailed response.

As for User:Abd, who narrowly escaped sanction for violating his editing restriction and who will not be so lucky next time following clarification, here's a more typical sample of his "neutral, positive guidance". -- samj _in 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Two things immediately spring to mind from LirazSiri's comment: WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "neutral positive guidance" offered by Abd is no different from the counsel you were offered a year ago, had you heeded it then you would not be in trouble now. Instead you chose to follow what you presumably thought was "neutral positive guidance" from Abd back then, which turned out to be a serious mistake because the grudge-bearers managed to persuade you that you could safely ignore our documented aversion to promotional editing. You can't. Or at least not without getting into trouble, as you've found out. I think you are being distinctly disingenuous here, notwithstanding that you have been counselled badly by some people who are primarily grinding axes. I am not persuaded that you have yet shown any understanding of why your promotion of your commercial interests here is unacceptable. You continue to use distraction fallacies, as you did then, in an apparent attempt to excuse continued conflicted editing. I'm sorry, that is simply not good enough. The evidence above is pretty clear: your primary purpose here is and always has been the promotion of your own commercial interests, apparently because nobody but you thinks your product is of such pre-eminent worth as to justify adding it at high-level articles. So you do it. Again and again and again. Even though you've had WP:COI pointed out. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support a "topic ban from making any edit relating to TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library, except to point out simple errors of fact at Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library. But as I have not finished looking into this, this will have to be something I come back to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename CAT:CSD

Please express your opinions at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Starmania article deleted

Hi there! I don't see enough relevance on this article. I also added a deletion tag and I left a comment on it's discussion page. I'd appreciate that this article gets deleted. Mischa the Pilot (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the deletion tag and delete the MfD subpage as both an out-of-process (should have gone to AfD) and disruptive (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) deletion request. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BRFA for adminbot

I have created a BRFA for an adminbot that was requested. The BRFA is here: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/EyeEightDestroyerBot. It is a one-time run which deleted 25000 specified images in a certain category. Even though this should be a relatively uncontroversial bot, I am posting it here and at WP:VPR to make the community more aware about its existence. (X! · talk)  · @079  ·  00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I

75.84.198.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock or meatpuppet of the banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs). More info about Hetoum is available here: . It seems that he changed his geolocation, but the editing manner is the same. In any case, that IP is used for the same type of edits as reported here: , and needs an admin attention. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New filter may be in order

It may be time for a filter to help alert us to a very persistent character. User:Channel 6 has been nurturing a very single-minded sockpuppet farm almost certainly via proxies. He's been trying to promote a totally non-notable singer named Sarey Savy since at least December 2008. He simply keeps creating variations on the title as each variation is salted. "Sarey" is consistent among all the variations; could we create a filter that would alert us to "Sarey" and/or "Savy" or perhaps "Savvy?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, he's also over at Simple English. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with template deletion process

Please investigate I decided to take a look at {{First Class Matches}}, {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}—all of which I recently nominated for deletion and all of which were voted for deletion. Even though the discussions were over, {{tfd}} was still on the pages and {{being deleted}} was not. This lead me to Category:Templates for deletion, which includes (amongst others) {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, which was nominated and kept last November. I don't know how widespread this issue is, but I suggest an admin take a look. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the issue here, I'm a bit unclear: what's the issue with {{Saudi Arabian political parties}} being nominated and kept last November?

You're right that {{First Class Matches}} seems to have been overlooked, but the TfD templates had been removed from both Infobox Canadian police service and Infobox Police Department. I don't know that {{being deleted}} is necessary, because the closure of the TfD discussion seems to have been to redirect those two. Redirecting is, of course, a form of keeping. Pending some clarification, I'll go ahead and remove the "being deleted" template from those two. --Moonriddengirl 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I've asked an admin who does a lot of work at TfD to help clarify. --Moonriddengirl 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "voted for deletion" isn't an accurate description of the results for {{Infobox Canadian police service}} and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, so a {{Being deleted}} template would not be appropriate. {{First Class Matches}} was just closed this morning (UTC), so I'm not sure if it was "overlooked" or if the admin just didn't bother because he expected to have the deletion finished quickly enough for it not to matter. Leaving the TFD notice on {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, on the other hand, was clearly a mistake. The result tag on the talk page was also forgotten, so I added that. A quick scan of the category also found an incomplete close for Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Template:Bihar State Highways Network, where the Tfd template was left on the page after it was userfied, and a few false inclusions (templates that show up in the category because a nominated template is transcluded into them). But the vast majority of the templates in the category are current nominations, so I don't think there is a widespread problem here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, missed the obvious there. The problem with it was that the TfD template had remained. :) Not a problem with the TfD itself. --Moonriddengirl 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the links to {{First Class Matches}}, you will see it's on my todo list. I didn't see a need for the {{being deleted}} since it was going to be handled within 24 hours. This is not always an instantaneous process, especially when there are hundreds of templates being nominated in the span of a couple days. Next time you can always just ask the closing admin about it. Plastikspork _―Œ 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right I didn't think it was a problem until I saw the deletion from November. Obviously, things take time, but things this simple don't take four months. 24 hours on the other hand is completely legitimate. Thanks for the input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to check Category:Templates for deletion, as you did, every so often. You will frequently find templates which were tagged, but no discussion was started, or templates which have closed, but never deleted, redirect, or orphaned. It would probably be fairly straightforward to write a script to check for members of this category which were not currently listed on the TFD page. Plastikspork _―Œ 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV

Can someone close the two discussions remaining open at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 17 before they disappear? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll by Jimbo Wales

Please visit and comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has started a poll about whether or not we should simply turn on flagged revisions ASAP using the same settings as the German Misplaced Pages. This would seriously reduce the time it will take to implement, but it will likely mean we have considerable more work to do than we would have with the settings we actually want. It looks like Jimbo is advocating that we would switch off the German version and switch over to our own version as soon as it's ready. Anyway, enough from me - Go vote! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old BBC News articles

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This problem crops up more and more. What happened to User:WebCiteBOT? And can't AWB be extended to allow rapid WebCiting? Rd232 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:US_War_on_Terrorism

Can someone help with this template please? I tried renaming it to US_War_on_Terror, but I broke the template in the articles where it was used. I tried renaming it back, but that didn't fix it. Thanks in advance. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens...

...when you indeff an editor . Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I told them; a thousand year block would have been more appropriate! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interrrestink... but stupid! Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect's current block of Abd.

I believe that Future Perfect has made a bad block of Abd. My argument can be found here. I believe that FP simply wanting to throw his weight around, IMHO, as there is no clear violation of Abd's sanction as far as I can see. FP is needlessly harassing Abd with this block (like there is ever a need to harass someone). I would appreciate some independent oversight of this block. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I shall notify FP of this report on his talk page in that same section.

FP also seems to be under the impression that he is allowed to bar Abd from filing his own Arbcom requests: "And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either." This is presumably in reference to this: "... because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr" I find that premise to be completely absurd. Abd's sanction doesn't even hint at such a notion that Abd is barred from filing his own DR requests concerning matters directed at him. --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Abd escaped sanction at the ArbCom sanctions board because he said he would step away form the LirazSiri dispute which, after all, existed primarily because of his history of bad advice to LirazSiri. This edit: is just yet another example of Abd interpreting everything as validation of his actions. Abd needs to learn when to STFU and cut his losses. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards