Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:01, 16 March 2008

Checkuser follow-up

Hi Thatcher, you closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko with a verdict of "somewhere between possible and confirmed". This is the first time I've been involved in a CU case, so what is the next step? Should I block him (indef, or shorter?), or should I request another admin to do it, or do nothing? Thanks for any sage advice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See the final conclusion on the closed SSP page. Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases, including any closed SSP case. Eliko (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, the person filing the request is responsible for follow-up, although sometimes the checkuser clerks do some blocking. If you are not involved in a dispute with the editor, you can review the evidence (contribs and other data in addition to checkuser comments) and make a decision; if you are involved in a dispute with the editor, best to ask for other admins to review the case. In this specific case I have no complaints with Rlevse's proposed handling of the problem, however, characterizing the case as "they are all sockpuppets of Manstorius except me" does not explain all the evidence, and Eliko would be well-advised to stick to a single account from now on. Thatcher 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In this "specific" case (as you call it), Andrwsc - being involved in a dispute with the editor - has already asked for other admins to review the case; and the case was closed with a final clear conclusion. Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases. Eliko (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians should also not use sockpuppets to gain advantage in content disputes, and Wikipedians who are caught using sockpuppets in content disputes should probably avoid giving unintentionally ironic lectures on procedure. Rlevse does not have access to the checkuser data--I do. I am content to leave it as is but that is not the only possible outcome. Thatcher 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your opinion about the Wikipedians. Eliko (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Rlevse saw that a CU case had been opened a week after the SSP case, and might have drawn his conclusions on the SSP comments only. I shall notify him of the additional evidence. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse closed the SSP case with a "let's watch and see" conclusion - after the CU verdict. Eliko (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of ban to arbcom

I am seeking to appeal a ban, but have never filed an on-Wiki arbitration case before. It was suggested that I might talk to you for assistance. I started a thread on my talk here. The ban notice is here, this follows a discussion on WP:AN which you have previously been made aware of. —Whig (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing war with a Wik Editor called Fainites barley

Dear Clerk,

I find myself in an editing war with a Wik Editor called Fainites barley. I am afraid as a contributor I am not really familiar with making complaints so I have put it on an html page at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html

I should like to lodge a formal complaint and would like to know whether this format is acceptable?

Many thanks,

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

moved from your user page -- lucasbfr 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kip, at this point what I see in article content is that you and Mrvain68 (talk · contribs) are going back and forth over the issue of the Strange Situation Protocol and both of you appear to be driven by an agenda; Fainites (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to work your material into the article with appropriate changes to style, tone, references, excessive block quoting, and so forth. You should probably review the neutral point of view guidelines for article content presenting alternative viewpoints fairly but without bias. I can't find anything in your complaint that is inappropriate at this time. I would like to respond to some specific issues you raise.
  • There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors." You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles. He probably is more familiar with procedures, style, content guidelines and such, which may give him more de facto input, but he does not have more authority de jure.
  • Youtube is complicated, you should review the guidelines for external links. In general, Youtube links are not allowed because the contents almost always violate someone's copyright. Videos that do not violate copyright (uploaded by the creator, for example) still have to be measured against the rest of the external link policy. For example, they would normally be linked in an External Link section rather than embedded in the text, unless they also met the criteria for a reliable source citation. You should not add links to your own videos as that is a conflict of interest; you can propose them on the talk page and let other editors decide. External links should contain information of encyclopedia quality that for practical reasons can not go in the text itself. External links should not promote a biased or non-neutral view of the subject if at all possible; biased links should be used sparingly and be balanced by opposing viewpoints.
• If you can not work out your differences on the article or user talk pages your next step would be Mediation, either informal (MEDCAB) or formal (MEDCOM). Mediation is voluntary and non-binding but a good mediator will learn about your issues and try to help the parties find common ground. Also, you may wish to try your hand at editing some other types of articles that you may be interested (have any hobbies?) to get more of a feel for the give and take of editing on an article where you have less of a personal stake. Thatcher 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher

Thank you for this quick response.

Do you feel as though I should get help from a more experienced Editor to help me through?

I contacted you in the first place as I had not come across the page on Editor help.

Please note the substantive issues in this complaint lie at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html

Thanks again.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I do not have the time to become involved in sorting out this dispute. You certainly could benefit from the help of a more experienced editor who could take the time to study the situation, look at what you are trying to do, and find the best way to help you do it. You might want to try Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User. Thatcher 10:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New user launches edit war

I would like to report a new user for disruptive behavior on page Irredentism. First, user:VartanM kept removing well-sourced information (I have three academic references). Later anon user, who now registered under name User:Azad chai keeps removing the same information. Further he is threatening with edit war and makes personal attacks --Dacy69 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like Moreshi has already blocked him. You might want to file a request at WP:AE to bring Irredentism under the Armean-Azerbaijan probation. As long as editors are going to be disputing that as a sub-topic in the article, it should probably be included. Thatcher 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Turns out its the same guy as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs). No main account identifiable, though. Thatcher 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is new sockpuppet of this user which is messing up page Irredentism. I left a message to Morischi but with no effect. This new user continues stalking me.--Dacy69 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've applied a small range block to prevent anon editing for a few days and we'll see what happens. He might be able to get a bigger range or he might give up. Thatcher 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing arbitration requests

Hi Thatcher. I agree with what you did here, but wanted to check that removing requests like this is within the remit of the arbitration clerks. Could you confirm either way, or maybe ask an arbitrator to confirm that the request should be removed? I also see that you blocked the editor following a checkuser. Again, I'm sure it is all fine, but was wondering if you could leave a little bit more of a paper trail? Something like a block notice on the account, and something indicating what the other accounts were that the checkuser revealed? Otherwise it all looks a bit cryptic to those looking in from the outside. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not cryptic. A sockpuppet was trolling. Thatcher executed revert, block, ignore. The ignore part is further explained here. Discussing this incident publicly only encourages more. I suggest you email Thatcher if you have further questions. Jehochman 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The incident is already public. Anyone who looks can see this and this. I admit, I might overestimate the way people follow what happens on Misplaced Pages, but I personally look through page histories and logs. Those tell far more than what you see on the "front pages". I saw something in the page history that looked strange (the arbitration request), I noticed Thatcher reverted it. I looked further and found a block with a checkusered sockpuppet indefinite block log, and I then ran into a brick wall. Most times I can then look further and find out what the other accounts are, say, for example, to help clear up whatever mess has been uncovered. But here the paper trail runs cold. Revert, block, ignore, doesn't remove the need for an informative block log that helps people understand what happened here.

I know Thatcher (and others) routinely run checkusers in cases like this (without any of the associated paperwork) and block on the basis of the results, but I disagree with that. I think that all checkuser actions should be logged somewhere like RFCU for purposes of transparency and external review. When I see a checkusered sockpuppet block, I like to be able to follow a link to an RFCU and see what the extent of the problem is, but it seems that there are different sorts of checkuser actions - the openly logged ones at RFCU and the ones that are done without any equivalent paperwork (for want of a better word). My other concern is that those (in the media say) who are not used to how Misplaced Pages works might see this in a different light.

Finally, my initial question remains: " removing requests like this within the remit of the arbitration clerks"? For that question alone, all that's needed is for an arbitrator to turn up and politely endorse the action, and I will say "thank you" and drop the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There were 2 accounts blocked at the same time, there is a third account consistent with the other two which was independently blocked for trolling in Feb. No readily identifiable master account (it is easier to compare two suspects than to try to find other accounts associated with a single user, especially when the user has taken pains to isolate the trolling account). There are any number of reasons that the request was not a matter for arbitration; if it had appeared to be a good faith request I would still have removed it but with a polite note to the requester. Essentially, a) no prior attempt at dispute resolution, b) arbcom does not normally deal with off-wiki activities, c) the only allegations related to article content are stale and involve alleged influence through third parties, and d) whether Jimbo should still play a prominent role in Misplaced Pages business is a matter for the Foundation, not the local Arbcom--the appropriate place to raise these issues is one of the mailing lists (wiki-en-L or foundation-L probably).

You are welcome to email or talk-page any arbitrator regarding the propriety of the removal. Thatcher 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Thatcher. Much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Response on Jamiechef2

Responded to your request - I know of at least two blocked but untagged socks, and one probable sleeper account that wasn't detected (either a meatpuppet or the user bouncing subnets/ISPs). Left the listings and diff entries on the probably sleeper for you here. Thanks for keeping up with this, it's been rough. M1rth (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• One more just because it wierded me out to see today - showed up on Gwen Gale's talk page, CindifromNJ (talk · contribs). I may be wrong but it just has that vibe to it. M1rth (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed. Thatcher 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement log

Hi Thatcher. FYI, Sarah reverted your logging of her block at The Troubles ArbCom, see User talk:Rockpocket#Urgent. She is understandably keen not to get sucked in to that maelstrom. Since she was not a party to that ArbCom and, as far as I am aware, she has never been subject to its remedies, I can see her point. Rockpocket 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FMA

Hiya, on the FMA case, one of the remedies is still at only 6 votes, FYI. --Elonka 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dang. Thatcher 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the close looks good, and I see you've notified everyone that needs to be notified. Is it okay with you if I also post the message on a couple article talkpages (such as Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom) or at least link to the decision? Or would you rather do that? Also, we'll be having some other loose ends to be tied up, as we work through the list of affected articles. Specifically, we may need a couple redirects deleted to make room for moves, and a few templates need to go away. Shall we contact you for any of these, or would it be best if we work through the TfD/MfD/RM processes? Either way's fine, just let me know what you recommend. --Elonka 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add a note and link to any relevant projects. The case does not offer any remedies about past edits by PHG so I would say that those other changes should go through the normal processes, although under the circumstances they could probably be speedied. Thatcher 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream

Hi, thanks Thatcher. As requested, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Test

Quick brown fox. Thatcher 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the worst time to possibly raise this subject. Hard cases make bad law, as the saying goes. It would seem that a period of calm and reflection is in order, and this could be pursued in a few weeks if it still looks necessary. The middle of a thunderstorm is not the right time to reshingle the roof, even if you think it needs it. Thatcher 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in South Korea & Gimbap

As per the archived WP:AN/I discussion here, I have initiated WP:DR in the respective talk pages as follows:

• Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#WP:NPOV violations / "Prostitution for tourists during the 1970s"
• Talk:Gimbap#The origin of Gimbap

If it's not too much trouble, please continue to monitor discussions there. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question at RFCU

I left a question for you at this RFCU. - Neparis (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:88Soldat88 ?

I'm curious just who this character was a puppeteer of, as I didn't see it on the posting. Baseball Bugs 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on whether these kinds of things are always or sometimes tagged or whether we are still trying to WPDENY them recognition. Since Flash94 admits to be formerly JScott06 at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/JScott06‎, I guess you'd say JScott06 is the main puppeteer and all the other accounts are the socks. Thatcher 06:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to see a few of the socks - the checkuser-proven ones anyway. When they start creating socks just to create them, I stop tagging or move older tagged ones into a deleted page somewhere (User:Wknight94/Ron liebman for example). I've seen decent results from that approach but it is just my approach, not one agreed to anywhere. Conversely, I've caught flack for removing sections from WP:LTA... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly anyone is free to convert the tags to something else if they want to. In my contribs, all the user talk pages between Rhysseus‎ and JScott06 are the same person. Thatcher 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom

I'am very disappointed that this report has been archived without as much as a comment from the arbcom adminstrators. This is giving this editor the green light to continue his disruptive behaviour on wikipedia.--Padraig (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

your comment on checkuser

Hi, I am writing with regard your comment on checkuser of Azeribaboon, Azad chai and new anon user. From editing patterns it is obvious that it is the same person. So, should we accept tricks that this person continue under anon. And he continues visiting other pages after me and making inappropriate comments comments.--Dacy69 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've applied a range block, is there anything since that? Obvious vandal and racist comments may be reported to WP:AIV and link to the Azerbaboon checkuser request so the admins who watch AIV will know to skip the early warning stages. Or you can let me know but AIV will probably be faster. Thatcher 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl and Friends

Hey there, uh we were all exonerated, except someone forgot to unblock the user Trynaa ShieldDane (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the links...Trynaa and the proof she is a real person, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/TharkunColl. Next time can we wait for the checkuser before the bans please? Thanks! ShieldDane (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have my doubts about an editor whose first edit is to say "My purpose is to fight and serve the glorious Editor TharkunColl." Even if the editor is in a different country than you that does not mean the editor is here for purposes that benefit the encyclopedia. Whether to block an obvious single-purpose account is a judgement decision based on more factors than whether or not one has the same IP as another user. She may be a different person but that does not mean she is automatically welcome here if her purpose is to be a disruptive "meat puppet" of another editor. Your own statements in this regard have raised concerns as well that you do not seem to have addressed satisfactorily. Trynaa herself can ask for an unblock by posting to her talk page or following the other instructions visible to blocked editors. Thatcher 03:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Freehand

Hi Thatcher. Elonka and friends are using the Arbcom restrictions against me to have a freehand in deleting large amounts of proper content from Misplaced Pages. For example all references to the relations between Edward I of England and the Mongols have been deleted by User:Ealdgyth: . User:Elonka has reinstated obvious untruths in Viam agnoscere veritatis (discussed in , bottom of page). Could you kindly warn these users that managing to block another user is not a license to do anything on Misplaced Pages and just delete referenced and true information that they dislike, or reinstate false or unreferenced information? Thank you. PHG (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So let's take a look at PHG's behavior since the ArbCom ruling. His restrictions are to avoid editing articles related to medieval/ancient history, though he is allowed to participate at talk, as long as he does so in a civil manner. He has also been strongly encouraged and reminded to take the comments of other editors into account, and to avoid endlessly repeating the same argument. Since the case has closed, he has:

• Created the article David Morgan (historian) which is about a medieval historian;
• Been protesting the deletion of archived information from his userspace
• Been reinserting large chunks of his preferred content onto the talkpages of history articles (see Talk:Edward I of England#Deletion of information on the Mongols and Talk:Louis IX of France#Deletion of referenced material)
• Has been uncivil at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis, accusing me of inserting "blatant untruths" into the encyclopedia.

Though no single one of these actions, taken individually, is a huge blatant violation of his restrictions, it is my opinion that they show a pattern of borderline activity. I am willing to give PHG some leeway here, but some closer supervision of PHG's edits would be appreciated, otherwise he is just going to keep wasting the time of other editors, and the only thing that will have changed from the ArbCom case, is that PHG will no longer be actively edit-warring, but he'll still be doing everything else. Thatcher, what do you recommend? Should we formally caution PHG at his usertalk, or file a report at the enforcement page, or do you recommend some other action? --Elonka 09:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot use the words "blatant untruth" (I corrected to "Obvious untruth" since then), but Elonka can use the words "blatant violation" against me? I believe all of the above edits are perfectly in compliance with my editing restrictions, inspite of Elonka's attempts to misrepresent them. I am a proper user of longstanding, I am willing to respect the ruling even if I think it is unfair and based on numerous untrue accusations. Creating an article on a modern historian is a great edit, and in compliance of restrictions. Intervening on Talk Pages to make sure some users just do not delete proper content is fully legitimate and in compliance of restrictions. By the way, is there a procedure to appeal a ruling which is believed to be based on false accusations and misrepresentations? PHG (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)