Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 31 October 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)

Planning ahead for U.S. elections on Nov. 4

It would be prudent to plan ahead for the U.S. elections on Nov. 4. The U.S. election has already spawned one arbitration case, and it would be nice to avoid a second one. We have had some limited success with things like the last Harry Potter release, which we can can think back to for ideas. I remember the main issue with H.P. was unsourced or poorly-sourced info being added before the official release. The difficulty was convincing editors to be patient and wait for news reports that can be used.

One idea I have brainstormed with some fellow editors is: find some neutral admins who will volunteer to be "custodians" on Nov 4. We could reassure them they can use their normal discretion to protect election-related articles for short periods of time (the crunch period will probably be less than 24 hours) if it becomes too difficult to manage articles by normal editing. Ideally these would be non-U.S. admins who have not been involved in the election articles in the past.

I'm hoping to start a discussion here, well in advance, to let us talk over the issues that we already can predict will occur, to try to reduce tension on Nov. 4. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we add to the sitenotice "Misplaced Pages reminds our American readers to vote" for that day? DS (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Planning ahead is an excellent idea, you can't be too prepared for anything, although the custodian idea seems a bit unnecessary, all admins should be neutral about things like this. As for the sitenotice, Why?--Jac16888 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty in just saying "all admins watch out" is that too often everyone assumes someone else is doing it. This was a problem that Kelly complained about during the Palin incident - that there was a lack of neutral admins watching the affected articles. And who can blame them - it takes a lot of effort to be patient with new editors on controversial topics. So having a short list of admins who have already agreed to watch the articles would be great. We don't need to go through some nomination process- they can just leave a note here that they will be watching. The other thing that should be discussed is: how tolerant are we of short periods of protection until the election results come out. That issue is easier to talk about when we have the luxury of time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a decent enough idea, and if you tell me which articles to watch I'd be happy to help, for the record I'm English and have no idea who Joe the plumber is. As for protection of related articles, that could be tricky to manage, I imagine that the articles are going to attract a lot of new editors, some wanting to help, but a lot wanting to vandalise. Perhaps it would be a good idea to use short protection times, like an hour or so, just to head off any continuous attacks while keeping the articles open for as long as possible. It'll be interesting to see how this all goes down actually, wikipedia was a totally different place last election--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am willing to watch a list of articles when available (mainly after 5 p.m. ET, but will pop in during the course of the day); perhaps a page should be set up identifying the key articles. Some of them are obvious, but some might be less so, particularly to those of us outside the US. New page patrollers might also be needed to identify and nuke duplicate articles. Risker (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do some article patrol in the evening as well- I plan to be situated in front of the tv watching the news. So, I can patrol a page. ~ L'Aquatique 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am often very active on Tuesdays, my class schedule being favorable for this. I'll try to get my homework done early so I can watch more. J.delanoy_adds 04:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the list of pages to watch, I would say that the pages listed on {{United States presidential election, 2008}} are probably enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around. Oppose the sitenotice bit though; America is not the world. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some elections going on in America? Gee.... you'd have thought there would have been a bit more media attention.... </sarcasm>. Excellent idea to plan now to get a few articles on various peoples watchlists - IOd Mishehu's recommendation seems ideal. Pedro :  Chat  12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And, for those who don't already know, you can use "related changes" to trak the changes to all the articles linked from that template: . That may be easier than adding them all to your watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would totally support a full protection on all four candidates' articles and possibly the relevant election articles for that whole night. I just don't see any sort of productive edits coming in -- play-by-play state results, eager WP:CRYSTAL announcements, etc. All we'll need are the end results. Of course I know that pre-emptive protection is a no-no, but this might be an IAR case. What do people think about this? Would this get any kind of consensus? GlassCobra 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we could play an IAR card here but I think the message we send doing that is counter productive - Misplaced Pages - the 💕 anyone can edit except on election night. I suppose if I actually cared less what the ex-colonies did I might be less biased...:). In seriousness, to be honest I'm not sure the harm that may come from "good faith but not very useful" edits is outwayed by our reputation as an open source and free to edit work during a time that will no doubt attract massive attention to the relevant articles. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the kerfluffles happen, stuff can be tweaked, undone or reverted as needed, meanwhile the project will likely pick up many new and helpful editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to set up a "public watchlist" for hot-button articles relating to the US elections that are likely to get hit by contentious edits or vandalism. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kosovo/publicwatchlist for an example that I set up a while ago; it's been a very useful tool. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker announced her intention to do that up above; hopefully the location of the watchlist for this will be named soon. It probably won't need to be that long -- the four candidates' articles, Public image of Barack Obama, Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, United States presidential election, 2008, United States presidential election, 2008 timeline, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Those are all that I can think of at the moment. GlassCobra 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably add 2008, George W. Bush, and related pages to catch overenthusiastic users "declaring" the winner ahead of anything official. J.delanoy_adds 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad ya mentioned the GWB article. There'll be alot of visitors changing the Infobox prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, as per Gwen Gale's comment above, that when the disruption gets significant that the articles get listed at WP:RFPP as per normal. That page may have the appearance of being a bit slow sometimes, but it is actually monitored frequently enough and also likely to pull in independent admins. Perhaps admins could make a special effort to monitor it at that time - all the pages are widely watchlisted by regular editors who know where RFPP is. I would suggest two more things: that the protections are kept relatively short, probably a few hours of full protection at most where necessary, and that no admin tries to pull any dramahtic 'special enforcement measures'. The protections are likely to go on and off by different admins over short periods of time, and this should be expected instead of being labelled a wheel war. -- zzuuzz 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess we can add the Dick Cheney article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On a related note, it might be a good idea to place editnotices on some of the articles reminding editors that election day is not inauguration day and suggesting that proposed changes to templates such as {{Current U.S. Senators}} would be best placed on the talk pages of the articles. (No harm in preparing the code ahead of time, so long as it isn't used until inauguration). I'll create a few of the editnotices - for the template articles at least - if there aren't any objections. --Philosopher  19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

When your roommates vandalize the wiki

I use a home network. One of my roommate has declared an intention to vandalize the wiki. I use only one account and never edit as an IP. Any sort of CU would come back to me. This particular roommate might smile at me, say they will not vandalize the wiki and then go ahead and do it. So- what can I do? Bstone (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser wouldn't be performed on an IP without a legitimate reason, vanldalism not being on. If they vandalize on an IP, there is no way for us to make that connection. Grsz 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If your IP is static you could get it blocked with the autoblock accounts option tuned off. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gotta give him a boilerplate warning first. "Hey roomie, welcome to Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to make an editing test, please use the sandbox. Otherwise, if I catch you vandalizing I'm going to hang you by your feet like a vandal-shaped piñata and beat you with a broomstick until candy falls out. Please contact me in my room if you have any questions." Bullzeye 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, Bullzeye, too funny! Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

TOV!!111! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is, zzzZZZ OMG ZZZzzz Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you find yourself getting caught in autoblocks or hard-blocks, apply for WP:IPEXEMPT. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest stealing his wallet or installing Cyber Nanny on his computer and block Misplaced Pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Slap him around a little bit. ~ L'Aquatique 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with Hbdragon's suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We are using a Comcast cable modem. I don't know how long the IP lease is for, but it must change at least from time to time. Getting a static isn't an option unless I pay much more money. Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can always hijack his host file and set wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1.  :) Protonk (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Even after the lease expires, DHCP servers pretty much always renew the prior IP address to avoid router notifications, etc. —PētersV (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comcast cable internet? For all intents and purposes, your IP is static. --Carnildo (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless, I don't think that this will in the end turn out to be that much of a problem for you either way Bstone. If your roommate does vandalize against your objections, in this thread it has been noted by the administrators that you share an IP with a potential vandal and such will not be held against you; if you do end up blocked you can always apply for IP-block-exempt. Icewedge (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, should be fine in the long run. Autoblocks might be a problem, but those are easy enough to fix. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real question here is why do you tell people in your real life that you edit wikipedia. This is something we have to be ashamed of. Misplaced Pages isn't cool.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why the roommate is bragging about vandalizing. There's nothing funny or status worthy or social class worthy in vandalizing, at least in the conventional page-blanking, adding nonsense, sense. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes vandalizing wikipedia isn't cool, almost not as cool as telling people you edit it. Which is why I use a pseudonym.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know this is flamebait, but I'm personally proud of being a Misplaced Pages editor - I link it from my professional homepage and include it in my CV. Since when is spreading knowledge to the world something to be ashamed of? Dcoetzee 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-listed discussion

• Regional differences and dialects in Indian English (AfD discussion)

Has the desired more thorough discussion taken place? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tap-tap! Is this thing switched on? Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Advocating incivility and poor behavior

Is this essay even remotely appropriate? Grsz 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I'd MfD it myself if I wasn't at work. It's divisive and trollish; and there isn't even an attempt at deadpan humor or attempt to position it as satire. — Coren  14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to defeat editors you disagree with. _TalkIslander 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The essay is divisive, it is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant newbie admin wades in butt-deep, gets eaten by sharks: film at 11.

Somehow, probably for the sake of a few typos, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China found its way onto my watchlist. A slow-burning edit war there seems to have burst into a fast-burning one today, with four major participants: Asdfg12345, Ohconfucius, Dilip rajeev, and PCPP. Of the four, the most clearly-vitriolic is Ohconfucius, and he's been warned on the talk page to take it down about four notches. However, I also warned Asdfg12345 and PCPP earlier, because--from what I saw--they had both inadvertently broken 3RR. (This was as of the edits marked as 06:55 today.) Asdfg12345 does not believe he/she broke 3RR at any time, and left a (calm, civil) note on my talkpage to that effect. In the interim, however, Ohconfucius came back and changed everything back to his/her preferred version, leaving a rather (uncivil, OWNish) message on the article talk page.
I recognize that this is a content dispute, so I'm really only asking admin-ny questions, but I do have several: 1) Have I, in fact, misjudged that Asdfg12345 and PCPP broke 3RR? If so, could you explain what I missed? 2)(basic, lame q) If an editor reverts a whole bunch of another editor's changes, but does it in the course of one edit, does that count as a 3RR vio? If not, wouldn't that be a HUGELY effective way to game the whole intent of 3RR? 3)Does anyone have any advice about the best way to proceed here? I've encouraged talkpage discussion, but as you can see, it hasn't gone well. I plan to take the disputed Xinhua source to WP:RSN but other than that, does anyone have any suggestions?? Huge thanks in advance...Gladys J Cortez 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catch! Tan | 39 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a 3rr vio. Stop the edit warring, either by talk or block or page protection, before you do anything else. Then homing in on whatever reliable sources there are to be had, one way or another, is by far the most helpful way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanna watch that movie! ... but yeah, there's 3RR and all goin' around all abouts. If they persist, blocks to be had, but I would say that page protection might be more productive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be a 3RR violation here, but Gladys clearly doesn't understand the 3RR rule. The rule is against reverting the same article to the same version more than 3 times in 24 hours. There's no possible way to violate it with fewer than four separate edits to the same article. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NO. Its any four reverts, or four edits that are substantially the same as reverts, in a 24 hour period that trips 3RR. In addition, Gladys has wide discretion to hand out blocks like candy if thats what is needed to stop an edit war in progress.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

According to other respected admins in this thread, who both tacitly and explicitly endorse my understanding of 3RR, you're clearly in error about what I "clearly" do or do not understand. Thus, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd strike that remark and resolve to moderate your tone in the future. Gladys J Cortez 02:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say a 1-week page protection, with talk page requests to the 4 participants to work it out on the talk page in the meantime, is a good idea. Oh, and since you are new, then perhaps you didn't know about the most important rule of page protection. Be sure to protect the worst version of the article possible. Everyone will expect you to do it anyways. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, as it happens, protecting the worst, lamest, most glaringly off the wall version of the page can have amazing sway on editors to get along with each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not always. There's a problem at Kaveh Farrokh where the article has been protected since the 4th -- the dispute is over whether the lead can call the subject an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics (his qualifications aren't in either) on the basis of what a reporter wrote in an article on the Voice of America website. Those of us who don't think that a lead can call someone an expert on that basis (or that the lead should call someone an expert on any basis) are stuck because the (POV from my POV) editors who have been trying to build up the subject are quite happy to keep the article as it is indefinitely. Doug Weller (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Characterized by the Voice of America website as an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics but with academic and professional qualifications in neither" (citation, citation, citation) would be much lamer. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to respond to Looie496, 3RR covers many situations, and not just reverting to the same identical version 4 times. From WP:3RR, and I quote, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, ". Also, the most important quote from 3RR, the one that often gets missed, is "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that Falun Gong, and closely-related articles, are currently on Arbcom probation as listed here. That would seem to apply to this article, and all editors should be aware of the implications of edit-warring. The sanctions would appear to be weakly specified, but they are there. --Rodhullandemu 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really confusing, but I think it will be fun to try my hand at the madness. This 3rr thing seems to have an element of "ignore all rules," because of the common sense dictum to hand blocks out like free meal coupons if the ruling admin deems it necessary. By the way, this is a good thing--wikipedia is made by people. But tell me if this violates 3RR: Editor A makes five changes to the article in five separate edits--let's say for convenience sake that they were all small deletions, of a paragraph, or a line, or whatever. Editor B looks at each of them, and reintroduces three of the deleted portions in another three separate edits. Has Editor B violated 3RR? If yes, then what if he, instead of making three edits to introduce deleted material, makes just one edit to reintroduce three of the deleted segments? Do his edits (or, 'edit' if he/she rolls them into one, as indicated by the latter scenario) count as "reverts" at all? Remember that the outcome in the same, just whether it's split over three edits or rolled into one. (By the way, of course Editor A and B are civil, normal, and well-meaning individuals. They exude warmth and positivity. Editor A had already explained his changes, and Editor B left clear and civil notes on the talk page in response, about what he had restored and why, and what he had left deleted and why, offering more avenues for follow-up discussion, etc. etc..) Please discuss!--Asdfg12345 12:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I dare to ask: what about in the case where Editor B doesn't introduce the deleted material exactly how it was--he may change it. How much does it have to be changed before it constitutes new material, so what he has done is actually a separate edit, not a 'restoration.' By the way, none of these rules would be necessary if everyone behaved intelligently, with respect for one another, and with sincerity. Since the whole idea of an admin system is predicated on the unreliability of those things though, I need to come here and ask these bizarre questions as a way of correctly understanding what my rights, responsibilities, and expectations are as an editor. By the way, it would be simplest if someone could just say "Don't worry, if you're doing the right thing and being good and normal, then it's usually not a problem. Just don't edit war."--Asdfg12345 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about the meaning of 3RR

I am surprised that there seems to be so much confusion among admins about the meaning of the three revert rule. The second paragraph of WP:3RR is very clear:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts . A revert is any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert.

When Gladys warned Asdfg, this user had done only 3 edits to the article in the preceding 24 hours and therefore could not possibly have violated this hard limit. The user asked very politely for clarification, which led Gladys to ask here. Some of the responses are plain wrong or have nothing to do with the question asked (whether the hard limit of 3 reverts was broken, not if there was an edit war).

As their first edit on the article after several days, Asdfg made two consecutive edits affecting opposite ends of one paragraph . There is no way this can count as more than a single edit: It was two actions, and because they were consecutive they count as a single revert (italics for technical terms from WP:3RR). Since then the editor made only one other action on the article . For these two reverts they received a warning from Gladys that said: "as of right now you are in violation of 3RR", implying that the editor had made 4 reverts, when even under a somewhat plausible misreading of the policy they had made only 3. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity.--Asdfg12345 13:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it doesn't get more clear than this sentance, straight from WP:3RR, that everyone conveniently ignores: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. If a situation ever gets to the point where we are debating over which edits do or do not count as reverts, or which edits may or may not have "counted" towards the "3" or "4" per day, whatever it is, we have gone over the line. It isn't meant to be a book-keeping exercise, not is it an excuse for WP:WIKILAWYERing. If you are having the debate, an edit war is probably already occuring. The article should be protected, and people directed to the talk page to work out their problems in civil discourse. Final. End of discussion. We aren't here to hold trials over the exact intent and nature of edits, or which edits do or do not count. If the article is in dispute, and neither side is backing down in the main space, there is an edit war. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are writing nonsense, and your urge to use bold and write "Final. End of discussion." should have alerted you to the fact. The passage you are citing merely makes it clear that the existence of WP:3RR does not entitle anybody to break WP:EW, a separate policy. If you want to warn someone for having broken WP:EW withouth having broken WP:3RR, then say so. Since when is it OK to cite the wrong policy (3RR) if you can't bother to remember the name of the one that actually applies (EW)? Is it so hard to understand that telling editors, with authority, that they are guilty of A, when they are really guilty of B, is bad because it's bound to lead to unnecessary drama? If you want to merge WP:3RR and WP:EW, go ahead and do (or propose) it. But don't just pretend it has been done. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, I suggest that you extend your repertoire of quotable policy sentences. "Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule" from WP:3RR is fine, but it's not from the original policy that authorises this. " uninvolved administrators may block the involved offenders for a period of time" from WP:EW is what you really mean. It's better in the rare cases where someone did not claim it wasn't edit warring because it was only 3 reverts. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipediaholic for about 3 years. Amazingly, I've never seen WP:EW before, though I've seen warring thrown around. Guess that means I've been a good little editor, yes? —EncMstr (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In my defense--realizing that the area was gray at the VERY least, I blocked no one and protected nothing, and afterwards sought to improve my understanding. If anyone's still preparing a noose for me, I've got an extra-fat neck so you might want to incorporate some elastic. <g>Gladys J Cortez 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, Gutta percha will do and so 19th century. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite natural to confuse 3RR and EW. More evidence that the confusion is a general problem is being discussed here. Summary: Several WP pages tell us to go to WP:3RRN with EW problems, yet many of the admins populating 3RRN only act upon 3RR violations. I don't have much experience with 3RR, and I didn't check whether this is actually true. If it is, I wonder if this can be changed in order to take some burden off ANI. And perhaps 3RR and EW should really be merged, after all.

I just discovered that EW was promoted from guideline to policy less than a year ago, on the day before I joined Misplaced Pages, but probably long after many of the other participants in this discussion joined. This explains a lot, and I apologise for the sentence above that I have now withdrawn. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Increase the Reliability of Misplaced Pages through Enforcement of Existing Policies

Proposed:

Any account used primarily for advocating pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery shall be blocked indefinitely.

This was originally proposed at ANI, but got lost in a larger discussion. The idea is that administrators should feel empowered to enforce core policies and related guidelines, including Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Fringe, against single purpose policy violating accounts. We already indefinitely block spam-only and disruption-only accounts. I think there is merit in having a discussion and consensus that we can refer to later. This resolution, if approved, would take the form of a community general sanction, and be listed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Verbal chat 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, under the stipulation that at least one warning must occur before indefinite blocking to insure that users are aware their actions can result in an indef block. ~ L'Aquatique 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that disruptive single purpose accounts of any kind should be blockable indefinitely by any admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So your proposal is that any admin, having determined that an editor is promoting pseudoscience, fringe theories or anything defined as "kookery" is empowered to issue an indefinite block immediately? Does this constitute a ban? I'm not sure this proposal will help anything - inevitably, there will be a thousand follow on ArbCom cases and AN or AN/I threads. Its a recipe for drama by the metric ton. Avruch 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, my worry would be, who decides what's "pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery"? I see an awfully wide net brewing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

← This may be overreacting. I would agree that this sort of editing strikes directly at Misplaced Pages's underlying goal, which I believe to be the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. I would also agree that this sort of editing behavior is easy to identify but relatively hard to deal with, for a variety of reasons.

But I see this blanket proposal as likely to lead to more argument, wheel-warring, etc, because its essentials are vague: "primarily"? And who defines "pseudoscience" and "fringe science"? That in and of itself is the subject of a lengthy, exhausting on-wiki debate.

Here's what I'd like to see: let's streamline our processes for dealing with the left end of the bell curve - the subset of accounts who are obviously here to promote or publicize a fringe agenda rather than help build a respectable, serious reference work. Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. On the other hand, there are quite a few editors who are capable of good work and collaborative editing from a non-mainstream point of view - let's identify them and bring them into the discussion rather than polarizing every little debate and driving everyone from the middle to one extreme or the other. I think this proposal, as worded, might be a bit too blunt to accomplish this. MastCell  21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the proposal clarifies that the advocacy occurs in "mainstream" articles, for - while advocacy generally constrains the encyclopedic method - its existence within "Fringe Science" and "Pseudo Theory" articles is not especially disruptive. Otherwise, yeah, banninate the damn "alternative perspective of reality" advocates!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Starts list...

I'm all for Mastcell's Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't quite as simple as it looks, I'm afraid. I've recently done some work in an area where there have been extensive and rather intellectually challenging debates about whether certain information is "fringe", mainstream, noteworthy or of questionable relevance. I've also seen some areas where it is nearly impossible to include well-sourced but contradictory information; or to factually describe certain "fringe" topics from the perspective of those who believe in their validity. Finally, I am not confident that all administrators have sufficient subject matter expertise to be able to personally make these assessments. That is why we have some of our various noticeboards. Where admins can be of most help, I think, is in providing support to our broad swath of editors who have concerns, but only if the administrator(s) involved can remain neutral and have a good grasp of the core editing policies and guidelines themselves. Risker (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• No. Admin tools + editorial mandate = disaster waiting to happen. The wiki process should be doing the job of managing content, and if it isn't, admin tool use is not the answer.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why I would want to look much harder only at disruptive SPAs, rather than the PoVs they edit towards. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen has a good point. And the application of patience, common sense, and dialogue, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR and resolve issues. Increased participation also helps, a fringe idea by definition has fringe adherence, simply go grab some outside opinions to add their voice. Look, everyone who has the admin bit should have at some point in the past dealt with a content dispute without admin tools. Just apply what you did then!--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reducing unnecessary wikidrama or disruption sounds like a brilliant idea indeed. Oh, and can we please add pseudoscepticism and postmodern philosophy explicitly to the list? More seriously, I still hope it's just a problem with my sarcasm detectors, but it does seem that a few other people also think this proposal may have been made in earnest. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd draft

When an editor repeated adds fringe, and it keeps getting removed, that is a sign of a behavioral problem. This not meant to be a content judgment by the admin. Here, let me repropose it. Jehochman 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for advocacy of fringe theories may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

Does that help? Jehochman 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• No. You are conflating behaviour with content. Risker (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no way to get around that. Shall we let editors pour endless amounts of crap into the encyclopedia, or shall we stop them? How exactly do you propose stopping persistent violations of content policies? Jehochman 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Persistent advocacy of an agenda in violation of Misplaced Pages's core content policies is already described by tendentious editing, and already is (or should be) grounds for administrative action. I don't think we need another formulation of WP:TE; we just need to take these abuses of Misplaced Pages almost as seriously as we take incivility, and it will be fine. MastCell  22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • What I am hoping to do here is raise the visibility of exactly that problem. We have perfectly good policies, but admins are not doing enough to enforce them. They get bogged down in endless litigation, so they enforce things like civility that are more clear cut (Oh, look, a naughty word. BLOCK!). Jehochman 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Now it sounds like something that's worth trying. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) I agree with Risker and Mastcell. Make any good faith PoV blockable and all you've got is yet another spin on Conservapedia. There's too much likelihood of self-selection when an editorial consensus in and of itself carries the weight of a swift block. The worry is disruptive SPAs and I would be all for quicker and longer blocks for any disruptive SPA, whatever their PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• (EC)Unconvinced we take incivility all that seriously, and my objections above are still relevant here. I think MastCell's suggestion about sorting the essentially malicious users from the good users is smart, but not something that can be solved with Misplaced Pages policy making, but proactive behavior on the part of ALL users.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be incapable of deleting articles that violate our core content policies, as I have learned on more than one occasion. How can we justify banninating editors when we can't even deal with the content?

"Crap" is in the eye of the beholder. I look at some of the heavily controlled fringe articles, and see poor articles that inadequately explain what the topic is about, largely because whenever anyone tries to explain it, they are hounded as SPAs and fringe editors. Some of them are, yes, but some of them are not. There are some articles where determined editors and admins have successfully fought off the inclusion of balancing information for extended periods, usually in good faith, but probably not in accordance with the same policies you propose to enforce here. Risker (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Whilst I see where is is coming from, and have some sympathy with with those battling kooks, there is a huge danger of this being used by people who prefer SPOV to NPOV to run off their opponents. Gah Gah. No. You want a secularliberalpedia, go make one.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd draft

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for tendentious editing may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents, the Neutral point of view noticeboard, or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

This version is simplified, per MastCell's comment above. Jehochman 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on. I would support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman...this is NOT needed, really. We already have the policies and guidelines in place to address this. Risker (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not lack of policy; the problem is lack of enforcement. I think we do need this to encourage enforcement, and to provide cover for admins who try. Jehochman 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both, truth be told. The policies are there, but following through on them is often very weak. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Still object. Why should FTN be singled out from any other minority point of view. This still has the danger of being the thin end of the death of NPOV... they came first for the pseudoscientists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a pseudoscientist.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) comment - I see this as more of a reminder to admins (and others), and should maybe be included in the 'new admin guide' or whatever, and maybe added as an explicit section of the various essays and guides people use to help them explain our culture to new/recalcitrant editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Still runs into conflation of admin tools and content decisions, something we should be VERY cautious about, a trait not particularly in good supply in the admin corps right now. Scott makes a good point: theres no clear lines drawn about what is fringe, according to who, when, and why. Furthermore, WP:SPA and WP:TE are essays, not policy, and for good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How does the third draft have anything to do with content? (not a baiting question) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, less explicitly so, but SPA and TE both refer to the POVs (which is a content thing) of various accounts. Aside from the dangers of trying to divine the intentions of others across the internet, TE has been used repeatedly to label stubborn editors of minority viewpoints (a content thing), with no clear distinction on when some editors are being reasonable in their minority view point, and others have a behavior that would be disruptive and tendentious even if they were advocating a mainstream opinion. --Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with your take on that. I do think anything to do with good faith content should be thoroughly skived from any blocking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• (EC)There actually are reasons why WP:TE isn't policy, but it isn't because the feelings expressed there don't have wide support among wikipedians. It is because TE doesn't describe limitations on behavior or expectations on content. TE describes one particular insidious method of disruption. We are also not enjoined from making this policy and marking the essay as supporting policy. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TE has a lot of good material in it, but see my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is much better. We need something that isn't just "file an RfC and watch nothing happen" but we don't need a license to kill. It's been said above that content policing and admin tools are a bad, bad fit (and one that would cause me to be much more skeptical at RfA's). But we do need something. We can't just throw our hands up and say, "disengage or trawl through DR" Protonk (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Maybe user RfC isn't the best place, but consistently separating the behaviours from the content is very important. Most of our dispute resolution is content-oriented: Noticeboards for BLP, reliable sources, notability etc; WP:3O; a large amount of the mediation that is done. It is much easier to redirect inappropriate behaviour when the content issues are being addressed in a neutral and objective manner. Risker (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: this entire direction of thought is an invitation to disaster. "tendentious editing" is a very broad term indeed, and could apply very widely indeed to many people who happen to be interested in one or another side of an issue. Even the much stronger "Disruptive editing" is normally subject only to blocks of increasing length unless it reaches to the level of outrageous vandalism. this is a major step down, and I do mean down, the path to arbitrary action and destruction of NPOV. I would suggest that before we do this we either a/eliminate the existence of arbcom, which is the one group that ought to be doing things of this nature, or b/define consensus as we do for ban, where any one administrator objecting can prevent a ban, or c/redefine WP as an encyclopedia where no controversial topics will be permitted. DGG (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:TE needs more talking about first. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading that, it's a good essay. The general advice there is by and large excellent, but I really don't see how it will ever become a guideline firm enough to be used as a base for blocking or similar actions--such things need more than impressionistic standards. Purely as an illustration, there are experienced editors here who in good faith consider that the actions of some of those opposing over-credulous articles on fringe topics have engaged in activities of the sort discouraged there. DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I'm one of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I was just about to warn you for that. Okay folks, this clearly has no consensus. I think we can stick to existing policies and try to figure out how to encourage better enforcement through discussion and education. Thanks. Jehochman 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I guess I should say then, I'm one of those who thinks that while most "fringe" topics are indeed codswallop, some worthy PoVs and sources have indeed been kept out of core articles with the very same tactics these drafts were in good faith written to end. Hence, my wariness about linking blocks with content. Behaviour and verifiable sources are the pith to building a helpful tertiary source through open editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading this thread is like finding a little time capsule in the backyard. Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing got promoted from proposal to guideline two years ago, and went through basically the same evolution during initial drafts. Recommend reading and using it. Durova 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova has this; the page exists at WP:DISRUPT, all we have to do is use and refer to that page. This new draft is largely a duplicate of that page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you know! May I ask why people aren't bothering to enforce this important policy? Yeah, it takes a lot of work to dig through edit histories and figure out who is being disruptive. Of course it is much simpler to block the first editor who gets frustrated and drops the f-bomb, or equivalent. How do we go about promoting the fair enforcement of WP:DE? Jehochman 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Step 1: Go to WP:RfA and support candidates who have shown cluefulness and maturity, because they will have the judgement to make these kind of determinations. It's a bit more complex than automated vandalism reverts and WP:AIV reports. And candidates with a proven track record of experience and judgement in controversial areas often run into frankly ridiculous problems at RfA and need all the help they can get. MastCell  18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Following Durova's helpful nudges, I can only say, let's think about this, I've been blocking rather a lot for disruption and nothing's been overturned: Are admins being too shy or am I being too hard about it but nobody wants to nettle me? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... Help?

So this page is Move blocked, and only an Admin can move it, so could somebody please move it "Giratina to Sora no Hanataba: Shaymin", Shaymin being the official English title... Moocowsrule (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

The page was protected due to move-warring. Has consensus for the new name been established somewhere? --Carnildo (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this? (was 6 months ago) Gee, you took your time asking ;-) Monster Under Your Bed 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I just came across the article a few days ago, and since nobody moved it, I decided to post something on here. Plus yes that is the discussion regarding the official English title. Although now the reference is a dead link, I'm not QUITE sure that that's the actual English title, but I'm fairly positive. And also since the article itself uses Giratina to Sora no Hanatabi: Shaymin in the article (except for the title...), I'm pretty sure the official English title is "Giratina to Sora no Hanatabi: Shaymin". I'm just pretty surprised no admin has moved it in six months (according to what Monster Under Your Bed said). Moocowsrule (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

User:Wallamoose

This is not a topic on sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, despite the fact that some appears to be going on, this is a general inquiry as to this user's past behavior.

Up until his first block, at least as far as I know, Walla appeared to be a good contributor, but then when he soapboxed in the form of a snipe on a talk page, things turned for the worse. He was warned that users might take offense to it due to the nature of the way the comment was written, and yet he still reverted. This resulted in a block for one week, and it might have stayed that way. Instead he asserted that his was the only opinion that mattered in the issue, that everyone else was wrong, and that the admins involved in the matter were abusing their powers(the typical argument for disruptive users, I might add).

He then later came back as a sockpuppet, causing disruption because of the addition of copyvios. He never admits at being a sockpuppet, and so far, after the checkuser confirmed he was one, plus the fact that the evidence just didn't add up(in his favor), the sockpuppet has not posted on its talkpage.

Per the above, and the conversations that occurred on the sockmaster's talk page, I would like a review of the general events that took place during the week, along with Wallamoose's behavior. I would also like to know if Walla did indeed wish to continue editing, and confirmed he would edit constructively, that he would be allowed to under that of a mentor.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just based on your account--the one that's apparently trying to AGF and be as sympathetic as possible--I'd say "absolutely not!" The last thing we need is another Warrior for the Truth, another user to scream "admin abuse! oh noes!" every time his opinion is called into question. I don't see how mentorship would solve anything (unless the mentor can physically stand over his shoulder and push the "power" button on WM's computer whenever he's about to do something negative--and even then, I'd be uneasy.) This does NOT sound like a user who needs to be here, and just because he may or may not have been "provoked" into negative behaviour, that absolutely does NOT mitigate the ensuing ranting, raving, copyvios, and socking. Maybe in six months or a year, if he can show us hard evidence of change--but now? No thank you. AGF, as has been said before, is NOT a suicide pact. Gladys J Cortez 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Gladys on this one. We have had cases in the past where recidivist sock puppeteers have been eventually unblocked, and where they have gone on to become successful and model Misplaced Pages citizens. I would be glad to share with you some of those in semi-private (seeing as they are now good citizens, there is no compelling reason to drag said names to ANI on an unrelated case). However, in every one of those cases, the user had to prove they were willing to play by the rules by stopping the rule-breaking behavior, that is, to cease creating new accounts while they were blocked. I would have no problem if Wallamoose took this course of action, I could support unblocking if it could be shown that Wallamoose were creating no new accounts to dodge his existing block. As yet, we have no evidence that he intends to stop creating new accounts, so we have no reason to unblock. I would disagree with Gladys's time frame; I think 2 months or so should be a reasonable ammount of time to revist the issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in my experience, if a disruptive editor can get a grip and stay away from Misplaced Pages for two whole months, it shows they can be trusted to sway their own behaviour, even when it hurts. It's very rare to see someone do so after this kind of disruption and sockpuppetry but it can and does happen: Some folks do deeply misunderstand Misplaced Pages at first, stir up a big kerfluffle, then go, "Oops, grok." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the blocking admin has prevented either user from editing their talk page, so it is impossible for them to comment. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me let Wallamoose edit his talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. At least not for awhile, like another week or two. Plenty of us have wasted enough time already dealing with him. —EncMstr (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a user pop up shortly after JoeTimko's last edit who has similar editing idiosynchronies to Wallamoose. Should I add to the checkuser case? The new user hasn't disrupted, as far as I could tell. Switzpaw (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

some weird resentful edit summary, user was newly created after joetimko's last edit, similar subject matter interests (exotic foods, place locations, cartoon network), signs like wallamoose by putting four tildes inside of parentheses. Switzpaw (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ChocoCereal? I can't quite make that leap. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* The aforementioned editor registered about an hour after JoeTimko was blocked and went to town on a bunch of articles, and has the same tell of signing with a preceding parenthesis, characteristic of Wallamoose's accounts. I don't think Wallamoose intends to disrupt further, but I would expect him to come back and avoid detection. It seems like he will go to great lengths to avoid saying "I was wrong." I don't see it as a problem at this point, though if the new editor gets into similar trouble I'd suggest investigating this. Switzpaw (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to block an account making helpful edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even if it's evading a ban? I hear quacking.. *shrug*   21:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I being thick? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey just trying to help out -- not sure how admins enforce what Jayron32 was suggesting above. Switzpaw (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I doubt you're being thick, Gwen--sorry if you took that meaning. It's just a bit too coincidental, is all I'm saying.   21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, maybe it's Wallamoose but the parentheses aren't enough to go by and if the account is helping the encyclopedia, I truly don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

check his talk page. that is why i was trying to avoid saying the suspect's name. Switzpaw (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I subject of some kind of investigation?(ChocoCereal (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

dude lay off the youtube videos. Switzpaw (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this time he says he's indeed User:Wallamoose and is asking to be unblocked (but didn't put up an unblock template). He ends by saying:

I'm not going to sit on the sidelines for months to prove I'm "committed". I think that's the biggest bunch of b.s. I've ever heard. So is there another way we can end this and move forward.

Honestly, this is my last effort to do this in a way I think is reasonable. If it takes a fire with fire approach I'm going to go that route.

Given the background (disruption, blistering personal attacks, sockpuppetry), I think he should stay away from en.Misplaced Pages for at least two months. However, I'd like to leave it up to other editors and admins as to how we'll deal with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• See also the thread below, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Move help, pls...

Hi there...me again. Magog the Ogre made a page-move earlier today, changing Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China to Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese government. As Dilip rajeev pointed out at User talk:Magog the Ogre, there were good reasons to keep the original name, so Dilip rajeev moved the article back to the original title. However, he says he's having problems moving the article's talk page back as well, and I'm not sure what to tell him to help. Could someone give both of us an assist here? Thanks in advance, again....Gladys J Cortez 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! How did you do it?Gladys J Cortez 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A redirect which has more than one edit or which points to a different article than the one to be moved over it needs to be deleted first. When you attempt the move a checkbox appears asking if you'd like to delete it. -- zzuuzz 09:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure revisited

Maybe now Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness could be closed? It's run for five days, and the DYK nomination is about to expire. Lampman (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Bizzodattum Wuhmenlinz block

can an administrator block this user (User talk:Bizzodattum Wuhmenlinz) for this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_Assam_bombings&diff=248601310&oldid=248597502), and remove the image. Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yoelmo (talk · contribs)

My simple, polite request seems to have gotten lost in the drama of ANI, so I'll try here. Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has succeeded in creating two fake album articles in the course of a few days of editing. For a new account, he has an uncanny ability to precisely recreate previously deleted material. He recreated Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which MSoldi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for. He has now created Fearless (Ali Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and AliPersonal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which are near copies of Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I believe was also an MSoldi hoax, and has been repeatedly recreated and salted. Can someone let me know the creator(s) of Interpersonal so I can analyze the histories and open a sockpuppeting or checkuser case? Or you can feel free to shout "QUACK" and block if you think it's appropriate after looking at the history.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, FisherQueen responded to a private request, and furnished the requested info. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser#MSoldi has been filed.—Kww(talk) 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this WP:OUTING?

Talk:Schizophrenia#Hgurling.27s_edits. A similar case involving User:Mathsci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was inconclusive (blocked for a week, lifted lesss than a day later). Is there a rule for allowing/preventing one from inferring real-life identity of an editor based on his user name, and furthermore, is it reasonable to base WP:COI determinations on such inferences? VG ☎ 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this toes the line without going over it. If someone self-outs on Misplaced Pages by making their real name their log in name it's certainly not anyone else's fault if it is noticed. Its not like using other methods to dig out a person's real identity, since they are clearly telling it to you. It's somewhat bad Internet ettiquette to do so in any circumstance, but I don't really see it as an eggregious violation of WP:OUTING. If you don't want anyone to know your real identity, then don't leave clues around for people, you know, clues like actually telling everyone your real name! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Making those edits under that username is prima facie evidence that he is self-identifying as (or worse, impersonating) a specific professor of molecular psychiatry. "COI" is only a serious problem when it is covert and unrecognized. In this case we are fortunate to know which edits may benefit from closer scrutiny. Were the doctor editing under a non-personal name (say, "SuperShrink"), yes this would be considered "outing" (or "unproven speculation" actually). — CharlotteWebb 13:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. As long as there is significant evidence that this is the person's real identity, and there is some benefit to Misplaced Pages by revealing this fact, it is reasonable to bring it up. If this user had never touched any article in this person's area of expertise, I think it would be outing since Misplaced Pages would gain nothing from this fact being known. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case nobody would have noticed or cared what the "H" stood for. — CharlotteWebb 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some things going on here that are distressing to me. My main "Misplaced Pages mission" is to reactivate WikiProject Neuroscience, which was pretty active until 2006 but then fell asleep. Currently most of the neuroscience articles suck pretty badly (with a few exceptions), and the only way to change that is to get people who know the subject to come edit them. That means creating a welcoming environment for people who are more used to writing in an academic framework--i.e., precisely somebody like hgurling, who has a very strong publication record. But look at what happens: he comes in and spends a few hours improving the schizophrenia and bipolar disorder articles by correcting errors and adding solidly sourced information. Within hours all the changes to schizophrenia are reverted, an unfriendly message is left on his talk page, and a discussion starts here about "outing". This is very frustrating. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I started this discussion is that Hgurling's real-life was used as part of the rationale for reverting his edits. Some editors on this thread think that these actions improved Misplaced Pages; I have some doubts that the outcome improved Misplaced Pages, but I still assume good faith on behalf of everyone involved. VG ☎ 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anybody's motivations, I'm just unhappy about the result they have produced. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Hgurling's edits have been that helpful either. He's edited Bipolar disorder to advance the idea that it's mainly a genetic disorder, but did so without changing the existing references. I have some doubts that the same old references that were already present in the article suddenly support his/her viewpoint. Better discuss this at Misplaced Pages:OR/N#Genetic_psychiatry_POV_.28without_refences.29_at_Bipolar_disorder. VG ☎ 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

his edits just show the use of wording that in the context of WP amounts to OR, or drawing a general conclusion on the basis of evidence beyond what we normally do, orr the insertion of what he thinks obvious without actual references. Any academic might write that way, and it just take a little orientation to be accustomed to our conventions, which are necessary and appropriate in our special context. A little advice about our peculiarities is all that is called for. and an apology to him. DGG (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As for "outing", I regret the way I wrote that. All I knew was that a user named "Hgurling" was adding references to works where "H. Gurling" is a co-author. I found this fact relevant and wanted it to be brought out in the open, but I shouldn't have "assumed" his identity or made suggestions of WP:COI. Looking at what I wrote on his talk page, I also acknowledge that I could have greeted this new contributor, with potentially much-needed expertise, in a friendlier way. Sorry about that, what I really meant was to give "a little advice about our peculiarities". I stand by that I think the article as a whole was of better quality before these edits, but that there seems to be some useful content to be kept; this is of course better discussed at the relevant talk page. /skagedal 10:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tada!

Administrators, my I raise your awareness... The king has arrived! Upperclass Wikipedian (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, what?   13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked until the king can tell us what he's doing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he's saying we missed the rapture (again). — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a delicious irony if you look at his userpage first, and then at the notice on his talk...   14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Crystallized ashes haven't thrilled me since I was like, 20. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of "At least all my work will be of high quality, far, far beyond the qualities of other editors out here." coupled with a speedydel notice :P   14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I got that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if his high quality extends to his ability to spell properly. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for "vandalism and username worries." As far as I can see, every mainspace edit was performed in good faith, even though there were mistakes. To classify it as vanldalism is misrepresentating the editor. And the username too is probably a borderline case that should have been taken to WP:UAA. I also see no block warning, nor an attempt to engage this new editor beyond the placement of one CSD template. While it may have been unlikely that the editor would have gone on to be a productive contributor, now we'll never know. Steve 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These redirects from the article space were straight vandalism. Taken with the username, sloppy edits and the taunt which began this thread, there was not a hint this user planned to contribute helpfully to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't read that as a taunt, more an over-enthusiastic statement of intent (and I'm unable to see those deleted contributions), but I'm 100% happy to take your word for it. All the best, Steve 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, new, good faith users don't start out by skillfully making article redirects back to their user page and dropping by AN to say hi. This is somebody's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, there are probably quite a few of us IP-only editors who are both familiar with the technical particularities of Misplaced Pages and enjoy reading the dramatic goings-on here on the AN. It's entirely possible (although perhaps not likely in this case) that an experienced anonymous editor may choose to register only when he or she progresses beyond WP:GNOME to engage in more varied editing. 76.245.72.82 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Chivas Regal could use some cleanup. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While he has certainly raised a few eyebrows with his unusual editing style and familiarity with Misplaced Pages, I see no evidence that this is a vandalism only account. At the very worst his edits can be seen as enthusiastic not vandalism, and his mistakes in creating redirects to his userpage in article space isn't something that deserves a block, least an indefinite ‎one. If there is suspicion of sockpuppetry it should have been taken to WP:RFCU. 4I7.4I7 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a vandalism-only account. However, a thoroughly mixed brew of vandalism, disruptive editing, likely sockpuppetry and a worrisome username is wholly blockable. Perhaps you have this website muddled with Encyclopedia Dramatica? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The block log states "Vandalism-only account". I just feel the user should have been given a warning before being blocked outright. 4I7.4I7 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've fixed the block log. If the editor requests an unblock I'll be more than happy to talk about it and unblock if the editor promises to stop the behaviour which led to the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, User:Upperclass_Wikipedian is a sockie. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines fleet

Something seems to have gone wrong with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines fleet; it hasn't got the right header, and that's mucking up the AfD log page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtRaschke (talk • contribs)

Fixed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

user:sarcasticidealist vs. user:brewhaha@edmc.net

Sarcasticidealist seems to think that Jay is an under-the-radar vandal who needs to be watched closely and reverted by default. I am a spurious editor who spends a lot more time on talk pages than editing articles. While I hav a fascination with WP:IAR, I find myself actually volunteering rules from other places to apply here. I think the status quo, where he wants to watch is fine. OTOH, I'm not convinced that he understands the meaning of a contradiction or the reliability problems with prophecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewhaha@edmc.net (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to a completely uninvolved editor this post does not make sense. Can you provide diffs and say what you want us to do about the matter? Jehochman 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Jehoch; we need diffs of abuse on Misplaced Pages. Why complaint, wherefore base? -Jéské Couriano 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The opportunity to see these sorts of posts is about the only reason that I look at the dramaboards any more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Brewhaha@edmc.net

I'm experiencing a medium-term problem with Brewhaha@edmc.net (talk · contribs), and I'd appreciate some feedback/assistance. The current source of conflict is his edits to United States Senate elections, 2010 in which he's striking text in the mainspace and applying tags to material that's no longer in the article. I reverted, and explained in my edit summaries and on his talk page why this was inappropriate, but he reverted me back on both counts. That's the current problem. In the longer-term, I'm afraid that the user has exhibited a pattern of problematic editing. Some examples:

• In July and August he edit-warred at Template:Weasel to make changes that included the insertion of a bizarre audio file . When the page was protected, he took to the talk page and proposed an even odder version of the template , attempted to unilaterally impose an incomprehensible "ballot" , and deleted most of the talk page's contents under the guise of "archiving" . After an absence, he returned this month to edit-war over these changes. When I suggested making use of an RFC to resolve the dispute, he pointed to a post he'd made on usenet in lieu of an RFC.
• He made a significant change to WP:CRYSTAL without seeking to establish consensus.
• He engaged in some sort of a dispute over Image:Cho_Seung-hui_3.jpg during which he repeatedly made indecipherable accusations against User:David Levy.

The above are just a few examples of his approach to editing; many more can be gleaned by sorting through his contributions. While he is undoubtedly a good faith contributor, virtually all of his edits end up being reverted for one reason or another. He seems to be growing understandably frustrated with this state of affairs - he recently asked me to stop paying so much attention to his edits (I have admittedly been keeping a very close eye on him) and has lately been bringing incivility into his edit summaries: , , , , , , . I'm at a loss as to how to proceed; a WP:RFC/U is an option, but I have no confidence at all that he would take to heart the counsel generated. The only solution I see is mentorship, and that will only work if he agrees to subordinate himself to his mentor. Otherwise, I think we're heading for an eventual indef block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A review of your diffs and their recent contributions reveals that this editor's activities have been virtually 100% disruptive. There is nothing there that constitutes encyclopedia building. They seem to just be making random edits to things, virtually all of which violate one policy or another, or are otherwise unhelpful. The user has been with us since 2006, so they should know better by now. Whether this is sneaky vandalism, trolling, a shortage of clue, or something else we cannot know. The appearance is a disruption-only account. As such, I am blocking it for an undetermined length of time until they provide suitable explanations and assurances that they will stop being disruptive. Mentorship might be an option if there is a willing volunteer. Jehochman 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Still double checking their contribs. Still can't find anything productive.Jehochman 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that there probably isn't anything productive there; but I also think that the user shows many signs of trying to be productive, which is why I'd rather see an indef block as a last resort (which I suppose we may have reached, but I'd hoped not). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Digging back to the start of their contributions here, they have never showed any sign of productive editing. It is impossible to tell if this account is here for the "lulz" or if they are earnestly trying to contribute, but failing badly. The net result is disruption and loss of productivity by many other editors. I think the best option here is to block the account and then have a friendly conversation with them on their talk page to see if something can be arranged. Mentors are a scarce commodity. If there is a willing volunteer, I will not stop them, but from what I have seen, I think the mentorship resources could be better used elsewhere. Jehochman 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I think this is a reasoned and reasonable response to a difficult situation. My encounters with this contributor centered around his above referenced dispute at Template:Weasel. This contributor himself drew my attention to the debate, here, and I wound up fully protecting the template after this ANI thread. To add context, please note that the dispute over Image:Cho_Seung-hui_3.jpg was with the editor who first frustrated his attempts to change the template at Template:Weasel—an image dispute launched with this out of the blue, nearly incomprehensible comment in the middle of David's page. I don't think he's here for "lulz". I think mentorship might work, but I am concerned that communication problems could persist and make that a problematic option. --Moonriddengirl 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Roux and User:G2bambino

There are now two RFC's on these two editors, both filed by their respective other. (RFC on Roux filed by G2bambino, and RFC on G2bambino filed by Roux). They both ask for similar "sanctions" to be applied to the other editor. Both editors have previously agreed to 1RR restrictions and both editors have violated their 1RR restriction.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Roux
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/G2bambino

In light of this I propose the following sanctions to be applied to both of the editors. (evidence in support of the need for sanctions is already supplied by Roux and G2bambino respectively on their RFCs).

I ask that both the community G2bambino and Roux look at these restrictions and consider them as a possible course of action, noting that both editors requested similar restrictions on their RFC to be applied to their respective other.

• The restrictions are to last for 6 months, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit.
• 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
• Both editors when editing, are required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
• Both editors when editing are required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
• Both editors on article talk pages are required to stick solely to content.

I've created this here as with two RFC's filed by each other, I feel it is productive to have this discussion in a centralized location. —— nixeagle 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On a minor note, the RfC for Roux isn't certified correctly. There's no evidence of trying and failing to solve the dispute before going to RfC - this would need to be done within 48 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable and productive though I would suggest point 3 be similarly restricted to monarchy-related articles. I hate to restrict their ability to be bold and IAR in articles where they have no interaction. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I like this idea. The RfC has turned once again into a battle ground between roux and G2b and as such it is clear something needs to be done. Tiptoety 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I would like the two RfC/Us to either be merged into one (an idea I supported from it's first proposal) or, failing that, go on as they are. I have been under generally the same restrictions as those outlined above, and (save for one slip up on 1RR a couple of weeks ago) am happy with the result, on my part. Roux, too, has been on the same restrictions; his edit warring has ceased, and the rude edit summaries have as well. However, his incivility, attacks, and tendentiousness persists on talk pages and elsewhere. I agree with Looie496's remark below about durations; but, if there is to be a difference between Roux and I in that regard, I would offer the suggestion that Roux's 1RR restriction expire earlier than mine, but those on etiquette continue for us both until whatever time is deemed appropriate, if any. --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Uh.. no, if you're going to make claims here you really should be truthful. You actually violated the 1RR on at least three occasions: here and here on Commonwealth realm on 2 October, and here and here at Coat of Arms of Canada on 1 October, and then here. Another editor makes a revision in between, and G2bambino revertshere. I reverted here then G2bambino reverts for the second time in violation of his restriction . You also have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of tendentious behaviour. I've said I'll abide by these restrictions if the total time period is shortened; otherwise the implication is that my mistakes are on the same level as your three-year pattern of WP:DISRUPT.   21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The above claims of 1RR breach are flimsy at best. Further detail, if desired, is located here. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How beautifully formatted. Pity it's none of it true.   22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - subject to my comments below, I had a thought. 6 months (which is what I proposed to G2, due to the length and breadth of his tendentious editing) is 1/5 of his tenure here. I'd agree to the above conditions if they were similarly proportional to my tenure here. 1/5 of six months (my first edit with an account was April 29, 2008) is six weeks. I'd be willing to round up to two months.   20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting a few quick things. I will be responding to the RfC/U in more detail:

1. G2bambino essentially stated explicitly that this RfC/U was a threat, after I finally got sick of it here. (Just keep hitting 'next edit' for the rest of the diffs). This collection of 'evidence' had been sitting around in his sandbox since approximately 1/2 hour before he filed a MedCab relating to a dispute we were having. Hardly evidence of trying to resolve anything in good faith, particularly since he agreed to remove it (and did, here, only to put it back as soon as I opened the RFC/U on his behaviour. The mediator for that MedCab, Mayalld summed up his views on G2's behaviour during and after that case here.
2. Almost everything posted by G2 is taken out of context, with selective quoting. I urge anyone reading it to actually look at the diffs and note the large differences between what was said and what was quote.
3. His 'desired outcome' is practically a word-for-word copy of what I had requested of him; I had asked for six months based on the length of his tenure here and the equally-long pattern of WP:DISRUPT on articles: POV pushing, edit-warring, and then arguing in circles on talk pages until people give up. You might want to ask users like DoubleBlue and User:Jeff3000, both of whom have had to deal with his behaviour, and both of whom have given up at various times.
4. I don't dispute that I've made mistakes. But there's a massive difference between a 3-year pattern of tendentious editing, and mistakes from a 6-month-old user which are almost solely in response to that tendentiousness. Imposing the same restrictions on both is overkill.   19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that equal restrictions is not really the fair way to go. Is there any evidence that the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behavior from Roux extends outside of this particular set of articles with this particular editor? If not, he should not be faced with the same set of restrictions imposed on an editor who's history of disruption reaches across many articles over the span of many months or years. لennavecia 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the restrictions are really just things that good editors do automatically without being forced to, I don't see the point in nitpicking about durations. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, please look at the RfC/U on Roux for the evidence of incivil behaviour on his part beyond simply the two of us. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

yep, a couple of isolated incidents.   20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jennavecia. It'll be worsening the problem if you're going to impose new restrictions equally on a reasonably new editor, and a long-term problem editor who has an extensive history of tendentious editing, wikilawyering and/or avoiding sanctions. If this is the best the community can offer, then indeed, this is not the place. If problems are persisting, then go to ArbCom so that a more fair resolution is found on these issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Jennavecia and Ncmvocalist. After reviewing this, I don't see symmetry in the actions of G2bambino and Roux. I see G2bambino's extended and consistent history of inappropriate edits and semi-trolling. In Roux I see a newer editor who for the most part is neutral and adds well sourced contributions that I see improving over time, and feel that Misplaced Pages would suffer greatly if we were to lose them. Roux admits he's made mistakes and tries to learn from them, whereas G2bambino I see becoming defensive and, in the long span of his edits, not making an effort to seriously address the complaints leveled at him. In the discussions between the two, it seems that G2bambino provoking Roux rather than mutual hostility. The edit where this feud began, here, follows this pattern well. Another point I think is noteworthy is that G2bambino has been using the RfC against Roux as a threat - a practice I find contrary to the beliefs and spirit of Misplaced Pages. In summary, I cannot endorse that these two very different editors with seemingly very different motivations be treated in the same way. Before anyone else adds support, please look at more than G2bambino's edited quotes of Roux. Look at the longer span of Roux's edits, the expertise behind his contributions, and the neutrality with which he edits. I feel an injustice is being done here if we impose restrictions on him for G2bambino's claim, the potential of which has been a source of blackmail since this story began. - FlyingToaster 06:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - FlyingToaster said it all, really. You simply cannot treat a reasonably new editor in the same way as you would an experienced editor who is actively engaging in disruptive editing. I guess my problem here is that I feel that I am seeing improvement from Roux, especially in his admission of mistakes - but I can certainly not say the same for G2b. That RfC/U was and is particularly ridiculous, mostly because they admitted it to be a threat, and also because it seems they had it hanging around for a long time in their sandbox - not a good move in my books, because that certainly would feel like a threat if it were directed at me. You might want note to the series of misquotations, quotations out of context, and edited quotations that G2b is spreading all over the place. Upon first glance it can indeed appear that they are both equal parties in a game of chess. However, after some more digging it is obvious that this is not true. You simply cannot treat an editor with a clear and unquestionable history of disruptive editing the same as a new user, who in my mind, whilst not always necessarily doing the right thing, always trying to. Roux impassioned outcry seems more of a response to being provoked than any sort of lust for hostility, whereas I cannot make the same judgement for G2b. In summary, I strongly support the aforementioned restrictions applying to G2b, but I strong oppose the restrictions being applied to Roux. An injustice is being done here, and I'm pretty sure it is by G2b. — neuro 07:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with sanctions as proposed, Roux is formerly PrinceOfCanada, both users are tendentious editors and seem unable to leave each other alone. If we can't agree on that then arbitration is the next step. G2bambino is following the classic path to self-destruction right now. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Thanks, DrKiernan. Steve 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards