Misplaced Pages

Has already been blocked twice for disruption (last time was for a week). Blocked 31 hours, again for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Also, the RfA should probably be closed. GlassCobra 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote another administrator, "my Chris19910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) senses are tingling". Daniel (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can sockpuppeter file a SSP file during his block? Block review also needed

I'm very amazed by the unique way of this sockpuppeter. Two days ago, 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked for his violation on 5RR at Comfort women. Actually I don't have any content issue with him, but his massive deletion continued on several articles without any discussion or consensus such as Slavery in Japan, Japanese war crimes, very sensitive issues. Anyway, due to his massive deletion, I once restored his blanking at Comfort women and Slavery in Japan just like many other editors did do the same after the anon's blanking. Everybody told him to use "talk page if he has to address his concerns on the articles, and I also gave him a couple of warnings.

Today, after his block duration was expired, 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on the same articles. Then, Blueshirts (talk · contribs) restored the deleted material. Their edit warring (both users claim that the other side is doing vandalism), And the anon filed 3RR report, but that means the anon violated more reversion, so I filed his 8RR violation at first. However, regardless other editors' interventions, the anon's reverting did not stop, so he reverted Comfort women page 11 times. However, the anon began accusing me and others doing meatpuppetry because everyone, except the anon are against the mass deletion. Anyway, the anon was blocked for 24 hours along with Blueshirt, but I think the block duration of the anon is too short, given that the he or she just got off from the previous block, then did the same disruptive behaviors.

After the anon blocked, another IP user with the same ISP, 222.150.193.35 (talk · contribs) appeared and then wrote his agenda on the sock ip's talk page. Still with the IP, the anon reverted the article, and then finally created sock account, Documentingabuse (talk · contribs) claim thatto file a WP:SSP file on me and other 3 people, but actually his filing is to report the four people's WP:MEATPUPPETRY. :D It is so funny that the four listed people seem to have no connection but accused by him because all object his unilateral deletion? I don't think sock can't edit any of articles during his block. His intention of filing SSP is not only a malicious, but also disruptive and blatant disregard toward wikirules. He insists that his unique "openness" does not meet the sockpuppetry and 3RR violation and block evasion. Well, I think the false SSP reported by the sockpuppeter during his block should be deleted, and the anon should be blocked longer due to his/her repeated disruptions. Given that the anon's weird behaviors, the deletion by him is not mere content dispute, so I think it would be suitable that Blueshirts's block be lifted from now. The sockpuppeter admitted his sockpuppetry, and you can see further info below.

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Caspian blue filed by the sockpuppeter
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse filed by me.

Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the SSP filing by User:Documentingabuse to be in bad faith. Per comments here and at the SSP case. Also, his user page redirected to IP 207.112.75.189, who earlier today made a death threat in a summary on the footnotes RFAR case. I blocked Documentingabuse indef and 207.112.75.189 three months and closed the SSP case. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Nick326 user:92.0.29.148

This new user is adding perjoritive labels to several BLP articles, and reverting back almost immediately. I have warned but to no avail.

A quick look at his history tells the tale. A short block may be in order. Anonymous history, seems like they are the same person. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you consider it "perjoritive" to call someone right-leaning or right-wing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider it pejorative if someone called me "right-wing", and some of the subjects of these BLPs might feel the same way (I haven't checked through them so can't comment on whether they would). It certainly isn't worthy of inclusion unless that person clearly falls under that description. Black Kite 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would, left or right. Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat (Progressive if you will), are generally considered the proper way to label those that classify themselves as such. My experience has been that it best not to label someone along these lines unless they self-identify as such. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to and didn't. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how we deal with new users? Is this really require a thread in AN/I? Perhaps one of you might take the time to explain the problem to this new user instead of immediately threatening him/her with a block. The edits are inappropriate, but hardly ones that require administrative intervention, just a gentle bit of explaining about how we do things. Please read WP:BITE before you go off on another new user. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of additions Nick326 should work on: (1) instead of "left-wing" or "right-wing" as standalone words, write it as left-wing or right-wing, i.e. with the links to the discussions of those terms; and (2) find valid sources that actually affirm that they are what he says they are - either their own words, or someone else's. It is not wikipedia editors' place to pass that judgment, especially as judgments can be slippery. I consider myself a liberal, yet I agree with Pat Buchanan on some issues. And how would they classify John McCain? Most liberals likely think of him as a conservative. Many conservatives think of him as liberal. Labels are slippery and misleading. Baseball Bugs 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Death Magnetic

Death Magnetic is the name of the new Metallica album, but we cant move it because some idiot silly-type person made a C+P move. HALP! PXK /_C 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place for this request, though. --Selket 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

202.27.219.186

Can someone investigate this user for their edits to the article on Sue Bradford? All three of them appear to be vandalism. Bactoid (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked on June 12 for a week. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)

I am reporting another incident and rather than engage and defend myself I am reporting this incident. I think nipping things in the bud are the way to go with this user.

]

ChrisJNelson has diplayed a didain for the rules and no matter what kind of wrist-slap he displays the same type of behavior over and over and over. I am asking that the system work to curb his displays of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ]

User_talk:72.0.36.36#Chrisjnelson_Arbitration Please read. Durova 08:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need three links to the same page in the same report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More important for someone with the tools to examine how arrogant and blatant the incivility is. This is somebody with a block log so long it requires scrolling to read and who was very nearly sitebanned at arbitration for edit warring and incivility. Basically the only reason he received a second chance was because of an unusual development during arbitration that turned up a banned editor and a sneaky vandal who were simultaneously trolling him: it wasn't known how he'd behave absent those unusual stresses. Well those unusual factors are gone now and he's taunting regular people, and rather proud of mostly getting away with it. He openly regards 24-48 hour blocks as an acceptable price to pay for dumping on other people. Suggest a this-isn't-Usenet reminder in the form of a longer timeout. Durova 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the user apparently also has valuable facts to contribute, which I assume is the reason wikipedia is still messing with him and hasn't issued a permanent block. Baseball Bugs 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, the editor not currently editing and the history/good contributions mentioned above, I have issued a Level4im vandal (there wasn't anything more apt) warning, and comment that repeated violations of WP:CIVIL in the manner of interactions with some editors will result in an indef block, on the editors talkpage. I know, it is yet another final warning but I shall watch the page and request anyone who notes any such future similar behaviour to let me know - and I shall issue the block. As far as I am concerned, this is the very last and final chance for this editor to change some of their undesirable habits on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I think he deserved everything I said. :-D ►Chris Nelson 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr.enh (talk · contribs)

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., ). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved incident

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": , , .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me? Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Misplaced Pages pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Misplaced Pages if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Misplaced Pages. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Misplaced Pages if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here . MBisanz 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Misplaced Pages, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09:

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Details

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions:

This is the ridiculous nature of Misplaced Pages: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unable to resolve

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Misplaced Pages policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguing and a few very upset people. I can sympathize with the anger, really, some of it looks justified, but there's one thing I think is missing from this conversation: direction. What are the specific goals of users in this thread? What, being as specific as possible, can be done to move this situation forward? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I was blocked for edit warring, after I had stopped, after only one warning, and this warning by MBisanz for tagging an article. At this point, MBisanz's best excuse seems to be that he was multi-tasking human beings and a bot, and couldn't have been bothered to get correct my 48 hour first block after a single warning when I had stopped the behavior warned for. I'd like to know why administrators and others came to my talk page to attack and harass me because I had the nerve to disagree with content with established editors--and, established editors is a big thing and very important to this crew, because this is how and why Kelly got blocked, again, for editing against established editor Ryulong. Gwen Gale, who was involved in this Shrew's fiddle mess, was also involved in the Kelly mess, right now, asserting the privilege of established editors. I would like to know why "anybodies" aren't forewarned that as long as they are not established editors no courtesies will be applied to them? I would like to know why 1 warning is sufficient for a nobody and too much for an established editor. I would like MBisanz to read exactly the time-line, acknowledge what he did wrong, and annotate my block log to that effect. I would like Ryulong to stop trying to flame me. I would like everyone to stop telling me to calm down when in no way was I treated according to Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines.

I would really like to know why bots are more important than human editors on Misplaced Pages, because, the first incident I had on Misplaced Pages was being threatened with a block for reverting a bot, after getting warned by the bot's owner, then getting a level two warning for asking the bot's owner what the heck he was doing? To have MBisanz tell me he blocked me because he was busy with a bot is the ultimate insult and ending to this whole nasty after, especiall after my first hostile encounter on Misplaced Pages being with a bot owner, who reverts people simply because they are new editors (to hell with "anybody can edit"), who doesn't give a shit what he does to humans editing Misplaced Pages. The first time I got "warned" on Misplaced Pages was when I started copy and context editing a poorly written article to make it a good little start of an article, all because somebody programmed a bot to attack new accounts, and now, it seems, that MBisanz is in the same school: bots deserve attention, human editors can be victimized by careless actions, though. '

I'd like to know what the policy is: are editors commonly blocked for 48 hours for doing something they've stopped after one warning? I'd like MBisanz to know the policy, too. I'd like Ryulong to not use his administrative powers to stop someone from doing something he did to another person.

I'd like an honest, straightforward answer to all of these issues. I got told I'd be foolish to edit Misplaced Pages's plant pathogen articles because I would get hounded by the established editors because I'd show too much expertise and Misplaced Pages didn't want experts but community members. I'd like to show people who told me this that they were wrong, there is a place for expertise on Misplaced Pages to counter the really shitty articles about plant pathogens you have. That's what I'd really like. But I don't see this happening as long as I'm going to be blocked for tagging bad articles, tagging bad sources (and, no Gwen Gale's "if it says it in a couple of so-so places, it must be okay" referencing isn't going to cut it), and for discussing articles on their talk pages, and as long as administrators like Ryolong are allowed to, and supported in, harassing editors simply because they're not established editors--and as long as he disagrees with them, a gang bang on the non-established editor will occur.

I'd like official notification on my block log that I will be allowed to edit without being punitively blocked for having a content dispute with an established editor. Because your established plant pathogen editors don't write well and don't know their stuff: your articles are only suitable for red-inked laugh lines on bulletin boards.

Ultimately I'd like to edit the articles without having to protect myself from this hit squad--you should afford the same courtesy to others who come to edit subject, and who try to work within Misplaced Pages's policies (stopping the edit war when told to, and it wasn't really an edit war, just a couple of reverts, and discussing the article on the talk page). Because what now stands is: get warned, stop doing something, and get blocked for it, then get harassed by the editor whose content you disputed since he's an administrator and is allowed to harass other editors, but will be protected when others do the same to him.--Blechnic (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attepted to apologize to you. But each time you take offense to what I say. You can go about and edit articles as you have been for the past month. No one is going to ban you. I'm never going to even see you again, unless someone else mentions me and you come to make some sort of statement that lead to this extended thread, again. MBisanz may never contact you again. Hersfold may never contact you again. I would have thought that the month without incident would have shown that. I'm fine if you just go and write something about a mosaic virus attacking raflesia, or whatever it is you usually write about (I have no botanical teaching, so I don't know anything about what you really study). There is no hit squad after you. The blocks on you and Bidgee were both questionable. My protection of my talk page was wrong, and that is why I let Kylu remove it. Again, your block came about because of disruptive (although good faith) activities at an article that hadn't been edited since your block because the issues with it had been resolved. There are currently four new references, including those that support other references' statements.

For the tl;dr version; you're not going to be banned, no one is immune to rules, established editors don't get preferential treatment, administrators don't get preferential treatment, policies are not perfect, sourcing is not perfect. Is there something I did not cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that just about covers it on your part. I suggest Gwen Gale ought to be told the last part so she stops telling editors not to template the regulars, and the essay on not templating the regulars ought to be AfDed, and I don't buy it for one minute. However, I accept your apology. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars says "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template." That doesn't mean "Don't give them any message that would have required a template."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And, please do look at what I came here to do. It's hard to believe that my edit history said to MBisanz: block this bitch and block her hard and fast to get back to those very important bots. I'm betting if I read the administrator guidelines for blocks nothing justifying MBisanz's blocking me after I'd stop and blocking me for 48 hours would be found. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final note: and then, I'd like to just edit plant pathogen articles without hearing from or about any of you ever again. But, as long as I have the nasty assortment of blocks attached to my account that's not going to happen, so ultimately I won't be satisfied, because my interest is tropical agricultural pests, not being gang banged. So, just an explanation of what the policies are that should have been followed and an annotation on the first block. Then leave me alone. --Blechnic (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. A block log is not a scarlet letter. Only one person is preventing you from writing about tropical plant pathogens and that is yourself (currently). I'm sure Misplaced Pages's coverage of such a topic would benefit from your research and studies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever quit while you're ahead? Let's pretend you didn't post this. I still have a threat of being permenently banned for tagging articles hanging over me. --Blechnic (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have any threat of being banned for any reason whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a threat of being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages hanging over me. A final warning to that effect: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning. Are you saying this is officially retracted? It's a lie? It's invalid? It's not policy? It was merely a threat? What? --Blechnic (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That refers to this whole section. The assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment where others do not see it, and the continued requests for others to look into them. If that behavior continues, then maybe you would be blocked. However, that statement does not concern placing {{fact}} or {{disputed}} or other content templates that would improve articles, unless the behavior is seen as disrupting the project. I cannot speak for Hersfold, but I believe that is what was meant. That is also what Abd refers to in his message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop 'ing"
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion , spent some time fixing that tag and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV.". Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice accusation, if I don't accept what was done to me, I'm out for blood? Can you apologize without a personal attack? If not, don't bother.

And, actually, the issue of established editor keeps arising. That's why Gwen Gale thought that Kelly shouldn't be tagging you, and she posted that here and elsewhere: you're an established editor. You threw that in my face also, during the content dispute: you're an administrator, so you know more. As long as people keep acting in such a tacky and useless manner towards me, I'm not satisfied. I was blocked for a content dispute after a single warning, blocked for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring. Now MBisanz's friends are on his talk page threatening me.

How much longer do you intent to antagonize me? --21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears your didn't read that far down on my user page, the only criteria for being a filer of a recall request is "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions." the other points of edits and blocks apply to people who agree with the filer. And before we go calling User:Abd a friend of mine, about 4 months ago I supported a ban on a friend of his and just last week turned down a request of his via email, so I doubt he counts me a friend (although I have no hard feelings towards him). MBisanz 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your enemies are threatening me on your talk page? Thanks for leaving the threat up to make sure I got it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is an "unwarranted content template"

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I take it this means that no one knows what was unwarranted by my templates, so unwarranted that it obviously deserved a single warning then my being blocked? Note also MBisanz keeps getting it confused: I was warned for tags, but blocked for edit warring? Which is it? --Blechnic (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed - ANI subpages

Please have a look and comment on this discussion regarding ANI subpages. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel Pepys and fixing broken refs in sandboxes

User:Samuel Pepys is currently cleaning up a category which lists broken refs (Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting). Unfortunately, this category lists many people's sandboxes, which Samuel "fixes" as well. Samuel has been told by several people to stop this behavior because it is messing with their work, but Samuel ignores this advice, claiming that userspace belongs to wikipedia and not individual users. If admins consider his behavior right, I'll immediately drop this issue, but I really do not want to cleanup after cleanup-ers because my work-in-progress temporarily shows up in a hidden cleanup cat. Not to mention that his edits spam edit histories and watchlists (see e.g. this). – sgeureka 09:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have complied with individual users wishes not to edit their particular user space, which according to WP:USER is a community page and not user owned. These pages were listed in a cleanup category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting --Samuel Pepys (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it is polite for people whose userspace pages appear in such categories to do the edits needed to remove the pages from those categories. If the user is inactive, just fix the pages. If they are around, leave them a message. If it is very minor, fix anyway, rather than annoy them with a message. Unless you think they will be more annoyed by the fixing! Either way, no-one should get too upset about this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

... or developers can change <ref> so that the cleanup cat only gets added when the article is in mainspace. I don't know whom to approach though. – sgeureka 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Carcharoth, your position does make some sense, but I suggest having a short look at Samuel Pepys' conversations with those who complained. (They are here, not where you'd expect them.) There are often valid reasons why the pages are the way they are, so they don't need any "fixing". (If anything, the automatic category should be fixed so it ignores user pages.) And I must say that several things about this user ring alarm bells with me. I suggest not to delete the subpage to which he redirected his talk page, should he request it, to preserve at least some transparency about this "new" user's first clashes with the community. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something inflammatory or other rule violation in a user's "sandbox" or their talk page or user page, other editors shouldn't be messing with them. That sort of work should be confined to actual articles. Baseball Bugs 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that many editors are leaving their ref tags in error so that they can find what they cited as they go, opening references to check things, or to use as crib notes for working on a mainspace article. I see no valid reason for Samuel Pepys' actions in the name of depopulating the category. he should instead continue to focus on the mainsapce, which clearly has a large number of candidates for fixing. ThuranX (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, you need to stop editing works in progress found in userspace. Focus your efforts on problems in mainspace, there are plenty. Many, many users have asked you to stop and provided you with more than sufficient rationales. Whether userspace belongs to them or to the community is really irrelevant - its set aside for their use, they are using it and you should leave them to it. Not to mention - who cares about broken refs in userspace? Avruch * 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He's factually correct in that all pages belong to the community, which is why rules against personal attacks and such can be enforced there. He's also in gross violation of wiki-etiquette, and should cease and desist, immediately. I could see a place for his work though, as someone might actually like some help with formatting. Maybe he could make himself available for voluntary help in fixing formatting. That's something *I* could use sometimes. Baseball Bugs 12:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As many others say on the talkpage, I strongly suspect this is an unauthorised bot; I can't imagine any human editor making this edit for example. – iridescent 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per his contrib list, it looks like he's not stopping nor responding. block time? ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a brief (few minutes) block until he comes here to discuss this, since aside from the post at the top he appears to be ignoring this. – iridescent 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He redirected his talk page to User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk, meaning he doesn't see new messages. I'm not sure why or what the details are, since both pages have recent history. --NE2 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly if he's using AWB, which (intentionally) freezes whenever you get the yellow bar? – iridescent 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He was "infinitely" (if not longer) blocked at 20:46 UTC. So far, not a Pepys from him in protest. Baseball Bugs 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that his talk page redirect be reverted, as it clearly is a dodge of the numerous notifications about his actions. ThuranX (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a likely sockpuppet of Lemmey (talk · contribs) / Mitrebox (talk · contribs) / 68.209.2.187 (talk · contribs) / 207.235.64.30 (talk · contribs) / 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs) (started editing right after Lemmey got blocked and is running a fork of their bot). I'm going hunt down a checkuser just to be safe though... east.718 at 22:26, June 15, 2008

External link

At the Belinda Ang Saw Ean page, a bunch of sock anons has persisted in adding an external link that is highly inappropriate that violates WP:BLP, WP:EL and WP:RS. Indeed, one only has to read the external link to realise the user is perpetrating a defamatory and contempt of court agenda. I urge an administrator to put an end to this. Thanks. Chensiyuan (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist. If it continues then semi-protection should be considered. Kevin (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the external link a reliable source? Baseball Bugs 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this blog and the individual responsible for it, has had some press coverage:

• Reuters
• Asia Times Online
• IPS News

Just raising this fact for information to assist with a decision here. TigerShark (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem reliable, should someone wish to add something on the arrest, but the blog is not a reliable source in an article about the judge, and should not be there as a bare link without any commentary. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My concern is that the complainer is raising the wrong issue. He's claiming it's defamatory and "contempt of court agenda", whatever that means. That stuff doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is whether the source is a valid wikipedia source. The wording of the complaint sounds more like something smacking of "censorship". Baseball Bugs 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I considered adding the accusations of bias based on the press coverage above, but I have concerns about undue weight given that even 2 sentences would overwhelm the rest of the article. Kevin (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not censorship. Saying that a court is a "kangaroo court" is a very serious allegation. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked if the source is usable in wikipedia. It's not wikipedia editors' place to worry about whether some judge might be offended by having his proceedings called a "kangaroo court". What matters is whether the charge has been leveled by a reliable source and could have some legitimacy. Baseball Bugs 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment from my talk page follows. Let's try to keep this all in one place. Baseball Bugs 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not censorship -- I understand the distinction between censorship and countering defamation, thank you. Impugning the integrity of a state's judiciary without any basis is a very serious offence in all countries. It is called contempt of court, and there is nothing I can find in Misplaced Pages policies that states that no censorship = let all allegations fly. Of course, you are right to say that there is an issue of reliability of sources, but I have already stated so in my complaint that RS was an issue. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "the user is perpetrating a defamatory and contempt of court agenda" doesn't necessarily argue that it's an unreliable source. Baseball Bugs 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As TigerShark points out, the link by itself might not be a valid wikipedia source normally, but the fact that this is a citable news story elevates the blog to a usable reference, so that the reader can see what he actually said, in addition to what the commentators in those news sources are saying. The news sources themselves obviously should also be used, not just the blog. I would think all of those links belong in a separate section about this particular case, rather than as a standalone external link. Misplaced Pages need not be concerned about what the judge thinks of the case or the blogger. Misplaced Pages should follow its standards in reporting stories like these. Then, I think, this issue goes away. P.S. There's an old American adage that the Singaporean plaintiffs might want to bear in mind - "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog. Prima facie, some doubt is cast. Upon a perusal of the blog it's apparent there are problems citing it as an appropriate link. Chief amongst which, in my view, is that the contents are highly problematic. Laws pertaining to defamation and contempt of court exist not to censor opinion, but exist to protect the rights of individuals' whose integrity are impugned. What I've been saying all along is that the adding of the link is a backdoor attempt to promote opinions that would violate laws in any country that has the rule of law. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just read your last entry. But there is a difference between citing the blog entry as a "commentary" (as the anon is doing) and citing the entry as the reason why the blogger was charged in court (which was why the blog and blogger received news coverage). Chensiyuan (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The link by itself is not a normal wikipedia source, and sticking it in there with a seemingly-neutral title is obvious POV-pushing. The news stories talk about this guy's arrest (which I assume he had expected to happen, unless he's an idiot), so if the story is notable enough to be discussed in the article in question (or in some other article, such as Singaporean politics), then the original blog should be linked also, so that the reader can see it unfiltered. Whether it's a notable story or not is a wikipedian editorial decision. And don't confuse Singapore with America. Considering the kind of stuff that's said about our leaders all day every day, a blog like that in the USA would go practically unnoticed. Criticism of leaders and other public figures is an established American tradition, and defamation is nearly impossible to prove in court. Not so in Singapore, apparently. Baseball Bugs 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything you said before "And don't confuse" I can accept. But we should not be discussing the merits of either jurisdiction's defamation laws here as they are irrelevant (don't worry, I'm not confused. I know some American law; spent years reading them qua law student). That would be our own private conversation. What is established and relevant is that WP:BLP is very clear that one has to err on the side of conservativeness -- the very language of the policy itself. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can discuss anything I want to here. Better you should see what my views on things are, than not. But that does not prevent fair and balanced presentation in an article. I say again, if this is a legitimate news story, all the facts should be out there and not censored. If the guy was arrested for defamation, then the reader has the right to see exactly what he said that is alleged to be defamation. Baseball Bugs 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you have no objection to listing the link, as long as the news-story links are there also? Baseball Bugs 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would probably say it this way. Someone with a better gift of gab could elaborate: "An American blogger has been arrested in Singapore (Reuters, Asia Times Online, IPS News) for alleged defamation of character against the judge, due to comments accusing the judge of conducting a 'kangaroo court' in a recent case." That states the facts and let's the reader form an opinion, if he wants to, as to the merits of the case. Baseball Bugs 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would especially be inclined to post it that way if the original poster tries it again. If he reverts it, then you've got him. Baseball Bugs 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, he was held in contempt of court, and accordingly was jailed for contempt, not defamation. But the fact that an anon has persisted in trying to divert readers to the blog's comments (which were potentially defamatory) was where the rub was. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If it gets posted again, and if I catch it, I'll counter with my version above. Or you could. :) Baseball Bugs 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lolla lola creating multiple contentious and unverifiable articles

User:Lolla lola has created a string of articles about a supposed "Chiacig crime family". Googling shows no evidence that any such family exists: without evidence, these pages are a massive WP:BLP violation. They have ignored all the messages on their talk pages, and removed AfD tags, so I've blocked them for 24 hours to stop the articles being created. I'm proposing to speedy-delete the lot of them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think someone beat you to it. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cough All dem articles had a little accident. I left the user a note drawing their attention to BLP, V and RS. Spartaz 10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Lolla lola appears to be a sock of User:Jon-sw, who has been blocked previously. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Concur - shall we indef them both?? Spartaz 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also see User:Rico-rico1982. And there may be others... -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Such as User:Erik-2006. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks like we need a checkuser to block the underlying ip. They clearly haven't learned. I'm about to stop out for an hour but I can protect all the pages from recreation and file the check-user when I get back if no-one does it in the meantime. Shall we indef the whole lot of them?? Spartaz 11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also User:Lisa-1982 and User:213.100.20.76 -- The Anome (talk)

Indef'ed Lolla lola. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • And also see previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#3RR and removing AfD tags -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new branch called "wikifiction", where users could indulge in creative writing about nonexistent rock bands, public figures, sporting events, crime families, etc. Then turn the bots loose too fix there spelin and grammer - assuming that doesn't hog all the servers' memories. Baseball Bugs 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now salted most of the article titles. Could someone please follow up on the checkuser request? -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a CU request on all the users and the IP. Kevin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism threat

Hi all. I hesitated to post this, because it's probably a steaming pile of BS- but on the off chance that there might be some plausibility to it, I figured I'd bring this edit by 124.188.250.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to people's attention. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it could be someone after attention since the IP is from an Australian ISP. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure terrorists would post their intentions on wikipedia. At least this is a little more creative than the "I'm gonna kill u dude" stuff that appears from time to time. Baseball Bugs 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it to the authorities. They may have even read our 'secret' documents that went missing on the train(s).... Rudget (logs) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll doubt the Aussie police would have seen the 'secret' documents. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, how often do the Aussie police request the 'secret documents'? How come I haven't seen them ;). I do think it would be wise to go ahead and report this, just FYI. Dusti 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Best to report it to how though? Australian Federal Police (Since it's an Aussie IP) or UK police? Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a bomb would hurt the city much, due to the tons of padding. Baseball Bugs 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubber or Foam? Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was popular in 1056. Although, come to think of it, it didn't deter the Normans, did it? Baseball Bugs 13:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Metropolitan Police. Rudget (logs) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec>I would say that it should be reported to the UK authorities, since that's where the threat's directed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. I would have gone with the AFP above. I think that they are equal to our FBI? Dusti 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yep the AFP is the equal to the FBI in the US. Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And now that Rudget's reported it to the appropriate UK authorities (the London Metropolitan Police), presumably giving them a permalink to the diff, I'd say it's time for WP:RBI to come into play and someone to mark this as Resolved. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to report it, maybe report it to both, and let them work it out. Baseball Bugs 13:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should go to the AFP as well. Dusti 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AFP don't treat bomb threats lightly! Just ask those who have said the word 'bomb' on Aircraft in Australia (and no I'm not that stupid to say it!)! Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like the poor guy who walked onto a plane, recognized a friend and yelled, "Hi, Jack!" He's currently awaiting trial. Baseball Bugs 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the AFP be contacted by the Met if there was anything further needed doing? Rudget (logs) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather be safe and report to both. Dusti 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Don't make assumptions. If I make a 911 call, and someone else has already done so, they might tell me that, but they don't complain about getting the call. Better safe than sorry. Baseball Bugs 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 000 in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

so, who is going to make the call/send the e-mail? Dusti 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email. We don't need to do anything else, nor should we. Now it's time to deny recognition and get back to doing something constructive. Daniel (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone contact Interpol since this possibly a International Teroristic ThreatRio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The AFP can if they want. Let it go, everyone. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:69.19.14.18

Has the user at the IP address 69.19.14.18 been discussed on these boards before? Apparently he/she has a long history of adding false information on biographies of living persons and television shows. Among his/her most recent acts is to claim that actress Amy Adams and Spongebob Squarepants voiceover actor Doug Lawrence are either getting married or are already married, when in fact Adams has been going out with a man named Darren LeGallo for six years. ----DanTD (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We typically don't put long-term blocks on IP addresses, because they might be shared by multiple users and there's no way of knowing if it's the same person doing the vandalism. Tomorrow, a very productive good faith editor could get assigned that IP address.

However, in this particular case, therei s recognition that a range of IP addresses assigned to HughesNet has had somebody who is persistently vandalizing PBS-related articles, and as you say, it's gone on for years. The matter is being dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/69.19.14.xx.

Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets

User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 are sockpuppets for evidence: see their contributions. Now DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 is on harassment against User:Luigi 28.--Ciolone (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to file a suspected sock puppets report, as that's the best venue for this kind of thing (and it will probably get a faster, more appropriate response). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Let me see if I have this right... You, whose account is a few days old, believe that DIRECKTOR - who has been on WP for 18 months - and AlasdairGreen27 (a 9 month old account) are sockpuppets harassing Luigi 28, an account of a week or so's experience? I didn't notice the same mix of articles on AlasdairGreen27's contrib history as I did on DIREKTOR's, Luigi's and yours, but a few comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage. Without probing too far, it seems to me that DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27 seem to be agreeing with something that Luigi (and you?) don't. Now, are you able to provide diffs that indicate sockpuppetry rather than two experienced Wikipedians agreeing with each other? Any comments regarding both you and Luigi's recent arrival on Misplaced Pages and concentration on very similar subjects may also alleviate any concerns that some suspicious minds might have regarding socking by yourselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Luigi 28 has been claiming "harassment" because DIREKTOR believes he is User:PIO. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428#Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody fancy taking a look at the contributions of Ciolone? I just undid a few - one a grammatical revert - regarding introducing "comparative sports" in articles which upon review were quite different. Does this appear to others good faith mistakes or subtle vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My invite to this party must've got lost in the post. For the benefit of 'Ciolone', I can advise him/her that DIREKTOR and I do not even live in the same country. For the benefit of Misplaced Pages, I can very confidently assert that Ciolone originates from the same hosiery factory as User:Agazio and User:Jxy, among others. Could a CU be done to resolve this urgently? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ciolone: please, don't use my name for your private issues.

For User:LessHeard vanU: my week is more than one month. Please, read better. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 harassed me, because they think I'm another one (User:PIO), and reverted many, many times my edits, without any kind of explanation. This is harassment.

For User:HandThatFeeds: the same.

For User:AlasdairGreen27: good luck.

For User:DIREKTOR: nemojte transformirati naše rasprave u borbi između Talijana i Hrvata--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Luigi 28: Speak in English or you will be blocked soon enough. It's quite clear that you are not attempting a civil discussion with DIREKTOR. Civility mean being civil, not being civil in a language than everyone here understands. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ricky81682: User:DIREKTOR is Croat and I wrote in Croatian. However, my words in English are: Do not transform our discussions in a struggle between Italians and Croats.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: I hope that words are considered sufficiently civilians.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. A thread where someone claims is being harassed and then non-English language used has a pattern of being uncivil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL --DIREKTOR 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That being said, this has GOT to be the most ridiculous report in months. Imagine: a sock and his sock reporting sockpuppetry. All concerned Admins, be advised: this is a (lousy) attempt at counter-reporting. See , this intentionally cluttered report is still awaiting Admin attention. I don't know for certain about User:Ciolone, but User:Luigi 28 is yet another sock of banned User:PIO. --DIREKTOR 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is harassment! I'm a suspected sock (and I'm not a sock!). User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits only thinking I was this User:Pio!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Count Magnus Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please protect this guy's user page from vandalism? I've made a request at WP:RPP but I know this page is watched by more people and I'm getting fed up of reverting him. -- role 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information

User talk:Moulton/Answers showed personal information about an editor with whom User:Moulton had email discussions. I've deleted the page, reinstated it without the personal information, and full protected the page until discussions here are resolved. I'll notify Moulton of this report and tell him not to disclose personal information. Please consider what action is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton again? He's been indef blocked and only temporarily unblocked for a few days in order to clean up his userspace, not out other editors in which he's involved in a personal conflict. Amazing. He already has a history of outing people from here at his blog, he knows better. I'm going to reinstate his indef block, outing people on Misplaced Pages is never acceptable. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. Wasn't this guy banned before? Blueboy96 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he was ... userpage reverted accordingly. Blueboy96 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reblocking, Blueboy. I endorse the block given the circumstances. Sarah 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really quite unbelievable. I don't understand why he was still unblocked - I thought we just unblocked him temporarily so he could complete SUL. Now he's just linked to a page on a blocked impersonator account saying "User:Filll's personal userspace where he republishes the record of a prior disclosure of another name that he sometimes goes by" but the page he linked to contained no such record of disclosure at all but rather a phone number like number which was added with the edit summary, "it is my number". And the account was blocked months ago as an impersonator account. I really don't understand why we're allowing this kind of harassment to go on here. Sarah 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've protected Moulton's user talk page indefinitely in view of this behaviour, feel free to review that action. Moulton's ideas of journalistic integrity don't seem to fit comfortably with Misplaced Pages policies. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not either. We waste inordinate amounts of time on someone who has not asked to be unblocked, and who has not given any indication he wants to edit according to Misplaced Pages rules. He appears to just thrive on turmoil and disruption. I have compiled a short list of Misplaced Pages editors who have examined his situation in detail and found his editing record to be problematic, and at this point there are well over 40 of them, depending on how you count them. Yet because of his frantic lobbying on Misplaced Pages Review, we have a small group here that seems to think Moulton was given a raw deal. Well I, for one, am still waiting for evidence of that raw deal Moulton supposedly received.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Moulton was given a raw deal" and "Moulton is not someone that is well suited to editing here" are not incompatible statements. You've been given evidence of the raw deal he received. That you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it wasn't given. I'm not sure what transpired here (apparently something has been oversighted already rather than just being deleted?) but your actions in this matter, Filll, are not helping. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So I am not allowed to have any input on this matter? That is very nice of you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Spare us the rhetorical hyperbole. Moulton got a raw deal. Sam Korn said so if not in so many words (you chose "raw deal" as the wording). There's no need to redredge that or supply diffs unless you're actually forgetting that Sam did say that... My pointing out that I think you're not being helpful in your contributions doesn't mean you are "not allowed to have any input" it means I think you're not being helpful. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar, what happened here is Moulton posted personal information about Filll to his subpage. Blueboy blocked him and Dave souza deleted the edits. Then once blocked for publishing personal information about another user, Moulton protested that this information was published by Filll "in User:Filll's personal userspace where he republishes the record of a prior disclosure of another name that he sometimes goes by." The account Moulton linked to was blocked in January as an impersonator of Filll and the specific edit he linked to was to an edit in the impersonator account's userpage containing a series of numbers in phone number like style with the edit summary "it is my number". I don't think anything has been oversighted so you should be able to follow the pieces. Sarah 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See just below this. I think this was an honest mistake, not an intentional outing. The difference between "User:Filll John Doe" and "User:Filll/John Doe" is very subtle. One is Filll's page, and one isn't... He was careless for not looking at the page history, perhaps, but I don't see this as deliberately outing anyone. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a chance to look into this. I think, if I understand what happened, this is a bad block and I can explain why. Since explaining why might itself "out" Filll, I'm not totally sure how to do it here effectively. But let me try. Near as I can tell, (based on my looking into things and on a note I got from Moulton) Moulton was doing research on the matter of the RfC and was trying to find draft copies. He did a special:prefix search for pages that start with "User:Filll" which is an entirely reasonable way to find subpages, after all. He found a page that was the user page of a user named "User:Fill John Doe" (where John Doe is actually a different name... perhaps someone alleges that name is Filll's???) and recorded it. That page existed at that time. It subsequently has been deleted. But Moulton's mistake was to not look in the history of that page and see that it was a page created by an SPA trying to out Filll, and then blanked by an admin. That's something not everyone would know to do. Therefore I think this block is bad, and the locking of pages is also bad. I ask that it be overturned. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar, claiming that you can't explain because your explanation might "out" Filll is rather pointless since you've already outed him on another page, by linking to a diff of Moulton outing him - a diff of an edit which was actually reverted by another administrator, and which led that administrator to protect his talk page. This is very disappointing. Are checkusers not chosen for their ability to deal discreetly with sensitive information? Ashton1983 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The userpage had an indef tag slapped on it, and Moulton linked to an earlier edit that contained a number. He obviously looked at the history of the page to be able to link to the specific edit in the history that contained the number. Man, you have no idea what a disappointment it is to me to see you trying to justify that sort of behaviour. I don't have an investment in this Moulton case either way and have generally stayed out of it but seriously, I can't believe anyone would try to get around this sort of behaviour on Misplaced Pages. It's just a shocking let down, Lar. Sarah 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. I thought Lar was far more rational than this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what is shocking is your failure to understand policy. First off, linking to another users subpage is just not actionable under policy, regardless of what is on it. All references to not linking to private information is in regard to external links, but this was an internal link. Secondly, Moulton believed that this was one of Filll's sockpuppets. A reasonable assumption unlike your massive assumption of bad faith. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one. Given his history, the chances of this being just a random act are pretty slim. Regardless of what Filll may have done, our tolerance for outing users has never been lower. And even without this incident, this guy should have been indef'd a long time ago.Blueboy96 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why wasn't that page deleted at the time? It's been there for months to be returned by a special:prefix search... I've asked Moulton for clarification, but I had to do it via email since his page is locked. And I've asked him to not post links again if his page is unlocked so he can explain himself. If what you say is true, that he had to have looked in the history and seen it was not Filll's page, then yes, it's not quite the honest mistake it would be if all he did was find the page. I still think people are overreacting here. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose any unblocking of Moulton. Enough is really enough. R. Baley (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad block. It's based on his apparently making a simple mistake, that I suspect anyone who doesn't know the ins and outs of pages here might make. Please read what I wrote just above you. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not a bad block, fact is, he should have never been left free to edit after the SUL thing was resolved. Leave the block, leave the page protected, and let's be done with this. R. Baley (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh...my...gosh.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there something substantive you wanted to add? If not I suggest you remove your comment and this reply. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the evidence that was to hand, and did not find a "raw deal". Please present diffs which support the conclusion that Moulton was treated badly. . .dave souza, talk 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. How many times do people have to dig up the same diffs? This matter went straight from an RfC to a block, which was then tagged as a "ban" even though it wasn't a ban per se. An arbcom member that looked into the matter last month said it was handled poorly. That's a raw deal in my book. I know it gets up some people's noses to point this out, but Moulton was right about the ID articles he was surfacing, they were coatracks. Now they're not as bad. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable person might be well within their rights to dispute this interpretation. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If "a reasonable person might be well within their rights to dispute the interpretation of matters", why the gleeful tone here about blocking? Why the lock of his page so he can't even explain what was done. It seems possible to me that he did not know what he was doing. Everyone else is so certain. What happened to AGF? Many of us have long held that Moulton is not someone that is suitable to edit here without some considerable change in his approach, but I just don't see him as malicious. This block seems to have been carried out and supported by those who said earlier "I wash my hands, if someone else wants to mentor him, feel free" ... and apparently then did not mentor, did not explain the issue, just blocked. Is is possible he did this maliciously? Sure, it's possible. But it's not the only possible explanation. Color ME disappointed and dismayed ... not in you, Filll, you no longer easily disappoint my expectations, but in Sarah. At least unlock his talk page and ask him to explain himself. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given Sarah's description it is very hard to see this as unintentional. Moulton looked at a prior dif so he almost certainly saw the entire history. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is any small comfort to you Lar, the feeling is mutual. I am not gleeful. I have been hopeful that he will resolve to be productive. But to claim he did not know what he was doing is a bit much. After all, what was the huge Cla68 drama about that he fully participated in? He is not that much of a newcomer that he does not know what the history buttons do and what is the difference between a blocked and an unblocked page, or the consequences of sock puppetry, or what the difference is between a subpage and a page. That just staggers the imagination. And why is it up to someone else to mentor him? That is the problem with the "unblock" policy. Everyone is prepared to unblock disruptive editors, but then no one wants to take responsibility for their behavior. Well he was only unblocked to unify his accounts anyway, and was supposed to be blocked again afterwords apparently. So...--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Unblock. It's a bad block and Lar makes it perfectly clear why. Linking to another person's subpage is not actionable, since this involves internal links and not external links. Please re-read our policy pages, since the BADSITES crowd was so focused on external attack sites doing the outing they never bothered to forbid internal links to such info. There is just way too much bad faith going on here not to think that this wasn't an intentional effort to get Moulton reblocked. Besides, if it were anyone else, they wouldn't have been blocked. That the some of the ID Cabal have joined in on this is somewhat notable. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell, Moulton used the name on the page after thinking that Filll had "published" the name (you what? Who publishes their name as a subpage of their userspace?). But it wasn't a subpage. It was an attack page. User:Filll John Doe, rather than, User:Filll/John Doe, as Lar explained. Anyone can create either of those pages, but the editor who created the User:Filll John Doe page was someone impersonating Filll, who was blocked after a few edits. I can't say when this happened or who did the block or deletions, but I will point out that there is a publically visible record still accessible on Misplaced Pages. I'll e-mail Filll so he can decide what to do about it. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is this: regardless of intention, since when is it illegal to link to another page on wikipedia. I really don't think the intention matters much, in this case. If it had been an external link, then there is some ground to stand on, but this was an internal link. That the page existed for such a long time means it is already been snagged by those who grab regular wikipedia downloads. Sorry, but it isn't Moulton's fault that the information was in the history. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, Moulton clearly used the name in question in full view in the text at User talk:Moulton/Answers. I think this was a slip in typing or copying, and not anything malicious (I believe Moulton may have known the name in question through e-mail correspondence, but I can't confirm that). Moulton's "defence" was that the name was visible to anyone who knew where to look. He pointed this out by linking to the page in question, which is what you seem to be talking about. The initial incident (of having the name on the page) is no longer visible to those who can't see deleted revisions of pages. This is what might be confusing you. Imagine a version of User talk:Moulton/Answers with another name used instead of Filll. Do you see the problem now? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now, thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure what to think, but I'm skeptical given the ID crowd involvement in this entire affair. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is, ironically enough, Moulton being given a raw deal. I see someone pointing something out, and then a crowd of people jumping to conclusions and going "what? again? BLOCK HIM!" but without actually stopping to think or listen or wait to hear what Moulton might have to say. I think some (not all) of the people commenting here have lost objectivity over this, possibly including Lar. For the record, I don't actually think Moulton's explanation, even with Lar supporting it, makes much sense (even if it had been Filll's page, that is no reason for Moulton to use that name on the page in question - he should have just said "Filll" throughout). Even so, could everyone just step back for a few moments, hours, or days and try and get a clearer perspective on this? Decisions taken in the heat of the moment rarely work out well. In addition to the "raw deal" aspect of this, there is a tone of "well, he should have stayed blocked before, so let's block him now anyway". This comes across clearest in what Blueboy96 said here: "And even without this incident, this guy should have been indef'd a long time ago." No admin should ever be making prejudicial statements like that about someone they have just blocked. Surely a quiet deletion and e-mail to the people concerned would have handled this better? As things stand at the moment, over 1000 people can still access this personal information. If anything, the drama here has ensured that if any rogue admins do like to gather this sort of information, they surely have it by now. This is what I mean by stopping and thinking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the sequence of what happened. Moulton posted the personal information, which is forbidden. That page was deleted and he was re-blocked. (He should have been re-blocked days ago, since he was only unblocked to unify his login.) When he was warned about posting personal information, he linked to another page where that information was posted.

Even if Moulton didn't know that he shouldn't post personal information, it was his response that's the real problem. When someone says "you can't do X", and you respond by doing X again, it shows that you have no intention of abiding by the rules. As Sarah pointed out before, to get to the page he linked to, Moulton had to get past the (then-current) version of the page which clearly said that the editor was blocked for impersonation. Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends when Moulton read the page. However, let's not get into timings here, as that could lead people to the page in question. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather unlikely. The version that Moulton linked to stood for 4 hours, many months ago. Guettarda (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding Blueboy's comment - he should have been re-blocked long ago. It's pretty sloppy to unblock someone to allow them to perform one discrete task, and then not reblocking them once they have completed the task. Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone should tell Thatcher. Would you do that, please? Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell him that Moulton was reblocked? That's been done. Guettarda (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was given permission to edit his subpages and I still don't understand how naming a blocked user account that still exists and linking to page history is blockable. Did he actually transcribe the number? From what I gather it was just the username and an internal link. Please point out where internal links are ever forbidden. The EL policy page is for external links and the HARASS policy page specifies only EL, so I'm just not seeing the violation of policy here. Sure, it was personal info, but not that Moulton created. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He outed another editor, on-wiki. That isn't acceptable behaviour. In response to being warned about this behaviour, he pointed to the other page. The issue isn't linking to another page. The issue is (a) outing an editor, and (b) in response to a warning, in essence, repeating the outing. Moulton has shown repeatedly that he has no respect for our policies. Now he has escalated to outing editors. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to tie ourselves in knots over this. Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a community-banned editor, was temporarily unblocked for a specific purpose (Thatcher's summary on June 10 was "to allow SUL merging"). He's been reblocked and that's that. Arguing over whether something controversial he did in the meantime was itself blockable is missing the point.

If on the other hand we're having doubts about the original community ban, then let's discuss that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

Can someone remove the line "They are all actually giant robots made by aliens in preparation to take over the world" from the geology section of Mount Rushmore. I would, but I can't edit the page. 5:15 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these particular cases, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the pattern here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and built a new building in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits over the past two weeks, almost two dozen edits, every single one of which has removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on a false claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, falsely claiming "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the WP:OWNership rights improperly arrogated over these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as an excuse to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively editing. In the span of two weeks, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Misplaced Pages policy nor has he added content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided is appropriate. Administrative intervention to address these issues is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a whole lot of really strange, but clearly bad-faith, editing. That's definite edit warring, though to what end, I'm not sure. Might just be an 'I'm right you're not' situation. A block should be issued, as it's clear that he will continue such editing and reversion. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well, but I will note most of them were reverting extraneous and unnecessary quotes from citations. Edit-warring over such quotes is something Alansohn is currently engaged in an Arbitration over. Neıl 龱 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a broken record - see Alansohn's last AN/I complaint, which led to no action. Repeating the same complain a week later is one thing, but if you post this yet again without noting that there is an open ArbCom case on this very subject which is close to its conclusion, and which bears remedies and findings which are relevant, then it's going to be hard to view this as anything other than shopping around for a block. MastCell  22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I might even have agreed with the snide broken record remark if it weren't for the fact that the same user has returned a week later with an additional series of reverts to the same articles, with the best and brightest excuse being that his version is "better", and done so after the evidence-gathering phase of the Arbcom case has been completed. Arbcom has baffingly chosen to ignore the footnoted quotes issue in its entirety and has decided to ignore the ample evidence of previous abusive editing by User:RedSpruce, despite the numerous examples of edit warring and incivility by RedSpruce. All that is needed is one admin who can look at this problem and come up with a solution to stopping sourced material being arbitrarily removed without coming up with rationalizations to enable the abuse -- "I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well" is an entirely unjustifiable excuse to justify deletion of dozens of edits -- and we might have a solution here. Can anyone here actually deal with this problem? Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal account

User:Shawn flory The user isn't active now, but has nearly a dozen edits, all vandalism. Revelian (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)