Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 23 August 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Misplaced Pages reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz for full discussion. Jehochman 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag

I recently found that SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as Bugman94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's created numerous socks, which can be found in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bugman94. I'm all for offering users a second chance (I think I supported his unban request a few months ago), but I don't think it's a good idea to give a tool which allows the ability to create far more accounts than is possible to normal users to a user who has been known to disrupt the project with serious socking previously. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• In principal I agree with everything Ryan says above. However, SwirlBoy39 has reformed, and has done some tremendous work at ACC. Yes, he was banned, but that is genuinely ancient history. I wouldn't support the removal of ACC status. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Users can reform, and I agree in many ways SB has - but with the history of socking he has, I don't think he can be trusted with the tool in the long term. There's plenty of other things he can do without having access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I should note that the ACC tool is in no way backlogged. Users that haven't had previous sock issues can easily handle the requests. There's no urgent need to lower the standards to give users with a socking history to have access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It just seems strange to me that all this is being dug up now, nearly a year after the sockpuppet accounts were tagged. Has there been any evidence of abuse in the time he had the flag? It just doesn't sit right with me. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that with his socks, he's been known to abuse the ability for users to create new accounts. One example is here. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, having the account creation bit is really only of use to a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. Basically, any editor can create six accounts at a time and over a number of weeks, that can accumulate to quite a lot. If he were ever to abuse this, checkuser would be able to pretty-much detect and nail the entire sockfarm. I'm not particularly worried, and besides, Swirly is now well past all that stuff and I'd hate to see him permanently 'branded' for his past transgressions - Alison 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, of course it can, but also creating a quiet account here and there would also be silent. Checkuser doesn't show everything, espeically if the user isn't vandalising in pattern. I think he can develop trust on wiki, but when someone has a history of relatively serious sockpuppeteering, they can develop trust in other areas. There's plenty of other users who do account creation. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But "creat a quiet account here and there" has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC bit; he can do that either way. Rather, I see this as an ideal way for him to regain the trust of the community - Alison 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He can regain the communities trust in many other ways. There's plenty of areas he can work in, many others indeed. We can be slightly picky with who we give the ACC flag to, given that so many people have access to the tool - many, many other users can easily deal with the accounts that SB can't deal with. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Have you checked to quantify how much ACC work he's done to-date? You see, he's had the ACC bit for quite a while, and there have been no issues. Bringing it up now, and for no clear reason makes it look like an exercise in humiliation. I know that's not your intent, Ryan, but it could easily be seen as that, esp. by Swirly and that would be seriously disheartening to him. Like there's never going to be any redemption - Alison 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Working in this area without any problems is a perfect opportunity for Swirlboy to regain trust he lost last year. Working here is no different to working in other areas. how do you turn this on 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alison as well. Removing the ACC flag does nothing to prevent him from creating socks if he so desired. Just leave it be IMO. Though, he hasn't hit the throttle since late May. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When was he unbanned? Months ago? Last I checked, an overturned ban wasn't supposed to be like a felony conviction that followed you around for the rest of your wiki-life. If he's not doing anything wrong, why take action against him? Besides, creating abusive socks using your main account is pretty much the height of stupid when it comes to sockpuppetry. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, return the flag to Swirlboy, there is absolutely no indication he has misused it. Prodego 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ryan, you've already gone ahead and removed it. With due respect, while I won't wheel-war over the matter, that was more than a little hasty here. And the message you left in the logs was somewhat of a damning black-mark against him. I feel that that was totally unwarranted here. I've been watching over Swirly since he was unbanned and working with him on issues, and there's been very little I can fault him for - Alison 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, with all due respect, consensus is against you here. While he was banned a while ago, he has shown that he's reformed, and removing the ACC flag from him seems punitive rather than preventative. Swirlyboy has more than "served his time", so to speak, and I think holding the fact that he was banned 6 months ago against him is unfair, and his flag should be restored. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently Ryan P can't reply for a bit, his internet is down.) - FT2  09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy does good work on ACC, last time I checked. Someone give him his ACC flag back if he's going to use it (and he has needed it at times). While you're there, take my flag; I don't need it and the current ACC system is a joke. But that's not SwirlBoy's fault. —Giggy 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be brought up, and I've been hesitant to posting. There are other tool admins who can keep an eye on him if there is evidence of potential misuse. Since there isn't, it should be returned to him Ryan. Synergy 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Swirlboy's account creator flag per consensus here. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So an admin brings this here for a review and people's thoughts. Consensus is, it's not a problem - and from my outside view, it should be removed WHEN an offence occurs, not via an admin using a crystal ball to think an offence might occur. possibly. At some point. The fact said admin then unilaterally removes the access against any semblance of consensus here before "losing" net access smacks very much of "I think this, please validate my view. Oh you didn't, never mind, I'm right anyway". Minkythecat (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I originally proposed that SwirlBoy be unbanned, and I can certainly say that since that proposal was passed by the community, he's improved no end. This removal is punishing him for past transgressions, when they are just that: in the past. His conduct is not a current problem. When or if he does abuse this tool, we will take action; at present, however, this is a purely penal measure, with no solid preventative element. I support restoring SwirlBoy's tools. Anthøny 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would also support a restoration of SwirlBoy39's ACC tool. Revoking the ACC tool just because he was banned for sock puppetry when SwirlBoy has reformed does certainly sounds like he is being punished. Actions like these should only be done as a prevention from multiple misuses, not punishment. Though, if SwirlBoy was recently unbanned, then I would highly oppose a restoration. But in this case, he has shown he has reformed and I would assume he will not misuse the tool. -- RyRy (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• absolutely support Swirlboy's tool access. No indication of poor behavior. RyanP's actions both in creating this report, and removing the tool with no indication of problems is the kind of abusive admin action that we DO NOT NEED. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The tool removal was dealt with in the appropriate forum for an off-wiki tool, and is back as it was. Also, Swirlboy got his flag back (Agree on both cases, personally, as I said on the mail list). I'm going to mark this as resolved now. SQL 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

I've templated him, some of the image bots have templated him, other's have left him a personalized message, I've left him a personalized message, and even threw in a last {{uw-copyright4}} warning. His reply to all these have been to blank his talk page. But as can been seen from the log he's went ahead and uploaded two more copyvio's that have already been speedied. I'm guessing asking him kindly to stop isn't going to work. Q 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem here. Sure, he's blanking his talk page which is pretty unreasonable behavior in and of itself, but his "evils" aren't that great either - just two copyvio uploads. I edit in the same circle of articles as them and am willing to clean up their messes. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two blatant copyvios and about 20+ odd images he failed to provide even basic copyright and source information to. Q 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of IP address from history page

I accidentally made a comment on the discussion page of Paramore without remembering to log in first. Could someone please, please, please delete my IP address from the history page? I would very much appreciate that. Please. Thank you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators can't "remove" just one edit from the page's history. Only oversighters can "remove" edits from page histories, but there has to be a good reason. Oversight is usually done for privacy reasons. I would assume this is you? Anyway, I see no reason why it should be "removed" in the first place. You can easily just sign in and replace the signature with your signature. What's so important that you want that one edit "removed" anyway? I see no harm in just replacing the IP's signature with your signature, saying that you weren't logged in in the edit summary. Either that or you can just leave it alone and continue the discussion. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He wants it removed because some WP "watchdog" sites use slipups like that to personally identify editors and admins (as best as an IP address can do) Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit admin-only for now. Please email oversight-llists.wikimedia.org to make the removal permanent. east718 // talk // email // 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been oversighted - Alison 09:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch personal attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if someone would be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime (t) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, for what it's worth, he's using his blog at yahoo. (Do a google search for "Arthur Rubin", and the blog appears toward the top.) Nothing we can do about that, but it seems interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sec 1971

I'm a little concerned about ths user's comments. Apparently they're upset over having to source everything: "Could I put the phrase "George W. Bush is half lizard, and eats babies for lunch while fingering his own ass" on my website and call this a reliable source? Probably not, but that's basically the way most of the editors here are siting their sources. Make up your minds, are require deletions to be DISCUSSED FIRST before finalized. We're not Nazis here, common knowledge is common knowledge. Would I need a reference to say that Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment due his liaisons with Monica? I think not, because everyone knows this....." Comments like this are concerning, but unfortunately I don't know what to do. Is this just a rant or something more serious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion in context on that user's talk page, he seems to have engaged constructively with you on the issue of sourcing and editing. I don't think this is something requiring administrator intervention or monitoring. --MCB (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with possible copyright violation

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: , , PUI, , , with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" (, , , ). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes. He's even used the word "trawl". Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page . Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. , ], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. . "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Misplaced Pages seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Misplaced Pages and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Misplaced Pages is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. _D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." _D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Misplaced Pages as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see . Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts . Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts . What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts .

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an WP:IFD and a proper debate on the fair use rationale.

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an WP:IFD was proposed is because PfainukRyan4314 asked for an WP:RFC. Incidentally FuturePerfect didn't notify others involved in disputing the deletion call after the WP:IFD was opened, that was left to Pfainuk.

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the WP:IFD Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Some notable comments:

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy . However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War was inspired by comments in the deletion review. However, on User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Your sandbox page intimates that before the article is even written it is destined for WP:AFD.

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in WP:AGF. The nomination here calling for Dreadstar to be desyopped appears yet more retaliation and worse intimidation.

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at this talk page, there may have been no connection between Ryan's decision to take it to RFC and Future Perfect's decision to go to IFD less than two hours later. The IFD was closed as "keep" by User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

So this case was very badly handled by Future Perfect. I was hoping that it would blow over, as process was eventually done - that's why I didn't bring this up here at the time - but the closure of that IFD is inevitably caught up in the issue discussed here, and this particular issue should be placed in the context of the ongoing issues that I and other editors have brought up.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Misplaced Pages do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Misplaced Pages as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Misplaced Pages is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Misplaced Pages. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

User edit warring, removing maintenance tags

• diff1
• diff2

User:Koavf doesn't have consensus on talk page, behaviour reminds me of WP:OWN. Insertion of categories like "conflicts in 2008" is a pushing of unsourced info (I can't put a citation needed tag near a category)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

again diff this can now be even 3RR --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit the tag was indeed not right, I didn't notice that. I didn't know the meaning of the word "spurious" when he tried to tell me it's not right --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I haven't gone into this disagreement in depth, but it's easy to see that you yourself recently reverted the article no less than six times within 24 hours. Note also that Koavf is right and you're wrong about the tag {{Unreferenced}}, which s/he keeps removing and you keep re-inserting: the article is far from unreferenced. Your edit summaries suggest that you're using rollback to revert edits that are far from clear vandalism. That would be misuse of the rollback tool. And finally, have you told Koavf that you're discussing him/her here? That would be courtesy. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

P.S. I see you admit above that the tag was wrong. That's good, and I hope you will continue to check what tags say (=not just what your opponent says about them) before you put them back so many times. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Request for quicker response at WP:RPP

Hello -- I hope you won't mind me asking this, and that it won't seem like nagging -- I do fully appreciate that nearly everyone here is a volunteer, and so things are done on a best-efforts basis, but when recently I was dabbling with recent changes patrolling, it was frustrating to encounter problems due to a delay in getting a page protected by admins. Yesterday, the article Folie à deux was reported at WP:RPP at 20:42 UTC. It was semi-protected 19 minutes later at 21:01 UTC. In that time, there was a veritable onslaught of vandalism from multiple IPs. Earlier page semi-protection would have helped considerably. Would it be possible please to place greater priority on page protection requests? Many thanks. — Alan 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

19 minutes is not a long wait at all. In fact, that's probably one of the quickest response times I've ever seen for RPP; vandals sit at AIV for longer than that. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What then would be an appropriate channel in a case where the vandal edits are coming really thick and fast, so where 19 minutes is a long time (see the page history)? Should I just take it straight to AIV? I eventually did, but only after a while, because I assumed that the RPP (which someone else raised) would in itself get a response. Thanks. — Alan 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While other admins would probably disagree with me, I'd take something like that to WP:AN or WP:ANI. These two noticeboards receive much more attention than AIV/RPP/UAA. Before my RfA, I always checked the deletion log when I needed the quick attention of an admin. Spot one making deletions and leave a note on his/her talk page; you'll get an even quicker response. - auburnpilot talk 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. — Alan 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

National-Anarchism

Requesting page protection for this troubled article. The last thing we need is for people to think it's acceptable to spam the external links section with foreign-language weblogs. Ottre (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection would prevent any work on the article, and this is one editor edit-warring against several others. I've given them a 3RR warning. A block could follow, if necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange vandalism at Project Chanology

Hello. I have no idea what noticeboard to post this at, so I decided to put it here. Project Chanology seems to have some strange sort of template vandalism. I can't find anything that looks like it would cause it in the article's source code and no edits in the history appear to have caused it. Anybody know what is going on? Captain panda 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked etc some time ago thanks. Refresh your cache. -- zzuuzz 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

not repaired. not a cache issue for me, never went there until after seeing this report. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything. What's the problem, exactly? --Deskana (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

now it's clear. it had some strange quote about owning souls and a bunch of numbers in a block. It's the common template vadalism that's been happening the past couple of weeks. I couldn't figure out what template was causing it though. and I don't know why I saw it after zzuuzz fixed it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future you can use this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=&action=purge .-Wafulz (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk)

• Adding a new (fake) timestamp so this announcement does not get archived until the application period is over. Thatcher

• Or you can just remove the timestamps outright... Maxim (☎)

Help

Please can someone archive the first 25 threads on this page? I am unable to load the whole page at the moment. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) will archive some threads later. D.M.N. (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD tidyup

This AfD about a band was closed as Delete, but the four associated articles (about their recorded output) were not. Could someone delete them, please? Ta. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) : Doing... --Rodhullandemu 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot alert

The bot User:JAnDbot has been incorrectly changing or deleting interwiki links in articles on my watchlist. The latest was the article Micropropagation. I have had to revert at least two other edits from this bot on other articles. I appreciate the author's good intentions in making a bot, but as can be seen by his talk page, other people have been finding similar problems with the bot's edits. The bot author states on his talk page User talk:JAn Dudík, "If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries."

I request that an administrator look into this, since replacing correct interwiki links for a language to ones that lead to incorrect pages in that language is an insidious form of damage.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WriterHound (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the error is on the other end:

• Micropropagation → fr:Culture in vitro → Tissue culture
• Micropropagation → nl:Weefselkweek_(plant) → Plant tissue culture

I don't really have a proposed solution, but it's possible something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems be *correctly* removing a link to a non-English article in a case where that article links back to a different one than the original. In fact, its treatment of Micropropagation seems correct to me. Micropropagation is specific to plants, and the link to was matching it up with a more general article on the French side that was not appropriate. It is normal to block bots immediately if we see them making mistakes (since their feelings can't be hurt) but I'm so far not seeing any error by the bot. I haven't studied the previous comments at User talk:JAn Dudík, but I did leave a note for this editor on his Czech talk page asking him to come here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the French side, it says translated, "In vitro culture (also called micropropagation). . ."

The whole thing seems a bit confusing.

WriterHound (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot is working correctly when doing autonomously. The things discussed on my userpage are whein I try to solve mixed interwiki using assisted bot. I have list of articles which are linking to article en:A, list for en:B etc. from these list I am trying to solve it. When article en:A links to fr:C but fr:C links to en:B what can I do? When I solve it bad, somebody could repair it. I have solved many articles ando only few of them were bad. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan, first of all thank you very, very much for all of your work on Misplaced Pages. Obviously, we are all volunteers here and other people do not always appreciate the hard work that many of us put into editing.

WriterHound (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Global blocking now active

Please see Misplaced Pages:Global blocking for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested admin edits

Credit to Giggy, borrowed text and idea from his post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I suggest that MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked (the message recieved when you're globally blocked and try to edit here) be created/modified, modeled after commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John Reaves (talk · contribs) for doing this. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that {{unblock}} be modifed similar to , to add an option for removing a global block. See also See m:Steward handbook#IP address blocks for some more information. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

This doesn't need admin attention specifically, but admins are often experienced editors, so I thought I'd bring this by here. It's pretty simple: The article on Omar Khadr has 33 photos. It's kind of jaw-dropping. The issue was brought up on the talk page not long ago, but didn't get any responses. A significant number of the pictures aren't of Khadr at all, but merely of other people who have gotten involved in the controversy. Some really extreme trimming needs to happen, and I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start, so any thoughts would be appreciated. --Masamage ♫ 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Start a new section on the talk page, list the images and the reasons why you are going to keep/remove each one. Remove the images you don't think fit, one per edit with a meaningful edit summary, referring to the discussion on talk. See who disagrees, enter into a one-on-one or centralised discussion with that individual, as appropriate. Do not edit war, and report any disruption or edit warring to the appropriate places. --Stephen 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan Jay Williams?

I really have no idea if this is the right place, but I noticed that Nathan Williams (talk · contribs) has his User and User_talk located at Nathan Jay Williams (talk · contribs). Now I'm not quite sure how to proceed with this user. He seems to want to change his username. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest try talking with him about getting an actual name change first; if he doesn't want to do so, then the user/talk page need to come off redirect. You might also point out that he can change his signature to include the Jay if he wants without actually changing names. Shell 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Can an admin please delete List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. It needs to be deleted so that List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees can be moved to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. (Per a new consensus). Thanks, -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here for more information. D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please post requests like these at WP:RM. Thanks, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. Question - have the categories changed somewhat ? If I went to WP:CATS, I could click on the box on the right and get an alphabetic list of categories starting at a particular letter. Thats all seems to have changed ...is there a problem or ahs the structure been changed ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further, clicking a letter gives a 'from' / 'to' option - if I enter something like 'Books', then instead of a list of categories starting at 'Books', I get a list of 'xxx' to 'yyy', and I then have to repeatedly select to drill down further and further, rather than just being able to scroll through. Also, on the first page after clicking on the letter, there seem to be a lot of articles listed as redirects....CultureDrone (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and found it somewhat more difficult to use, or at least requires a lot more clicks to get where I need to be with no apparent added benefit. Anyone know the reason for the change? Stardust8212 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Not good. Agree with Stardust. Why? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)

Tvoz is failing to respect the good faith policy on the Bill Clinton page. His erase of reliable facts I have presented are unacceptable and complete out of line in terms of good faith. The user has already confessed to being a loyal supporter of the Republican Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat when I say WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also don't care if Tvoz has received a good amount of Barnstars, because he still needs to accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is neutral and requires good faith among other users. Not to brag, but I also received a barnstar myself and I still know that Misplaced Pages policies must be respected.

I have no special privileges, and neither should anybody else on Misplaced Pages as well. Plushpuffin has also been doing the same. The user has not been willing, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, to respect the neutral point of view policy on the Bill Clinton page either. To me, opinions need to be kept to themselves UNLESS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS RELIABLE FACTS. I am willing to respect Misplaced Pages policies, and so should. Also, I only have capitalized some of the words in my statement not as a form of rage, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING WORDS I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I don't intend to be uncivil in anyway, if anybody reading this gets that idea.Kevin j (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please present diffs of offending edits by the users that you have called into question? Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request user Ioeth. The difference in our two revisions is that the user Tvoz, at least from my opinion, erased my contributions to the Clinton page to keep a large amount of people online from finding out the flaws of the Sally Perdue case. Misplaced Pages has now become not only the Internet's top enclycopedia page, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE TOP WEBSITES SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET TOO. Some Republican strategists, which Tvoz has presented him/herself on through his/her talkpage, can easily make edits to the pages as a political strategy. This is in clear violation of the good faith policy, and Tvoz needs to know that you can't violate the policy or get any special privileges in anyway. - - Plushpuffin has also been stubborn to me, and the user seems to think that only his/her opinions matter the most. I keep telling the user I am respecting the neutral point of view policy and that have reliable resources to back my claims. However, THE USER HAS ERASED MY CONTENT ON THE BILL CLINTON PAGE REPEATEDLY AND HAS TRIED TO LABEL ME AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. THAT IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY RIGHT THERE. I don't mean to uncivil in anyway either.Kevin j (talk)

Kevin j, I'm afraid you're a little too worked up to edit constructively right now; your posts on the talk pages of Tvoz, Ricky81682, and Plushpuffin are too far over the top, and your edit summaries during your edit warring at Bill Clinton (apparently now stopped, thank you) all seem to indicate that you aren't acting calmly. Please trust me when I say no one is going to sanction Tvoz for anything he did at that article so far. also notice how I used italics, instead of all caps, to emphasize something. Finally, I note you've made zero edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. Talk pages are where we work out questions about reliable sources, not edit summaries and reports to WP:AN. You've been here a long time; I'm surprised you forgot that. I very strongly suggest that you don't re-add that paragraph to the article tomorrow (as your last edit summary there suggested you were going to) without consensus on the talk page first; at this point, I would consider that edit warring, whether you violate WP:3RR or not, and it could get you blocked again. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sanctions. I ASKED FOR A WARNING TO BE ISSUED TO THESE USERS TO RESPECT THE POLICIES. If they continue to violate this, THEN I WILL REQUEST A BLOCK. WARNINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Also, I AM NOT TRYING TO LOOSE MY TEMPER IN ANYWAY, IN CASE YOU THAT IDEA, AND I AM TRYING TO BE CIVILKevin j (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c, inserted after 2 comments below) Tvoz and Plushpuffin have not violated any policies. They've removed something they think violates WP:BLP; negative info from a source they do not consider reliable. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. If a consensus developes in your favor about the reliability of the source, then re-add the info. if it doesn't, then don't. A reliable source is a reliable source because consensus and policy say so, not because you say so. Make your case (not here; on the article talk page). At this time, there is no reason to warn either one, and there is no way they are going to be blocked if they continue to revert your addition of BLP material if there isn't a talk page consensus that your source is reliable. --barneca (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably follow the good advice Barneca offered above, as if you keep following this path, I have no doubt that someone will get blocked, but I suspect it will not be Tvoz. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not capitalize my important words OUT OF UNCIVIL RAGE. Slander me again, like the way you did on the notice board, AND I WILL HAVE YOU REQUESTED FOR A BLOCK. Respect the good faith policy.

Stop typing in capital letters, please. As for the debate over your edits on Bill Clinton, I looked at Capitol Hill Blue, and see the tag line "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" under the headline. That suggests rather frankly that there is a problem with the site - that it carries a specific point of view. The article you were trying to link to has a disclaimer that "mainstream media" wouldn't publish it. Please take a look at the reliable sources guidelines - I think you'll see that the article in question doesn't meet them. Finally, in future, please take these issues to the talk page first - discussion is a better approach than immediately making complaints about other editors who disagree with you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators.Kevin j (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a disclaimer indicating that it was published there because the MSM wouldn't publish it. The site is not reliable, as it is blatantly slanted - its tag line indicates that quite strongly. I suggest again that you read the reliable sources guidelines and seek out other sources with strong and neutral editorial oversight to source your edits to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm afraid that's only your opinion. Advertising is a common thing to do The website promotes itself as neutral with that claim. Do you also really would they insult themselves and damage their business by saying that the mainstream media would reject them because they are unreliable? Keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*facepalm* I tried. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin J's edit on the Bill Clinton article (here) back to the original form of the sentence, in which two (somewhat conflicting) statements were originally written as "She alleged the affair took place in 1983 during her second divorce, but she did not begin divorce proceedings until later." Kevin J had rewritten the sentence to say "She alleged the affair took place in 1983, but she was discredited...," which I thought was original research and injected POV into the article.

I also reverted Kevin J's edit to Bill Clinton (here) because he added some random irrelevant fact about CNN supposedly supporting Bush in the 2000 elections as a way of calling into question the credibility of a poll on Clinton's popularity at the end of his term. I considered it irrelevant and misleading, and I noted as such on the Talk:Bill Clinton page.

Tvoz reverted Kevin J's reversion of my reversion, as well as removing what she considered unreliable information about Sally Perdue in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

It is important to note that Kevin J had pretty much the same edits reverted by the administrator User:Ricky81682 only three weeks ago: (here on Bill Clinton) and (here on Sally Perdue): at the time, Kevin J had written it as "Sally Perdue's arguments were also flawed, as she stated that she began her 1983 affair with while going through her second divorce..." Two days ago he took it upon himself to revert the administrator's edits and re-add the information and language which Ricky81682 deemed inappropriate.

I reported him three weeks ago for his behavior and properly notified him of such on his talk page (note that he did not do the same for me today). I did not think he would benefit from arbitration, considering the enormous number of complaints against him on his talk page. I still believe I was right to get an administrator involved from the start. Throughout this affair, Kevin J has consistently acted irrationally and uncivilly (see User talk:Plushpuffin and User talk:Tvoz), has refused to engage in debate regarding the merits of his edits, and has begun an edit war on the affected articles. Tvoz and I did not scheme together to revert his edits; rather, we both felt (independently) that the content and language changes that Kevin J was making to the articles were of extremely poor quality, especially considering that Bill Clinton is/was a "good quality" article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I responded and nobody blocked me Again, I am warning you to keep your unsourced opinions to yourself and respect Misplaced Pages's policies. The statement you have provided is POV based, and that is not acceptable to request somebody is violating a policy just because they disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough.

I also never said that either of you two schemed together, and I am now using Italics to highlight my important words. You both were out of line. Stop this nonsenseKevin j (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use a colon to indent your replies. I've fixed the above two for you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kevin J should be blocked imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me.Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly the polite, word-to-the-wise appeal to reason is not working here. Kevin j, neither Tvoz nor Plushpuffin has done anything to warrant a warning, much less a block. Even if they had, who would know? You haven't provided any diffs or evidence of any kind. You appear to be running from talk page to noticeboard to talk page leaving a trail of angry threats, poorly informed accusations, and vitriol. I'm asking you to drop this. It should be apparent by now that no admin is going to warn or sanction Tvoz or Plushpuffin. If you continue badgering them and everyone else who comments here, and edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material into biographies of living people, then you will be blocked. MastCell  17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are not thinking the facts right. I'm afraid I have just told a lot of differences and you need to act more mature. I do not appreciate these childish, personal attacksKevin j (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets disrupting AFD

A few sockpuppets appear to be disrupting this AFD with firm arguments to "Keep" the article. Removing their arguments would result in the article being "Delete". It might be worth closing the AFD as "Delete" now to avoid any further socks/IP's disrupting the !vote. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the AfD needs an early close, since admins who work on closing are generally pretty perceptive about sockpuppets/meatpuppet/SPA participation. On the other hand, I think someone could make a decent WP:SNOW case that there's no way the article will be kept. But what does need to happen is an immediate edit of the article to remove serious WP:BLP violations, and I'm going to do that right now. --MCB (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a decent knowledge of boxing, and the article appears to be a clear-cut hoax. I have cast my !vote at the AfD as such (along with my reasoning/evidence). If some other intrepid admin wants to close out the AfD for the snowball it is, I would appreciate it. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Erwin85

I can't do very much, as I'm on my phone, but could someone please take a look at User:Erwin85 and User talk:Erwin85. Someone seems to have it out for him. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All accounts and IPs involved have been blocked. GlassCobra 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing

The Arbitration Committee has become aware that Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) (not an administrator) has accessed and used the accounts of two administrators, Chet B Long (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We also believe that Chet B Long and PeterSymonds may have accessed Steve Crossin's account too. In the case of Chet B Long, we believe that Steve Crossin encouraged the exchange, and Chet B Long in an act of exceedingly poor judgement sought not to let him down. In the case of PeterSymonds, we believe that he accidentally revealed his password, which prompted Steve Crossin to try accessing his account. Steve then told Peter that he knew his password, and Peter allowed his password to stand unchanged. Steve used Peter's account to perform non-controversial administrative actions, but without the approval and trust of the community, and in PeterSymonds' name. Such behaviour is outside the standards that administrators are expected to follow in keeping their accounts secure, and the Arbitration Committee considers this grossly inappropriate conduct.

While we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve Crossin while accessing these accounts, there is still an issue of trust here. In addition, we have been informed by multiple people that Steve Crossin has been sharing chat logs of a private communication between himself and other users, including Arbitrator Deskana.

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee. Whilst all three are valued editors, their actions were grossly poor in judgement. We are considering Steve Crossin's position, but do not feel any other sanctions are necessary in respect of the two administrators at this time. The community may wish to discuss their own sanctions, if appropriate.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Yes, I've known of this for a few days, and I remain somewhat disappointed. My thoughts to Arbcom-l stand, Deskana. Transparency is vital. Anthøny 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this decision. This was an exceedingly poor decision on the part of all parties involved; however, no long-term damage was done to the project. Further, Chet and Peter were amicable in recognizing their mistakes and giving up their tools. This has already mostly been dealt with, let's keep the drama at a minimum. GlassCobra 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see Steve Crossin banned indefinitely. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments;

• One day on IRC, Peter Symonds botched a nickserv identification on IRC, which resulted in his inadvertently posting his IRC password in public. Steve tried logging into Peter's Misplaced Pages account, which has +sysop rights, with this password, and it worked (presumably, Peter uses the same password for IRC and Misplaced Pages). Steve notified Peter that this was the case; Peter then informed Steve that he will not be changing his password, so long as he promises to behave.
• On a rather different note, Chet Long seems to have readily volunteered his password to Steve (I know not whether Chet offered it, or Steve requested it). Conversely, however, Steve used Chet's account only once.

Regarding the proposals to indefinitely block and / or ban Steve, I don't think that is necessary here. His judgement was poor, certainly, but he has never acted maliciously towards a project. No, this matter is to all intents and purposes, closed and resolved: no further action is available here that will benefit the project.

This is a delicate matter, and we need to let the dust settle here -- moreso in that the committee is still discussing the matter.

Anthøny 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how Steve acquired these account passwords, using them to perform action on Misplaced Pages is a violation of WP:SOCK, I intend to indef block Steve for egregious violation of SOCK and the community's trust in a few minutes. MBisanz 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Very well, I'll hold off for the time being, but I think the community deserves a full explanation from Steve to the the degree it did of Archtransit in February. MBisanz 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit was the sock of a banned user who worked his way up to adminship. I don't think that's quite applicable in this case (at least I certainly hope it isn't). Though a statement from Steve I think should be necessary if he wishes to continue editing (he may not). Mr.Z-man 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit gamed and violated the community's trust to use the admin tools despite knowing he had no right to, Steve also violated the community's trust by using admin tools he knew he had no right to. MBisanz 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But AT used the tools to unblock his own socks and IPs and purposely cause as much somewhat-subtle disruption as possible. While Steve used an admin account inappropriately, he (most likely, based on the above statement) was still trying to be productive. Mr.Z-man 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Archtransit, as I was the one who discovered his socks. This situation does not appear to be the same. Jehochman 01:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I strongly disagree with Steve being banned. He is a good faith contributor for the most part, with over 20000 constructive edits. He's effectively bombed any chances that he has for any RfAs, I'd consider that due punishment. However, I would very much like to hear exactly why he wanted access to these accounts. I've tried to ask him about it, but he was not open to questioning. GlassCobra 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What harm do you think will be prevented by blocking him? I think this thread should reach a consensus first. Jehochman 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything to be gained from banning. None of them will pass RFA in years. I don't think we need take any more action than that. It doesn't seem necessary. Sam Korn 21:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have to comment here. Steve had brought this to my attention on August 19. He had told me that he was sharing accounts with PeterSymonds and Chet B. Long. I, will admit, I did not know to any case that a policy about that had existed. Not knowing what to say, I asked what exactly had happened, with him telling me that Thatcher had checkusered PeterSymonds on an unrelated note and found that Steve was editing under his account. Thatcher brought it to Peter's attention, which Steve saw, and steve, on Skype had been acting really weird, saying things like "ugh" a lot. He (Steve) was complaining a lot, and well, I asked another user (who will I will not name for protection), who knew about previous situations with account sharing on Steve's part, chided him out. Steve gave me logs to a discussion he had with thatcher, and pastebinned it. He seemed fine for the rest of the day, but you could tell he was edgy.

A day later, Steve gave me details to an e-mail from the Arbitration Committee. Well, it wasn't a smart move on my part to ask about the e-mail, but he did bring it up to me. I did the wrong thing, and asked about it. He gave me details. Later that morning (my time, EST), Steve again told me he had a discussion with Deskana, the arbitrator, which he gave me. I sort of did the wrong thing and kept it, which I regret. Things afterwards had been quiet about this, until this thread was posted, when I told another user, and eventually Deskana about the logs I had been given. I am posting now for the reasons that I am regretfully sorry for any problems this may have caused, that its the right thing to tell a hidden story like this, and to accept that what Steve did was wrong. If there is any questions, please ask. Ok.Mitch32 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't regret anything. It's not your place to be feeling shame or regret, here. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking him will prevent harm to the project. We as a group I don't think should punish Steve for misconduct here. Perhaps a explanation and apology is forthcoming. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Are all three of these accounts the same person? Or is it three people with a shared password? I don't do "IRC" or whatever, but without a diff or two, I don't see why anyone should be blocked. If an admin gave out his/her password to a non-admin, to do admin functions, i can see at least two indef blocks/bans being handed out. I'm at a loss, because I've had nothing but good interactions with at least 2 of these 3 users. Completely losT. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The two administrators have requested removal of the tools at meta. The third party is not actively disrupting the project. None of them are at this time. Why an indef block? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. I won't comment further. It was more a "WTF" than anything rational or whatever. I've had good interactions with 2 of the 3 users, and I'm merely in shock. I won't post further. I don't support (or not support) a block of any account, at this time. Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Very, very, very disappointing. Wizardman 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx5) I strongly encourage beg MBisanz not to block Steve before this has been digested and discussed a little bit. No rush. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm dismayed by this news. Steve had been acting as a mediator in the Prem Rawat matter and had shown maturity and diligence in his work there. I know that he has been under a lot of pressure due to harassment of his partner. Even so I find this astonishing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec re to barneca)Agreed. Steve, Chet, and Peter have all made invaluable contribs to this project. No rush, no urgency. None of the three are vandalising. The turtle won the race against the hare, remember? Keeper ǀ 76 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to any blocks of the three accounts for now as well. There is no need to perform any actions like that at the moment, and I do not believe that blocks would help the current situation or prevent any disruption. Acalamari 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing specific timeframes when this account switching/sharing occured, we non-ArbCom types can't review the logs to see what actions were taken with the accounts. But, assuming that the situation is as Deskana describes it, I don't think I support a block on any of the three editors. If, indeed, none of the admin actions harmed the encyclopedia, I don't think a block is in anyone's interests. These are good people, who made an inexplicable mistake, which won't be repeated. I agree with the desysoping, but as long as no other shoes drop, I don't think any other action is necessary. I do hope that all three of them man up, admit their mistake, and continue to help with the encyclopedia. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed Steve's IP-block exemption flag as he cannot be trusted with it after abusing two admin accounts. I've consulted with a checkuser, and they have agreed with the flag removal. Maxim (☎) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't forget this. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Steve, I'm sorry, but mocking Maxim's skills is not the explanation the community deserves. MBisanz 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Apologies, but the removal I thought disregarded that an IP range I regularly edit/ed from is hardblocked, from the next 5 years. 91.203.96.0/22. I've used it often, as a CU will show. As for a response to this thread, one is forthcoming, however I will wait until ArbCom has decided how, or if, they will punish me, and what that will constituite, and after I've got a few hours sleep. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • @MBisanz: I'm not seeing any problem with Steve's comment, least of all any mockery of Maxim's abilities. Could you expand? Anthøny 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't support any editing restrictions, though I think all three users should be required to show to the community why they should be given any additional tools. While we see examples of poor conduct daily on en.wikipedia most of it is not three long time users exhibiting such poor judgement together. I hope they can right the ship, and continue with the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's bad, I accept that. But, I don't think it's a huge deal - no harm has been done, all users involved are good contributors, and all have owned up to it. The voluntary desysoping seems sufficient to me (and maybe a trout...) Ian¹³/t 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm both saddened and disappointed having conversed with two of the 3 individuals on a daily basis. Like many have said above, before a ban or block is imposed, I think a formal explanation is in order. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve has apparently declined to respond to the community's request for an explanation at this time. Given the severity of his actions and the deceit he used in performing them, I continue to find this response wanting and to be sorely testing the community's good faith. MBisanz 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• He's indicated that he will respond, but is waiting on the outcome of the ArbCom decision. Unless there is a threat of harm to the project there is no rush to block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what we have here are three good faith contributors that made a serious error in judgment. Blocking serves no purpose, really. I don't think they'd do it again, even if they could, which they can't. They haven't engaged in any other disruptive behavior. As it is, they'll all have a black mark on their reputations forever. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbelieveable this occurred. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think everybody's ignoring the humongous elephant in the room here and that is that Steve is too young for big responsibilities. He's eighteen years old for crying out loud. There, at least someone had the courage to say it. It doesn't matter how talented and smart someone like Steve is, if they are too immature and inexperienced to understand there are consequences when they break rules, and if they are unable to handle positions of power and responsibility, such as mediation. I think it's outrageous that the Medcab assigned him to one of the most difficult cases on Misplaced Pages. Talk about bad judgment. I worked with Steve when he informally mediated the Prem Rawat articles and while I observed his many talents and potentials -- and he has them in spades -- the one most lacking has been maturity, consistency, and reliability. Generally, I found Steve's performance more disruptive than helpful, even though he did try hard, but the big story around here is that no one wants to deal with editors on the Prem Rawat articles so we got Steve Crossin, the only Misplaced Pages editor willing. That's absurd if you ask me. I didn't say anything to Steve and others about this during the past months, but his erratic behavior got real old, real fast, especially when Steve constantly mentioned his "serious personal crisis." Who doesn't have serious personal crises? That's a mark of immaturity. His mistake here is a mark of immaturity. I also find Steve's apology to be inadequate and weak, another lesson he might learn from this -- he just doesn't sound very contrite and as usual, is trying to make excuses for himself. These three editors broke Misplaced Pages law in a serious way, they breached the trust of the entire community, and these editors need to suffer the consequences that are commensurate with their actions, whatever that turns out to be. A long block seems appropriate. That said, everybody makes mistakes, big and small, and when they do experience consequences of their behavior, well, that's how people of all ages learn and grow. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Chet B Long (now User:Coffee) is even younger: 16. I also wonder about this. Am I being ageist? Would everyone be comfortable with, say, a 12-year-old admin? Jayen466 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My response

• What I've done was stupid, and it goes without saying that I'm sorry for what I've done. I feel self-loathing, I've lost sleep over this, but I'm not expecting sympathy, because I know there is none. My judgment has been clouded by other serious personal issues, as Will noted above, that a select few Wikipedians are aware of, as well as the Arbitration Committee. What I did should have never happened, and if I could turn back the clock, I would. Deskana has already explained above as to how I gained access to their accounts, so I don't see a real need to re-state what Dan has already said. Some of you may not be aware, but the three of us, Peter, Chet, and myself, are very close friends. I used Chet's account only once a protection, I used Peter's quite a lot, the last time I used it was blocking all of these, though on his account, I performed protections, speedy deletions, XFD closes, image deletions, blocks, and so on. I never used his account to contribute to a discussion at AN/ANI, or anywhere. Peter checked through the admin actions I made, and was sure that they were administratively correct. That doesn't mean what I've done is correct, far from it. My intentions were always to help the project, though I have done the opposite here. My judgment was grossly poor, and for this I am sorry. If there was anything I could do to take all this back from happening, I would do it, but I can't. All I can ask for now is forgiveness. Then, in time, I hope I can forgive myself. Yours, Steve Crossin /₂₄ 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is, why would you knowingly put Chet in that position when you had access to another admin account? What was the need for two? That puts concerns in my mind about you saying you were doing this for Misplaced Pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a careless, stupid mistake, that's all there is to it. Probably the dumbest thing I've ever done at all. I feel terrible for what's happened. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I accept that. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• As do I. This is done and dusted, and extensive discussion on the matter would be without point. Anthøny 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have thought doing those tasks were to help. Accounts are limited to one person for good reason, especially admin accounts. To gain access to not one, but two accounts and perform multiple actions on them is seriously gross misconduct, and plain stupidity. I can't understand why you'd do that. For the thrill?? how do you turn this on 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I am ashamed of you. I don't want to make this a tirade against you, seeing as you are in a pitiable position. I thought that you showed such promise as an editor, and I had been planning to nom you for adminship for such a long time. But not only did you use the accounts of two admins (thankfully no main page deletion or Jimbo blocking), you also caused the community to lose two able administrators. I should probably hate you for this, but I feel genuinely sorry for what you've gotten yourself into, and I think that blocking would be a punitive measure now that you've confessed. I hope that if you continue to edit constructively, you will exercise your right to vanish and come back under a different name. bibliomaniac15 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. After reading through all that, I never would've expected this. I also do not endorse blocking, as that seems punitive. Useight (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the revelation that Peter, Chet and Steve are close friends IRL and have shared accounts, I am disappointed to recall that Chet, on WP:AE, chose to block one of the parties in a case that Steve was mediating. Of course it is natural for editors who know each other outside Misplaced Pages to communicate, but when it comes to admin actions, such friendships should not be called upon. Jayen466 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, that's not such a big deal. It seems like a clear block, and people keep more track of certain editors who they either get along with or don't get along with all the time. That's not such a big deal. Let's not lose sight of the primary issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a case of Chet keeping track of what Steve was doing. It's clear from the AE discussion that Steve, as the responsible mediator, contacted Chet, and Chet blocked a few minutes later. Yes, perhaps any other admin would have taken the same, or a similar, decision. But if that's so, why get your friend to decide in the first place, rather than trusting the WP system and letting the thing run its natural course? Especially if you're mediating the case as a non-admin (as Steve was) and need both sides in the dispute to have faith in your impartiality. I know what you mean, and it certainly seems like a case of exuberance and eagerness rather than bad intent. But the same thing applies to the other stuff being discussed here as well. Enough said. Jayen466 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I had an interaction earlier today with Steve Crossin that I wasn't thrilled about, but I can now see he was under a bit of pressure. I'm puzzled though. I can think of good reasons (i.e., good intentions) to do what he did, under WP:IAR. Certainly what he did was against policy, but no actual harm has been shown yet (except, of course, by the loss of two admin bits and a bit of disruption here, and those admins lost their bits because they violated policy). Why did he do it? "Stupid mistake" doesn't cover it. Sure, he made some "stupid mistakes," but it was done for a reason, and "making a stupid mistake" wasn't the reason, I'm sure. Steve has, as far as I'm concerned, no obligation to me to answer, but he might have an obligation to the community. What pressures caused him to do this, and caused the admins to permit it? How could we address the underlying situation? --Abd (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not certain if a block is needed, however I also want a better explanation here. Steve has been an outstanding member of the community, this incident aside. Had this not happened, I am almost certain Steve would have been nominated, and passed, an RfA within two months at the very least. I have told him myself that I would be willing to (co-)nominate him. Now, that trust is gone. I would not consider him for adminship again, and I would be surprised if an RfA wasn't closed within a day under WP:SNOW. That, given the situation, is probably sanction enough. However, Abd is correct when saying a "stupid mistake" doesn't cover this. Steve knew, knows, that this is not in the least acceptable, appropriate, or, to be completely blunt, morally correct. Had it occurred once, with one account, I would have been willing to accept that explanation. Given the severity and duration of this, however, it's not sufficient. Steve Crossin, what caused you to do this, and is there anything we as a community do to rectify the situation? Hersfold 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear more from Steve also but at this point I strongly oppose blocking any of the three of them. Simply put, the encyclopedia would gain nothing from it. Steve has contributed a great deal of good content and I have little doubt he will continue to do so because Steve's just that kind of guy. There's no need to cut off our nose to spite our face. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I too strongly oppose any block at this time. It would not help the encyclopedia at all.--Xp54321 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that Steve used an admins account, but the problem is that he used it's "adminsistrator" privileges to protect pages and block users and this "Bad faith" adminship attitude shown by Peter and Chet really doesn't help the situation. I'm happy that these 2 voluntarily resigned their tools and for that reason, I don't think this needs to go to the arbcom but Regarding Steve, what he did, the damage is irreparable and so it will seem fair if he was put on mediation for his actions, for someone who was a really good volunteer of the Mediation Cabal, his judgements and actions has damaged his reputation, no need to punish him anymore ...--Cometstyles 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However stupid and reckless their behavior was, I don't support a block for any of the three. Should Chet and/or Peter want adminship again, would they have to obtain approval from ArbCom or would they have another RfA? What are we going to do with Steve? Place him on some sort of restriction? Personally, I don't see any point in doing that... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. I think Steve acted in good faith, and it's from stuff like this that we all learn our lessons. Jayen466 04:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with Steve about this last night, and he was completely unwilling to explain any sort of reasoning for needing/wanting access to two admin accounts. I oppose any action being taken against Chet. I have spoken with him extensively on the matter over the past few days and know how horrible he feels about the situation. I am extremely disappointed and dismayed at the tactics used by Steve to obtain Chet's password, and disgusted with the way Steve has responded privately to the matter regarding those tactics and his reasoning. Unfortunately, I'm in agreement with MZMcBride wrt Steve. Jennavecia 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• With respect Lara, you didn't try to speak to me. I felt like I was put on trial, as I saw from the Skype logs after I went offline. I'd have explained, but the attitude of the BRC made me go numb. And I don't like the threat to kidnap my wife, either. If that was a joke, it was a bad one, and I want an apology from Cometstyles. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 06:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I asked you point blank several times why you did this, and you did not answer. You were talking on Skype until right before I asked you, then disappeared. It was exceedingly disappointing. GlassCobra 06:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, apologise for what, sorry but my days of apologising for someone else's mistake and being made a scapegoat is long over and as Glasscobra mentioned we asked you multiple times why you did that but instead you just ignored as and just logged everything we said instead of trying to prove your innocence, I really feel sorry for what happened to Chet and Peter and this would have never happened if editors and admins alike, learned their boundaries but as Jennavecia mentions above, what you did has really disappointed many editors who believed you had potential to do much better, though I still believe you have learned your lesson and should no longer be put on trial..--Cometstyles 09:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My View

While the actions of Steve were well intentioned they are in fact quite hellish. Using another users account distorts the very essance of the account system. It destroys community relationships. Using an administrators account for administrative actions is far far more serious. I personally don't have an issue with the page protection edit, (provided there was no dispute from either Steve or the admin account). However the usage of an administrators account to block users is far beyond the pail of anything I could find common ground on. I don't know the details about the users that were blocked, but it doesn't really matter.

A non-administrator taking AA against a user (weather it be a sock, obvious vandal or anyone else) without being vested by the community (in any definition) completely and utterly violates the trust we place in admins. It causes distrust in all others. Combining these actions with a checkuser case is a slap in the face of all policies Steve intended to protect. While I like the guy I can't in any way defend him. Never been a fan of the indefinite block, given the ability to degrade into an psuedo-ban it effectively is nothing more than one user saying to another 'you and your actions are not welcome here, now or ever'. But on this one and with community involvement I frankly can't think of a behavior more inline with that statement. However WP:Block is very clear about no putative blocks. Does this mean that immediate apologies and forgiveness let Steve and anyone else walk scot free? What would such an action say to other users? "Do what you want just immediately ask for forgiveness." Do we apply policies equally to all users or do we take into account past works or good intentions? The answers to this question determines what new users and the out side world think of WP and what the community thinks of the people its chosen to guide the project.

Given that arbcom has made no statement that it will even review the issue and its history of long cases I propose that all involved be placed on the strictest probation possible until a decision is made by arbcom or the community at large. I would suggest that the users take a long wikibreak and absolutely refrain from editing any subject that would commonly be called contentious. While I respect the work that these users have placed in the past I can not remain silent on this topic. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, since nobody here actually believes in forgiveness I really doubt any further "sanctions" are needed. — CharlotteWebb 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've lost your trust

I don't really have anything else I would want to say about this, I worked so hard for your trust and I caused it to be lost. Please ask an arb for the emails I sent them. I don't think I'll be replying to anything else here for the time being. --Chet B. Long // talk // ark // 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Chet B Long asked for a rename, which is his right. I conferred with another crat, User:Rdsmith4 and CU User:Kylu. We agreed arbcom would need to be informed. Chet agreed and Chet also wanted to make the change public, asking me to make this posting, saying "I don't want to fool the community anymore than I have already". Chet B Long's new name is User:Coffee. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's cu/steward elsewhere, to clarify, since we're running the same software version as here. Just to minimize confusion. Kylu (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Chet might now be confused with the sysop User:TheCoffee. Sceptre 03:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he had no malicious intent, so there's no need to assume bad faith about his choice of username. He's lost his sysop bits and public face, there's no need to go further, imo. Kylu (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith; if I had a penny for every time my username was spelled wrong... Sceptre 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Skepter? Who would spell your name incorrectly? GlassCobra 06:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I object, as always, to the presumption that Arbcom has the right to forbid the community from nominating someone for adminship. --Random832 (contribs) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

<commonsense>Good luck nominating one of them...</commonsense> John Reaves 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the right to nominate someone is a community right and personally i dont think its arbcoms place to be able to say that we cant nominate a particler user for RFA   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but there are many arbcases and incidents handled by arbcom where they retained control of a resyssop. So, you have a lot of precedent to overturn. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy getting in the way of constructive editing

I would like to raise a motion of WP:IAR at this time for obvious reasons. These 3 editors are fantastic at what they do and when you remove all the red tape crap so much good came from what they did. So you (The community) have two choices, Indef ban all of them per WP:SOCK etc or let them off free and they'll probably never do it again and continue to help wikipedia? Personally I think WP:IAR was made for a situation such as this, to protect users such as PeterSymonds and co. I stongly oppose these 3 great editors being struck off for helping, just not in the right methods, it would never sit well with me but one must ask, does the end justify the means? My answer would be yes. So im going to be rathor brasen, if you support or oppose indicate it and why as this is not a vote, but a consensus   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited, Heads got to roll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what rule are you trying to get us to ignore? —kurykh 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN, so in a nutshell any policy that would see that these editors should suffer any further reprocusions for this particuler incident.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those three policies seem to actually apply to this situation... --Deskana (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I, um, am not aware of more than a handful of users who've supported any sort of actions being taken against the users in question other than what has already happened. Ranting in defence of them looks silly when you're not defending against anything (with respect to MZM/Lara; not literally nobody but you are in the minority). —Giggy 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is very little support for a block here. We don't punish. If they had all vandalized the Main Page, we'd not be blocking them unless there was reasonable fear that they would repeat the offense. Given their response, the administrative resignations, and Steve's apology, repetition seems highly unlikely. Below, there is an indication that there is some concern about Steve's editorial behavior. It would be unfortunate if excessively high standards were applied to that, based on this mistake, but I don't see that we have any details yet.--Abd (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My view

Three people messed up. It's been taken care of. Can we get on with creating an encyclopedia now? --Carnildo (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation required from Steve Crossin

For full disclosure and absolute transparency, I would like Steve Crossin to disclose if he has used any other accounts besides the ones listed here to this point. I feel that this is important to get started towards eventually gaining the trust of the community back at some time in the future. GlassCobra 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So be it; I'm sure there will be a response. I guess since this is the third time for me personally that I've had to hear these sort(lengthy self-pitying allocutions) of things from Steve it is getting rather old for me. Maybe I'm just too jaded and all or my good faith is thinner than others. MBisanz 09:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur and I for one would like to know if his wife's account was involved in any way. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have not. The accounts I've used on Misplaced Pages are my own Steve Crossin (talk · contribs), Steve Public (talk · contribs), and SteveBot (talk · contribs). I have a doppelganger account, Cro0016 (talk · contribs) as it was my username when I first came on Misplaced Pages. As is known, I've accessed Peter and Chet's accounts. On my IP address, two other accounts appear. One is Melissa's old account, Mellie (talk · contribs) (renamed), and she has another one, which I will not make public as she exercised her right to vanish, and the ArbCom is aware of it. Mel's accounts have no involvement whatsoever. Any checkuser can comment here and confirm this information, but keep Mel out of this. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, let us have our pound of flesh, drag this wretch through the streets! Who's got the tar? Did you bring the feathers? Are the stocks ready to be clamped around his neck? I think the CheckUsers would have, in the process of rational action, ran a check on Steve, and would have informed the community of any further inappropriate socking in the original message above. Some people here are really going overboard with the torch and pitchfork histronics. Badger Drink (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: the link between Chet, Peter, and Steve was uncovered by CheckUser evidence. If there were any more accounts being operated by Steve, I suspect the information would have been released by now. Anthøny 10:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If there was anything they would have said so, Also note that this is not a privacy violation free for all.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There haven't been any privacy violations at all. Again, you seem to be a bit off the mark. Please read the thread in detail before commenting. --Deskana (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Seeing as I am the one who emailed ArbCom with my thoughts about this issue prior to the community knowing about it i dont think im off the mark at all, in fact I think I know more to the story then whats being let on. But never the less my remark was poorly worded.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything about that email, nor was any Arbitrator, seeing this was a private email sent to us. But now you are referencing it in public, it's worth a brief (unofficial) comment.

The email sent was in fact unhelpful, as it contained no information or "thoughts" of any use to the case, whether new or already known about. It was vague and somewhat "game-y", and we felt inclined as a committee to reject it as unworthy. None the less a "good faith" reply with explanation followed. The follow-up email we received likewise contained nothing useful.

As a result, regardless of your connections with those involved, our further reply ended with the unusually strong comment that "As it stands, this email thread is probably unhelpful to the community."

FT2  14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem

This is the kind of post I hate to write. Steve Crossin has done wonderful work for the 24 project, and has earned a triple crown, and until very recently I hoped to conominate him for RFA. Please bear in mind also that both Steve and his wife were harassed this summer. They didn't deserve what's happened to them. Please weigh these factors against what follows.

Steve's statement here is untrue:

I have not. The accounts I've used on Misplaced Pages are my own Steve Crossin (talk · contribs), Steve Public (talk · contribs), and SteveBot (talk · contribs). I have a doppelganger account, Cro0016 (talk · contribs) as it was my username when I first came on Misplaced Pages. As is known, I've accessed Peter and Chet's accounts. On my IP address, two other accounts appear. One is Melissa's old account, Mellie (talk · contribs) (renamed), and she has another one, which I will not make public as she exercised her right to vanish, and the ArbCom is aware of it. Mel's accounts have no involvement whatsoever. Any checkuser can comment here and confirm this information, but keep Mel out of this. Steve Crossin Talk/24 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the other user mentioned in this post:

He (Steve) was complaining a lot, and well, I asked another user (who will I will not name for protection), who knew about previous situations with account sharing on Steve's part, chided him out.

Here's what I knew and when I knew it. I was completely unaware that Steve Crossin was sharing passwords with two administrators until basically the same time as Mitch found out: shortly after Thatcher ran a checkuser. Nor was I aware that Steve was spreading confidential e-mails until this thread began. These developments surprised me greatly, particularly because Steve had been coming to me for advice for some time. Roughly a week beforehand (I'd have to double check the exact date), Steve had disclosed to me that his wife Mellie sometimes logged into his Misplaced Pages account and edited under his name. As soon as he made me aware of that I informed him about the role account clause of the socking policy, and told him that could get either or both of them sitebanned, and advised him to put an end to it immediately. He led me to believe this had only happened a few times, and he did not hint to me that any other account sharing was going on. So Steve was fully informed that account sharing was a serious breach of policy, and contrary to Steve's claim when specifically asked for full disclosure: Mellie was involved.

As soon as Steve confessed that he was using the accounts of two administrators, I urged him to make a prompt disclosure to the appropriate parties. He showed me parts of his draft message to ArbCom as he was composing it, asking for advice, and gave the impression of someone honest and remorseful who was coming clean. In good faith I believed he was sincere until I read his post stamped 10:01 today: obviously he was not candid and is not candid now.

Regarding inappropriate disclosures, he showed me two things. One was a private e-mail that he attempted to post in group chat at Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly about 12 hours ago. I did not read it and (as a channel host) I deleted within a few seconds when I recognized what it was. The other was a chat log involving several people that occurred slighly more than a day ago. I did read that briefly; he just initiated a private chat and posted a link without introduction or explanation. I was distracted and tired, and I didn't know what it was until I was already reading it. I supposed it was semipublic and someone had leaked to him. My advice to Steve after seeing it was to ignore it and start a new good article drive.

Steve knew what he was doing was wrong, and he has not come clean. His wife edits under a new account unknown to the community; I do not know what it is. The community is unable to monitor their edits and determine whether they are operating these as undisclosed role accounts. Also, the level of deception here is disturbing. I was stunned to discover that in serious discussion about Steve's wife sharing his account, Steve had failed to mention the much more serious use of two administrator accounts until after somebody caught him at it. Now he denies any account sharing by his wife, as response to a public call to come clean.

To Steve: I apologize for the pain this gives, but your contradictions force me to step forward. I've done all I can to help you honestly, and I don't want to appear to be part of some conspiracy. Steve, please do not attempt to contact me again by any means whatsoever. Durova 12:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I could understand your anger; however, I read what you quoted from Steve, and the facts as you reported them, and I don't see a contradiction if they are read in context. He said his wife was not involved, meaning in this incident of admin socking. That she used his account on other occasions, which he disclosed to you, does not contradict his public statement. If he is truthful, and, frankly, it doesn't matter, it's actually irrelevant, his wife did not use those accounts. The principal violator here was not Steve, it was the two admins who revealed their passwords to him. He apparently used that information, as far as anything asserted here, for the benefit of the project, even though it was contrary to policy. People do that kind of thing. It's wrong, but it isn't horrifying, I see what are really worse offenses every day, and people yawn. He didn't -- as far as we have been told above -- attack people, harass them, insult them, disparage their contributions, attempt to get them blocked, etc. And, as far as I'm concerned, the admins who gave him their passwords were responsible, fully, for any damage done, if any. Apparently they trusted him, and I see no sign that he was any less worthy of using those tools than them. Without this flap, they would have been personally responsible for any error of his, quite as if they had done it themselves. I'm guessing that they, too, thought that the project would benefit. It was wrong, but ... we all make mistakes, and this one isn't the worse I've seen. --Abd (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise for not being active on this thread. I fainted a few hours ago and I've had trouble sitting up without getting dizzy since. Abd is correct here. My intention was not to deliberately deceive the community on her involvement. The question, as I saw it, was asking me whether she was involved in this admin sharing thing. She was not. Additionally, she never outright logged into my account, I had just always been logged into mine. She, as far as I am aware, never did anything that I wouldn't do. Either way, I've changed my password, and I logout after I am finished editing. She now thinks I have "trust issues", which is just marvellous. Durova, if I thought the fact Mel had used my account was relevant to what Rlevse had asked me, I'd have mentioned it. I refuse to make her new account public, as that is the essence of what her right to vanish is. You are aware what happened to her, as is the committee, and I fear that if her account was known, the series of events would re-occur. I wish to keep her involvement out of this completely. She isn't responsible for this. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 13:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I intend to take a break until ArbCom makes their decision. If they could email me with their decision, I'd appreciate it, but for my physical health and mental wellbeing, I must take a break. (It is also after midnight here). Steve Crossin /₂₄ 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve's trying to protect his wife, whether right or wrong in a Misplaced Pages context, is nonetheless not something we should punish him over, in my opinion. I move for an archiving of this thread ASAP. ArbCom are discussing it (per FloNight below) if need be. There is nothing more useful that the community can or should do here. —Giggy 13:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree. Let arb com handle this. Synergy 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Internally to the other Arbitrators, yesterday I asked for the Committee to not end our discussion about sanctions for Steve because I feel that a preventative block/ban may be needed to stop chronic problems related to his editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he been warned? Has he repeated after warning? --Abd (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A warning isn't an entitlement. For example, if someone started posting lots of libellous content onto biographies at an extremely rapid rate, I'd not stop to warn them. Also, after I spoke to Steve about his apalling behaviour regarding the use of the admin accounts, he shared our (private) chatlog publically without asking for permission first. That speaks rather a lot about what we're dealing with, here. --Deskana (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: he didn't paste it everywhere, he just showed it to some folks (two people, iirc). I think AGF applies to some circumstances still. This one really bad SNAFU coming from an otherwise good editor does not speak to his character in general. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok well, ive changed my mind here. In light of this new information (that isnt that new to me) Im gonna back flip and encourage and indef ban be issued to User:SteveCrossin, the other two are okey..   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh boy. Everybody, please just sit back for a minute. This whole thread just shows that this project has a tendency of taking itself and its rules far too seriously. We are talking about access to a user account to a website, not access to the Great Seal of the United States. Ban is totally over the top, IMHO. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok maybe an indef is a little over the top, but a block at least for a month or two. We seem to be forgetting that steve was using both account in a co-operative manner such as protecting pages relelvent to his editing, marking pages for CSD than deleting them, Reviewing friends blocks he has no right to review and did so in a biased manner.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an, see my comment above. Given the (exceedingly poor) approach of your private email, which had little content beyond rudimentary drama-mongering, you probably need to disengage from this issue. Thanks. FT2  15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I echo FT2, except I'd never have said it that nicely. Back off, Prom3th3an. Your actions here are misguided, at best. --Deskana (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if the arbitrators were more concerned about the issue at end instead of about me we might be getting some where. That said im always glad to help, and if removing myself from this discussion helps you resist the tempation of war-mongering, Ill be all too happy.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't get the message. I'll also ask you to stop posting, please. Synergy 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comment (arbitary break)

• I do not believe that any block or ban is going result in anything like the consequences of a well regarded editor being considered as no longer trustworthy; if "punishment" (which WP does not do) is desired, then this is sufficient. I also do not see how any block/ban is going to prevent further disruption - the processes that lead to this situation are unlikely to be repeated, so there is no deterring effect for some third party - to the encyclopedia. As someone who has worked with Steve Crossin at AIV I see no sanction that is appropriate, other than the fact that this editor will carry a sense of shame for some considerable time. I consider this both sufficient punishment and prevention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I second this... losing any of these people results in a net negative to the project, in my humble opinion. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree as well. I think that people do things sometimes, thinking "There is no problem here, and I won't get caught." But after the person realizes that, "This is not acceptable, there can be consequences, and there are ways that I can get caught," I believe it would convince the person to never do it again. So I believe this is the case with Steve, that he realizes his mistakes, and if he returns to actively edit, will only better the encyclopedia. I think having a large discussion like this where the community openly discusses you, may be "punishment" enough.-- iMatthew _T.C. 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• So then. This all began with arb com leaving it to the community. And the community thus far does not feel a sanction is necessary (with the exception of two; MZM and Lara). Is this correct? Synergy 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking it's likely Steve might vanish anyway: He has lost any chance of an RfA in the near or middle future, something he was looking forward to; He believes he has lost respect from damn near everyone (which I don't believe to be entirely true, but a burden nonetheless), which I doubt will have any impact on his editing or informal mediations even though he feels that they may, which leads me to the opinion he might leave outright... <shrug> He may as well not be auto-confirmed, if you get my meaning. I believe that many people will agree that his over-ambition brought him here (we've warned him in the past :-p - he used to print out talk page discussions for mediations, fer cryin' out loud. Whatever. It was cute.), and something like this would have happened at any rate, and I suppose better sooner (now) than later. He's at square one, and maybe that's what's needed. We learn from these things - one would hope - and this is punishment enough. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC) On that note, I guess a cool-down block (not by any other name, even) sounds permissible - even correct - somehow.
  • Synergy, you forgot FloNight. Jennavecia 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't feel FloNight's comment should be grouped in, since its not a definite statement. To me it looked more like Flo was leaving it open as a possibility and is quite able to correct me by posting a personal opinion at her discretion. Synergy 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • "... I feel that a preventative block/ban may be needed to stop chronic problems related to his editing. FloNight" It seemed pretty clear to me. Jennavecia 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course. How stupid of me. I took it in the context that she was reserving it as an option and a petition to keep dialogue open with the other arbs (instead of tossing it out to us; the community). Maybe I just took it as a more impartial response, rather than an outright blatant ban him. But I also do not suggest to know her position with one hundred percent certainty. (Must we even debate this?) Synergy 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Synergy, in case there is any doubt, I certainly support a sanction in this matter. MBisanz 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've yet to see a proposal that wasn't based on hearsay. And sorry, I did forget about you. Synergy 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I now strongly endorse a siteban of Steve Crossin as it's been revealed to me that he is circulating logs revealing my full name. Jennavecia 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean the same log where it was threatened for me to either stay quiet or have my wife kidnapped?. That's the reason I showed the log, and the only reason I showed it. The log was shown to a very small amount of people, to make them aware of the threat against the two of us, and how concerned I was. The intent was not to reveal anyone's real name. Threatening violence against one's family is unacceptable, and I will do anything that I can to prevent that from happening. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Was this fellow Wikipedians threating you on this log you're talking about, or other people? D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • They were "fellow wikipedians", if you could call them that. I don't think they understand how serious I take what they said. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • As it's "other Wikipedians", this should of been brought to an administrators attention a while aback so the users in question were blocked for threatening people off-wiki (unless the users in question are already blocked). D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I brought it to an administrator's attention on IRC. They recommended I send the log to the committee. I have, at this time, not done so. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Do you plan on sending the log to the committee? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question for Steve

Did you share these passwords with anyone else? Jennavecia 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no one else knew them but myself. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the committee

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

• Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

• Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Seddon

I have thought long and hard about posting here, and this post I do not take lightly in saying. I hope that it can be as clueful as possible. Steve has been a good friend since we first met in a mediation through the mediation cabal. I think that I can easily say many people feel let down by the actions that occurred, of which I am one of those. The trust people had in him has been destroyed and will not easily be regained. We are all aware of what has gone on, and I do not think any further action needs to be taken. Steve knows precisely what he has done, he knows he has let this project down and himself down. I think the community has enough brains to make the right decision on whether he can be trusted to be in an administrative position, and I doubt that he will hold any such position for a long time. Any restriction by ARBCOM with regards to steve going through RFA is unnecessary in this instance as the community will not easily forget this and i think people can be safe in that knowledge. People have asked for a block, however I feel that in the spirit of this community as we have done for many others and that is to offer an opportunity to redeem themselves. It may take months, years even, before steve can be embraced by the community again, but we should give him the opportunity to show he has the maturity and guts to simply say I was wrong and I accept what you have said but im going to everything I can with in the accepted practices of this project to improve it more than I ever have before.

The suggestion I would like to make is this. There is obviously a distinct lack of trust in steve to use one account, so it would be not unreasonable to limit steve to one account only. This would include removing his right to legitimate socks. If he wishes to retain those socks then they can be blocked indefinitely until the sanction against steve is lifted or modified. I assume that ARBCOM know the name of mel's account. If they dont this needs to be done immediately. I would like to suggest that each account must be keep entirely seperate, they are not to partake in the same discussion, nor edit the same articles, etc etc. This would be monitered by WP:ARBCOM and anyone else they saw fit to ensure this was maintained. This I believe gives steve his chance whilst also dealing with mistrust issues from the community. I apologise for the length of this but its what is going through my head. Thank you for reading this. Comments would be appreciated. Seddσn 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The committee is aware of Melissa's new account name, they were informed when she sent an email to arbcom-l some time ago. The two of us have stayed away from each other completely on Misplaced Pages. As for the restriction to one account only, I have no objections. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Reasonable proposal. Synergy 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi, sorry to bother, folks - if one of you has time, would it be possible to email me the Wikitext of editing marks, a deleted article? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations/SRA in the Netherlands

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to getting a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. S/he has created several pages for this purpose (Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and some redirects for spelling). I became aware of the page and wikified it; ultimately there wasn't much there, so I redirected to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands. C1963's contribution history is a series of page blanks, reverts, and basically a concerted effort to have an unnecesary separate article. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has been less than productive. I have dealt with this a while, but now I'm thinking perhaps the community might want to comment. WLU (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since October 2007 I contribute to Misplaced Pages. From the first moment on I have been harassed, threatened and insulted. Biaothanatoi e.g. implied that I would be a pedophile, because I knew some personal information about the author Benjamin Rossen (that was in the Dutch newspapers), but for Biaothanatoi who did not know that it was enough to compare me with a pedophile. Rossen wrote critically about the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela and people who strongly believe that children were ritually abused by satanists in Oude Pekela circulated rumours that Rossen was a pedophile. Until then I contributed on the satanic ritual abuse page. After the insult of Biaothanatoi and the fact that he obviously was not open for reasonable arguments, I decided to make a separate page about Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Biaothanatoi harassed me there a few times, but since January 2008 I have never heard from him again.

However, August 2008 WLU eliminated my whole contribution on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, replaced it by his own point of view and redirected the page to the Satanic ritual abuse page. Because I noticed that the version of WLU was not an accurate and neutral report of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, I undid his contribution and tried to explain why people who read his contribution would be misinformed. He replied with new redirections of the page after he again replaced my contribution with his own point of view, with three strike warnings and with threats of blocking me from Misplaced Pages.

I do not mind where the information on the Netherlands is placed (on a separate page or integrated in the main page on satanic ritual abuse, but I do mind what the content is, because I want that the people who read the information will be informed about this matter correctly. Since I am doing research into satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands for more than a decade now, I am very familiair with the situation in this country. Based on my research, I can proof that the information WLU is providing is wrong. Criminologist1963 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crim1963's complaint about Biaothanatoi's "pedophile" accusations on the authors of some RS, as you can see in this ongoing discussion. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The content I worked with to produce the section of list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands is what Criminologist1963 placed on the various original pages s/he has created or reverted to. My actions were to wikify, link, use citation templates, re-word, condense references using the ref name tags, and generally manipulate the same text to say the same thing in a manner that was neutral, did not venture a position or opinion, and was of the appropriate tone. C1963 pointed out where the text was in error, I edited accordingly and suggested s/he could edit in the same fashion (i.e. rather than reverting wholesale). I have pointed out the flaws in the original text to C1963 several times, as well as the disclaimer that everyone agrees to have their text mercilessly re-edited, as well as the policy and guideline origins of my contributions and the reasons behind my edits. Several admins have weighed in, including User:Orangemike and User:Dbachmann (dab). It seems like a pretty clear case of ownership and a complete unwillingness to even read, let alone edit, according to wikipedia's policies. I've been accused of hiding behind anonymity, not knowing the sources (despite working with the sources and text provided by C1963), vandalism, and assertions that C1963 is the only person smart and knowledgeable enough to edit the page. And now we're here, because all of my assertions and wikilinks to policies have not had a dent. I don't care what Biaothanatoi did a year ago, Biaothanatoi has not been involved in the recent discussion and is completely irrelevant to the current one. Anyone interested in the guts of the debate can read Talk:List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#The_Netherlands and this version of his/her talk page. WLU (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently SRA in The Netherlands is blank, SRA in the Netherlands is a content fork with the section list of SRA allegations#The Netherlands (), and I'm getting a headache. WLU (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already asked Crim1963 to revert the blanking. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I blanked Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands and Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands is that one page dedicated to the situation in the Netherlands is enough. Remember that the reason to make those similar pages earlier, was due avoid to the vandalizing on the original page. Biaothanatoi did not find the alternative page, but WLU did. When he started to destroy both that page and the original page, I had to make a third page, which was destroyed almost immediately by WLU.

By the way, I just saw that Misplaced Pages says that it does not have an article with the exact name Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and that is fine with me. I hope that the one who did that, could do the same with the page Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, because that page again has been redirected to the main article about satanic ritual abuse and replaced with the biased text of WLU. As said before, one page on the situation in the Netherlands is enough: Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

somebody help

somebody help about Texas_census_statistical_areas . I think the image in that page isn't right. Bbadree (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why ask for help here? Either fix the problem yourself, or bring it up on the Discussion page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?

Did we agree to anything here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug. 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.

So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete these edits

The user Legal and free, jk (talk · contribs) has already been blocked, but his edit history contains slnder against user Zain Ebrahim111. I think these edits should be deleted, instead of simply reverted. I don't have time to do this myself right now, so if another admin can look into this I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll do it the next time I visit WP. Mindmatrix 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The range of articles may mean that a developer will be required to remove the edit summaries. However, since this appears to be a well known vandal it is possible that such a situation might occur. However, if there is a sysop with a lot of time available (not me, I regret!) and a liking for the delete/undelete buttons then let them at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to oversight. It doesn't strictly meet the criteria, but its close, so they may do it. Mr.Z-man 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on oversighting the said revisions. To quote Special:HideRevision:

Potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

It's minor, petty vandalism. If the person in question is personally offended, then I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, I do not wish to do this. Note, I've also been targeted by this vandal, but felt no need to oversight the revisions regarding myself. Deskana (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

Please check this section, What makes Misplaced Pages involved with these hassles?--Puttyschool (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

People are usually reluctant to delete material from talk pages, because it makes the discussions hard to follow for later readers. (By the way, I changed the section heading here to something informative.) Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism needs more attention

I trolled the Boobs on Bikes article 24 hours ago, a recent event covered in world media and until now nobody reverted it. Imagine how small but relevant articles is still trolled right now for months or maybe years. --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Reverted. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My nickname itself is trolling in portuguese, wasn't to be blocked minutes after created? --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok? Blocked as requested. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block on Soccermeko

Soccermeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't let up one bit on his disruptive editing since he was banned in March. Since then he's been the subject of three Checkuser requests and 13 SSP cases (latest one here). He edits primarily from two dialup ranges in Atlanta, so it would seem that Kww's proposal for a rangeblock would be a no-brainer.

The only thing that gives me pause is that his IP is Level 3. Although from what Kww told me only five edits out of the last 200,000 from those two ranges are constructive, the fact this is a major backbone provider is the only thing that kept me from softblocking those ranges immediately.

I believe, however, that considering the negligible number of constructive edits, it's worth the risk of collateral damage. I thus propose that the ranges be softblocked for at least two months. Thoughts? Blueboy96 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what I meant: I scanned the last 200000 anonymous edits (about 3 days), and 5 of them were valid edits from that range. I don't have the ability to scan the last 200000 edits from a particular range. I think a couple month's softblock on two /16s is quite reasonable, still.
Kww (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards