Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 23 May 2009

• 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)

COI User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

I was directed here by user:auburnpilot Here:

Hi my name is Christian Hejnal. I have been accused of sock puppetry by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I have stated over and over that I am who I say I am and this is the only name I log in under. The Conclusion: "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically."

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a destructive editor and is now editing my article, after he/she accused me. & and has made a point of editing articles that have anything to do with my wife or myself. I suspect this user has a strong COI of interest with anything concerning my wife Jessicka, our band Scarling. and myself.

I have addressed this user several times on his or her talk page in good faith only to be ignored.

And most recently

I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. All I ask is for this user to allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. I truly believe that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is gaming the system in order to discredit any articles having to do with my wife Jessicka, myself (Christian Hejnal), our band Scarling. or our close friends. Again, I do not edit these articles because I know I have a clear COI. I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia but while I've been here I have not been a destructive user. I will happily take this off wiki- via email scarlingmusic@aol.com but this person is ignoring my requests.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just been alerted to the fact that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz makes these edits from a library a few miles away from my home. I am freaked out. Any assistance or advice on this matter would be beyond appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A few notes. The sockpuppetry investigation was closed by two others, and I think further attempts light on evidence should result in a warning. Second, while I'm seeing a bias, that's not a conflict of interest. He seems to be attempt to remove information he's doesn't consider relevant, while others (right now, namely User:69.238.165.217 at your page) are reverting. That's a content dispute and the solution is for both parties to stop playing on the articles and instead to use the discussion pages. I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the reason Xtian1313 was accused of being a sock. I'll have my own computer in a few days. Though if I'm in the same area, not sure if it will be a new IP??? I am not a sock. I am a person. I like the work of the people who's articles I edit. I do not know Clint Catalyst. I was not asked to fix these articles, I do it because I want to. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz doesn't try to expand articles, he's too concerned with blanking sections rather then actually doing the research it takes to find references. I am constructive. I add ref links. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is the reason I have not created an actual account. He's a bully. There I said it. I can't find the page where he threatened to have me blocked because I reverted edits with ref links.

I'd like to keep editing here but I don't want false accusations made about Xtian1313 because I don't want to be outed nor do I want User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz to be breathing down my neck. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

69.238.165.217 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, if you look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtian1313/Archive, you will see that User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg chose to ignore it. Our policies allow anyone to begin a report but unless it looks like enough to the right people, it will be ignored. One reasonable concern is not everything that's exists deserves to be here, and asking people to find sources that fit policy is appropriate and removal until they are found is too. As I just told you, for example, attending a wedding isn't worth including. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky be fair. You said the article didn't mention Catalyst and it did. I answered you and showed you the quote and the ref. link. User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg ignored it maybe because I'm not destructive? I explained why I added the wedding section. I just don't want anybody to be blamed for something I am doing. Misplaced Pages is about being BOLD, right. I'm trying! 69.238.165.217 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, attending a wedding, even as best man, and giving a speech, even if quoted in the LA Times, in my view probably isn't worth including. However, like everything else, we can discuss it. As to your other point, I'm not going to speculate why Nathan and Jake chose not to go further. Most likely simply because they didn't find enough enough evidence. You can ask them if you'd like. There is more than being BOLD here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

please show me where I should discuss the wedding issue and I will.

I don't need to ask Nathan and Jake as long as they know I am a person and not Xtian1313. = O) 69.238.165.217 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Clint_Catalyst#Jessicka_and_Christian_Hejnal_wedding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Clerk_team, user:Jake Wartenberg are both user:Nathan trainee clerks --PBS (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have now had a stern talking to by all parties involved. I plan on making a screen name with my new IP address, as soon I get one and will make sure everybody knows I was user "69.238.165.217".

I am now taking my thoughts to the discussion page. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great." We can all agree that he has a bias? Is anybody here willing to have a talk with User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz??? If not I'm afraid this kind of thing is going to continue to happen as his approach is not only abrasive but off putting to a lot of users. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Staying on point

Ok, the actual point. There is an allegation from a living person that he is concerned about another editor who, in real-life, may live a few miles away. Does anyone have any actual evidence of this, beyond mere speculation? This is some serious allegation. Can we drop that argument? Second, if opposition to the inclusion of attendance at a wedding is what qualifies someones as having a COI against an individual, put me on that list. However, a conflict of interest means an actual conflict of interest, not merely "you don't seem to like what I'm doing or who I am" and unless someone has some evidence of this, I would like the approval to warn and knock people out for making baseless claims as a pretext to edit war. Anyone have any suggestions, other than probably go to WP:OTRS and write tickets? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, I do not have any problem with the attendance/ wedding issue being left out of the article in question. It doesn't need to be brought here to confuse the issues at hand. I don't believe you have a COI, perhaps a bias since you have stated you live in LA know who some of the people in question are and find them ridiculous, that's your opinion. You have not been aggressively editing every article that has anything to do with Christian Hejnal like User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has. Anytime this person is confronted they just simply ignore. I believe strongly that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does have a COI. And if he edits miles away from these people's homes and work place, that's scary. Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article? Come on? I'm new but I'm not that new. As far as the other allegation hopefully Xtian1313 can come up with some evidence to support his case. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reengaged this article because i stumbled across this COI allegation here or somewhere else in the past few days. Poked around and found that i'd been accused of being wolfowitz' sockpuppet and/or had a COI by one of the SPAs there (here ) without being notified (I hadn't edited the article in about 2 weeks at that point). Am I pissed? You bet. These COI allegations by the SPA's on this article and the other fine flowers in their walled garden have been tossed casually around for over a month now and i ask some admin to tell these folks to put up or shut up: Either come forward with some reliable evidence of an honest-to-goodness conflict of interest or be told that they'll be given a nice, long block the next time the allegation is made.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I edit miles away from these people too, probably. Los Angeles is HUGE. Again, what makes everyone see a COI? Is it just "he's 'destroying' these articles"? And read my comment here again: I wasn't saying the people are ridiculous. I don't know any of them personally. I was saying that your description of a wedding, as is the description of a lot of the actions of these individuals, borders on ridiculous. It's a matter of perspective, and frankly, I'm not seeing how a guy who also is "destroying" John Dunbar so clearly has some vague COI that everyone is claiming. Fine, if you want to claim I have a COI too, go ahead. That makes this fitting. Someone else uninvolved, please offer an opinion. This is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rickey please read this. I do not think you have a COI. You are not User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, right? LA- we aren't talking miles- we are talking blocks there's a difference and you know it. I agree 100% It's a matter of perspective,and I say that this person has a COI with at least the article Christian Hejnal. See below: "Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article?" Why do that? Seriously? That's all I am saying. It sure smells like COI to me and a jerk move to boot.

And why isn't anybody talking to this person. Rather then freak out, throw policy around, threaten a nice long block, couldn't a simple conversation fix this issue???

I'm being ganged up on here and I/m presenting a simple solution. A solution you suggested before all of this garbage. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Your words, it's a good plan. Can somebody just do it? 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "solution" you're presenting is to remove an editor who has a different perspective than you from an article based on your vague and innapropriate allegation (without a shred of evidence). I promise you this "solution" will not be agreed to, though I understand why the rest of us just giving you what you want would be agreeable to you. Also, these claims that his cohabitation with you (whoever you are) in LA is "scary" is not only absurd, but a personal attack (i can think of view attacks more vile than implying that someone was going to try to stalk you/harm you in real life). IP -- if you make one more unsubstantiated allegation against anyone, I'll kick this up to higher traffic forums.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I being vague? Please re-read what I wrote. I am asking that somebody other then Ricky81682 (per his suggestion) "talk" to this editor not "remove" them. Block me, kick me up, just because I don't agree with you? Bali, You are pissed about something that has nothing to do with me or what I'm saying here. (here ). All of these different issues are now becoming blurred because the people in the articles in question know each other in real life. Unlike you I don't have the power to threaten to block people when they don't agree with me so I'm doing the best I can to come to a simple solution. Is there such a thing as a neutral third party?

69.238.165.217 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To talk to him about what? You want someone else to tell him not to edit those articles because you think he lives somewhere and that makes you afraid? Because you think he has a conflict but you can not or will not explain it any further than that? We are not going to ask him to tell us who he is and prove he doesn't have a conflict. Otherwise, someone else is always free to talk to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)'

You are the one who suggested somebody talk to him. I'm not afraid of anybody. That user wouldn't have any idea who I was if I was walking down the street right in front of him. Why wouldn't somebody ask him, do you have a COI with these articles? Do you have any idea why people might think you do? Why is that so out of line? I have explained why "I" think he has a conflict over and over. Nobody is asking you to out this person. This is ridiculous. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question was asked. His answer was "no" i have no conflict of interest. You've offered no evidence to contradict this. Repeatedly makign unsupported accusations poisons the editing environment and will, ultimately, earn you blocks. So, now, If you "ask" the question again, i'll seek support for sanctions against you. I'd much prefer you'd just drop it, and focus on content. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion. It's simple. Why doesn't somebody other then myself, Xtian1313, and Ricky81682 talk to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz??? Will it kill him to lay off these articles until it is proven whether he is editing from a close neighborhood library or has a COI? I got my butt handed to me last night, why won't anybody talk to this user? Rickey is there a admin. that can be neutraland is up for the job? I really think it can be that simple? 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should he? What has he done wrong? He's removed content, told everyone to read the policies, they've ignored them, edit warred to put it back and accuse him of a COI. Period. Everyone else comes here, nobody else seems to care, and we all move on. He's been notified of these discussion a few times and as he has said, he has no clue what the claim is. I've asked him, he says he doesn't know what's going on, so how about the people making the accusation actually give us something to work with beyond a mere speculation that he lives in the same city as they do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do read the policies. I ask questions related to the policies. They usually go ignored. Any "edit warring" reverts I have done were strictly in good faith - often because this editor's comments in the edit summary were based on false claims (whether intentionally or not - usually claiming that information is not contained in the cited source when it actually is, or alleging that I was spamming on behalf of the subject), or because an administrator had previously approved for the content in question to be added. S/He makes derogatory comments and personal attacks directed at both other editors of the article, as well as the subject of said article, and has inappropriately outed both myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst and Tallulah13 by name (I believe in her case it was either on her Talk page or on Xtian1313's).

Having an opinion is one thing and is of course welcome (Ricky, I'm glad you stepped in to help with the peacock/press release tone much of it had taken on - I didn't even know where to start with that) - however, this user's incredibly rude displays of behavior towards both the subject/related subjects and editors, the types of edits made to the article itself, combined with the fact that it appears this subject posts within blocks of all of the related subjects of the articles s/he is editing, does not seem right or to comply with NPOV standards and is a deterrent to editors who are trying to be helpful - regardless of whether they like or dislike (or haven't formed an opinion of) the subject of the article.

Also, to Bali ultimate, regarding the above - I apologize if my conclusion was indeed incorrect. It just seemed really strange to me that two editors were both making repeated long strings of deletions (of similar natures) with occasional derogatory remarks thrown in. Granny Bebeb (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me straighten you out -- there is nothing strange about wikipedia editors in good standing seeking to enforce basic standards and trying to hold the line against the use of the encyclopedia for promotional/vanity/fan purposes. Nothing could make more sense, in fact. The article was attrociously written, worse-sourced, and guarded by a slew of SPAs. Now. Like i told the IP, do not make any accusations against any of your fellow editors in future without very strong evidence to back it up. Such accusations made without such evidence are poisonous to collegial editing, and could well lead to a curtailment of your editing priviledges if made again in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article had problems, I never denied that. I wasn't attempting to "guard" it against anything except for outright destruction - such as removal of credits which were (are) well-documented by RS-compliant sources under false claims that the subject was not mentioned in the articles, that legitimate news sources were "blogs run by his friends", or that scheduled events were "open mic". There was also an issue with the title and genre of a work being continuously removed despite being clearly in the already cited article. Anything I've recently reinstated that was RS-questionable had been approved by an administrator (and I'm glad the video issue has been since cleared up). If you notice, I've actually thanked editors who helped remove the peacock language (and I'm also glad that I've become more informed of policies in the process). I'm not looking to make the article into a fansite - just informative and definitive of the subject and his works. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, to everyone, a point of view is not a conflict of interest. If you and disagree, we have different points of view, we don't suddenly have a conflict of interest that lets you claim that I shouldn't be allowed to edit what you are working on. That's patently insane. The editors who have a clear COI shouldn't be the ones claiming that others have them and deciding who should and should not be allowed to edit the articles where they have a clear conflict. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rickey it was your suggestion to have somebody other then you talk to him. Why is that so bad? I am telling you over and over what he has done wrong. He accused somebody of being a sock, the person he accused told him point blank who he was. He came to him in good faith only to be ignored! Xtain1313 is connected to alot of the articles he is editing. Once Xtian1313 was proven not to be a sock, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz then decides to edit his article? Vendetta? COI?

I know I am not saying what you want to hear.69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Xtian1313 editing article he is connected is the definition of COI. People disagreeing with him aren't a concern, he is, but I honestly don't care at all about that. You've made your suggestion. Let's see if anyone else is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what the IP seems to be saying. The "he" appears to refer to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz rather than Xtian1313 (who has not edited articles connected to himself). I appreciate your involvement in this debate. Granny Bebeb (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Short response

A holiday is coming, the kids are just about out of school for the summer, and I'm scheduled to go on vacation in a day or so, so you won't hear much from me for a while. But a few things need to be said.

When Xtian1313 says he's been "advised" about where I edit from, and using that "advice" to smear me as a stalker, he's demonstrating his own bad character. But that's the way he's operated steadily. People don't edit the way he likes have mysterious COIs, now I have an unexplained stalker agenda. I sent Ricky81862 an email a few days ago, before Xtian posted his little fantasy, over a matter I didn't want to air publicly; if it's still in his email account, and he can access the headers, it will geolocate back to somewhere that's Nowhere Near LA.

"Granny" is now accusing me of "outing" people. "Outing" refers to exposing people's real life identities. It doesn't mean going to the official Clint Catalyst fan site and discovering that two screen names editing here and claiming to be unaffiliated with Catalyst or each other are actually well known to each other and are active in online promotion of Clint Catalyst, to the point of encouraging others to stack votes to help him win online pols, contests, etc. No real-life identities exposed. Just on-Misplaced Pages deceptions.

The big bad Wolfowitz will be back after his vacation, untanned, rested, and probably unready. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So both of us being fans equals 'deception'? As I've said, I have never met Catalyst (or Tallulah13 outside the groups, for that matter). Neither one of us told the other to come here. Most people who are fans of someone would want to help them earn votes in a contest such as BigShotLive, which Catalyst himself posted bulletins promoting. I have not made promotional edits to Misplaced Pages. Regardless of how you define outing, I linked to the incident in the mention. I do not appreciate having my identity brought out like that, and it proved nothing except that you have been researching me. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am on here from an IP today, I formerly edited under the name Tallulah13, I am on here to say one last thing fro the record...

The big bad wolfowitz is an ass-hat! And I NEVER, EVER claimed to be 'unaffiliated with Catalyst'. I have met him ONCE in my entire life. I am a fan and wanted to be able to help contribute to an article that I was interested in. If having met him ONCE makes me have a COI, so be it. I am no longer editing the Catalyst article or ANYTHING else on Misplaced Pages. Have a nice life & please leave me out of your discussions from here on out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.114.137 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

202.178.112.21 - open proxy

202.178.112.21 (talk · contribs) is evidently an open proxy unblocked in January - block log says " unblocked "202.178.112.21 (talk)" ‎ (Clearing autoblock of Pisethforever: Only port 5190 is open and inaccessible.)". We are getting vandalism from this address still and I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a shared proxy for one of the main ISPs in Cambodia, and doesn't appear to be open at this time. I would just anonblock it if you think the vandalism's overwhelming. -- zzuuzz 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll take another look at the contributions. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User space redirecting/moved to article space

I'm not sure exactly the best way to unwind this or deal with the user, so I thought this would be the best venue to get some help. User:Trance0175 has redirected their user page to an article, The Beat Live, and has moved their user talk page to the talk page for the article. As a result, the article talk page is now filled with welcome to WP messages, image rationale tags, and speedy deletion messages. I'm assuming there's a CoI problem here, but it seems larger than that. Mlaffs (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved talk page back (supressed redirect), blanked the CNR from the userpage. No comment on the other issues. Thanks for pointing this out. –xeno 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs, it's not uncommon that editors accidentally move their talk page along with the article they developed on their userpage. That's where the redirect came from. Amalthea 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that page move in the article history. That's disappointingly suspicious of me ... Mlaffs (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (ignoring the potential notability issues with the article), the user has uploaded File:Thebeatlivenew.jpg and File:TheBeatID.jpg with two different licenses (both are free but still). Someone should try to explain the difference and make sure the uploader is actually the copyright holder (then it's COI concerns). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate!

Request relating to a block

Getting right to it... EyeSerene blocked user 1027E for a week for numerous reasons; the block was upheld by FisherQueen after a review. Following this, DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. Due to a history of support between DGG, 1027E, and the article 1027E primarily edits (and which DGG subsequently placed under full protection), it looks to me that DGG wasn't the most impartial admin to have stepped in like this. Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this and either uphold or reinstate the block on 1027E if he/she so chooses?  Mbinebri  23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not intervene to remove a block. I commented to the blocking administrator that the length of the block was an over-reaction. I shortened it at the suggestion of the blocking administrator to the length xe suggested. . Ditto about the full protection. Not my idea, though a good one. I distrust both parties objectivity in editing about equally, though one knows more about our practices than the other; I have no intention of judging between them, nor of intervening further, and have asked Hoary to refrain similarly. I would however regard a reblock as inappropriate. The edit war has stopped, and that's the purpose of blocking. I have notified EyeSerene, but he's in a very different time zone. DGG (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the block extended well beyond edit warring, as EyeSerene's reason for the block fully explained. If you choose not to see that, you choose not to see that. I came here only to ask for an outside opinion.  Mbinebri  00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread mentioned by EyeSerene is now archived here. The sock case about 1027E is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1027E/Archive. There was also User talk:Jpgordon#Errol Sawyer Article, where 1027E was alleging racism by other editors. (Always a winning strategy here on Misplaced Pages). Article was the subject of a COI complaint in January. Was deleted by WP:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer. Userfied as User:1027E/Errol Sawyer by DGG on 27 February. Probably restored to main space on 20 April with DGG's help.

1027E has had some trouble coming up the learning curve w.r.t. Misplaced Pages policy. Some fairly sharp debate regarding COI occurred in this section of Talk:Christie Brinkley, involving an editor named Efsawyer, who also made charges of racial bias by other editors. We know that Efsawyer claimed on Talk to be the real Errol Sawyer and there has been a suggestion on Talk that 1027E is a relative. I think it is reasonable to assume that 1027E is a COI-affected editor regarding the Errol Sawyer article so we should maintain our usual alertness re any promotional editing. I don't object to DGG's shortening this block to 24 hours but the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, after getting many months of policy explanation. The problems with this editor are probably not over. I think a topic ban from the article should be considered if this continues. The Errol Sawyer article I think is now in reasonable shape and if 1027E would just leave it alone, it might be fine. We could certainly get along without the constant turmoil on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ed that a topic ban should be considered if necessary--and probably of Mbinebri also. Actually, I think a short block earlier would have been helpful in preventing it getting to the present state-- in a sense it is our general fault as admins that we didn't intervene earlier. I will say that this editor has caused me and others a remarkable amount of trouble--I find it no easier to explain things to the ed. than anyone else here. DGG (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no misgivings about the reduced block and article locking - I think DGG has nailed it when he says that admin intervention should probably have come sooner, but we have to deal with the situation as it is and a week was harsh for a first shot across the bows. I've left a frankly-worded note on 1027's talk page in response to their latest comment (which doesn't appear to be promising much, as far as I can parse it); I believe that unless they start to demonstrate some clue fairly rapidly, a topic-ban should be the minimum response. EyeSerene 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. I said that DGG understated the issues and I do not retract this. However, this comment of mine was about a comment of his. I didn't question, and don't question, his shortening of the block. DGG neither acted nor wrote as I would have done, but this fact seems very humdrum and doesn't trouble me at all. I don't at all want to criticize DGG, with whom I'm in considerable agreement. -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find the right forum for a discussion

I don't want to resolve an issue here, I just want advice on where to discuss it so that a definitive resolution can be reached. Let me sketch the issue: The National Institutes of Health have funded a project to form a neuroinformatics database -- we have articles about the project, NeuroLex and Neuroscience Information Framework. Part of their mandate is to link the database together with Misplaced Pages. After a slightly rocky start because the people involved were not very familiar with Misplaced Pages, this issue was discussed extensively at WT:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, and the outcome was that the best approach is to put links to the database into various infoboxes. The people associated with the project, mainly Jgrethe (talk · contribs) and Nifcurator (talk · contribs), have been energetically proceeding with the plan. Now, however, Arcadian (talk · contribs) is objecting that the added links violate WP:EL, and saying that this should have been discussed at WT:EL. I don't think any of us objects to further discussion, but it's not desirable to have to keep discussing this over and over again, and it isn't clear to me that WT:EL is really the right place -- in fact I've never even looked at that page and don't know whether the people who contribute there are reflective of the community. So the question is, where to have a decisive discussion? Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is an accurate summary. Please see the discussion at User talk:Jgrethe#External links, and see firsthand the links that were added. --Arcadian (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest one of the Village Pumps. Depending on how far along the collaboration is, it might be appropriate to lay out the relevant advantages and concerns at the proposals forum.  Skomorokh  09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Misplaced Pages

I have just found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Apparently, the idea is to build a counter-article to any article. So, for biology, we'll have outline of biology. It is unclear what the difference between an "outline" and an encyclopedic article is supposed to be, apparently "outlines" tend to be crappy incomplete lists, sort of a return to how the main article looked in ca. 2003.

The mind simply boggles at just how bad an idea this is. This needs to be moved out of main namespace asap. Inasmuch as it can be considered an indexing effort, it may have room in Contents: namespace, but most of it appears to be just WP:CFORK on a monumental scale. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for administrator intervention here. If you have a problem with the project that cannot be rectified by discussion with its participants, start a Request for Comment or send it to WP:MfD.  Skomorokh  09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that WP:AN is for cases requiring urgent administrator intervention, I'd like to know. --Ghirla 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth comparing more mature examples: Anarchism, Outline of anarchism, {{Anarchism sidebar}}, Category:Anarchism, Portal:Anarchism. There is overlap, but not redundancy.  Skomorokh  11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The scale of this "project" is a catastrophic undermining of Misplaced Pages's core principle of "one article per topic". This is not an "incident" requiring immediate admin intervention, which is why I post it here, not at ANI, but this is certailny a serious enough attack on the project's integrity to be brought to the attention to the admin community. Your "mature example" only drives home the point that we are looking at large-scale WP:CFORK violation. I do not have the resources to deal with this scale of problem single-handedly, we will need many hands in the cleanup effort this entails. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly it is about these types of pages that violate WP:CFORK? That guideline is primarily concerned with the phenomena of POV forking and unintentional duplication, which are not issues here. Outlines, as their etymological past as "List of x topics" indicates, are not articles (i.e. prose), but are structured and annotated lists. I think it would be prudent to make sure that there is consensus that Outlines are problematic before soliciting administrators to remove them. In any case, this discussion ought to be continued at Misplaced Pages:VPP#.22Outlines.22. Regards,  Skomorokh  11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds like a huge misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the outline of knowledge is simply an index that uses articles instead of categories. I don't see any problems here. This over "view" is an effort to make lists useful, and should be encouraged. The end result is that there is more than one way to view a topic. If one thinks of this as a top-level view, it is possible to drill down to the specific article by subtopic without having to traverse category pages. Ideally, these types of pages would be generated on the fly instead of by users; If I wanted to change the presentation of a category from a list, to a subtopic, to an outline, I would just toggle my display somehow, but we're not there yet, so users have to create these views by hand. All these outlines are doing is giving the user the ability to view the contents of top-level topic categories and articles on one page in the form of a glorified list. The category system could be redesigned to do this, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon; I seem to recall Samuel_Wantman hinting at this idea some time ago. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism looks very article like to me. It has a lot to say about what anarchism is, for a start, which will either duplicate or probably more likely disagree with what our Anarchism article (and other articles mentioned in the Outline) says. What is the plan if these start to contradict each other? Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism (which is to say Outline of X) is a fork waiting to happen. Built that way, there is no means to keep the content locked with the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One could say the same about almost any list. Queens of the Stone Age discography (featured) cannot be complete without overlapping significantly with Queens of the Stone Age, which is no objection to its utility.  Skomorokh  13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, lists aren't the same because they're so narrow as to what they can carry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually kind of like this. It's like a central top-level home page for major areas. Or am I misreading it somehow? rootology (C)(T) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's where I get torn, I kinda like the notion behind it. Could this be done through transclusions of article leads or something? Only thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think such articles can be useful, if done properly. Sometimes with complex ideas it helps to have a quick reference. I especially like the simplicity of pages like Outline of dentistry; it is very helpful. I don't see at all how this is a threat to or can damage Misplaced Pages. Kingturtle (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought this was going to be a proposal for a Shadow Misplaced Pages where everyone can espouse truth, write trivia, and as many fict-related child pages as they wanted =] –xeno 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. Typically, an outline is an unfleshed out version of a detailed piece of text and, I presume, that that is the intention of this project. However, we already have a humungous problem with inter-article consistency and creating 'outlines' for every article just raises this problem to a totally unmanageable level.
2. This is a content fork not waiting to happen. One look at Fiction and Outline of Fiction makes that clear. We'll need an army of editors to keep the 'outline' articles at the level of a skeleton.
3. Any project whose stated goal is to provide a fundamental outline of human knowledge is a bad idea to start with. Misplaced Pages thrives on simplicity, not grandiosity.
4. (This one is a bit facetious but I do mean it.) The whole 'Outline of' format is a tad awkward. How would one interpret an article entitled Outline of Human body? As something out of Law and Order?

--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be done with raw text without becoming a harmful subset of forks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP does have "an army of editors" , and an encyclopedia is fundamentally an outline of general knowledge, not a collection of bits and pieces. Whatever we can do to organize it for access is helpful, considering the customary scattered way articles are contributed. Articles like these are a good complete to filling in more of the hugh empty spaces in the encyclopedia, and may even contribute to it. DGG (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was a separate army of editors. Also, I'm not sure what the outline contributes over the main article (the Fiction example above), why it wouldn't be a content fork that is inconsistent with the main article. (Plus the very awkward title issue but that's secondary.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with dbachmann on this; it's massive duplication of navigation/information already handled by portals and articles, not to mention navboxes. These outlines do precisely nothing to assist the reader that is not already being done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, the walls around this garden are particularly high and dissenting opinion is met with derision and scorn, so I wish you the best of luck in trying to do anything about this massive waste of time and effort.//roux   19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern about Template:List resources. I'm pretty sure we try to avoid having templates that mix between projectspace and articlespace like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the portal namespace. I don't see any mix with the project namespace in that template. This issue has only been addressed in the use of the see also section. I could only find this as part of the {{Outline generator}}. One quick solution I can see is to move all of the outlines into portal namespace. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Without trying to deny anyone their God-given right to argue this up and down and back and forth forever - Viriditas's proposal is the way forward. It doesn't throw anything away, doesn't result in duplicated articles, and uses the portal space for the exact sort of content the portal space is supposed to be used for. The only hitch is matching them to existing complete portals - but that's an implementational detail, easily fixed by just doing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as massive duplication. I see this as another way to get to the information. Different people have different ways of digesting and visualizing information. Just as MS Windows allows you to use a mouse or a keystroke to do something, the Outlines allow another way for readers to get at the information. Kingturtle (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The one difference being that when MS Windows uses a mouse or a keystroke to do something it gets at the same underlying 'information'. Here, the information is duplicated - with all the accompanying problems that redundancy brings in. If we could automate the creation of outlines from the underlying articles - for example if a request for 'outline of Burma' created the outline from the article Burma on the fly, we wouldn't have this problem. But, in this case, the information is duplicated. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is any indication, it is not an army we need but several venti armies! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one of these the other day, and my concern was the number of redlinks that should forever remain redlinks: Outline of the Netherlands Antilles seems to imply that if the topic had been covered properly, someone would have created Air Force of Netherlands Antilles, Sikhism in Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands Antilles Stock Exchange, and Rail transport in Netherlands Antilles, among others. I can just see the bot request coming up to create millions of useless little stubs to correspond to each of these redlinks, as if the only reason no one had created an article about the extensive rail system we have connecting our five islands is because there wasn't a helpful stub to encourage them.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren using article talk pages for soapboxing and for making personal attacks

User:Digwuren has for a long time abused article talk pages by using them to express his personal opinions and to make personal attacks and other uncivil comments .

I have asked him to stop: , but it did not help, as he only responded with yet another rant: .

is especially outrageous:

A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly accusing other editors of working for the Russian state to censor articles. This is despite the following ArbCom ruling : It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society. WP:DIGWUREN might also be relevant.

Another example :

For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Misplaced Pages would be a good idea. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the same talk page :

Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is despite the warnings at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

I'm really tired of hearing Digwuren's political rants that have nothing to with improving the article itself and of his continous personal attacks. Can someone please give him a warning and make him stop? The subject was already discussed on Tiptoety's talk page, but he said he doesn't have time to look at it. Offliner (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Offliner's complaints, particularly in reference to what he considers "especially outrageous" , if taken in context of this humorous request and similarly humorous response by a Russian editor Illythr who delivered a formal thanks from the Misplaced Pages department of KGB, it is clear that Digwuren's comment was a light hearted expression of his frustration that more isn't done to protect Russian articles from blatant vandalism rather than squabbling over the article Internet operations by Russian secret police. The fact that Offliner should choose to affect offense over this comment says more about his WP:BATTLEGROUND and vexatious approach rather than anything about Digwuren's behavior. --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having some experience with Digwuren a few weeks back at some Baltic pages, I found him to be highly contentious and abrasive. He's not here to build the encyclopedia, but to fight Russians. That said, there are plenty of Russians who appear to be here only to fight Digwuren. A bad situation all around, but not one limited solely to Digwuren so much as the likes of Digwuren, and such editors are pervasive. Outside of massive topic bans, or mass blocking a large number of nationalist POV SPA's, I really don't see any value in singling out Digwuren, even though banning him would be a net positive to the 'pedia. As admins, there is really very little we can do here unless a *ahem* cabal of us all go over to the related pages and start a highly active mass enforcement of the various arbcom decisions related to this area (some of which directly name Digwuren). Since we *ahem* don't have enough admins to carry out tasks like this, taking any kind of concerted action is probably futile without a broader mandate from Arbcom. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears contention that this is some kind of battle against Russians is wholly false, a total red herring which is unhelpful. Offliner is from Finland and PassportUsername admits he is not Russian. Hiberniantears previously crossed paths with Digwuren when Hiberniantears single handedly caused much disruption to a stable article when he unilaterally moved and split, himself admitting against talkpage consensus and policy, then used his admin tools to perma-protected resulting re-direct. Hiberniantears own behaviour has been less that exemplary during this, eventually resulting in an apology. In the end the mess caused by Hiberniantears was cleaned up by another admin (who btw is Russian), who moved the article back to the original title. So I don't think Hiberniantears' viewpoint is impartial. --Martintg (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I think there are plenty of Russian editors who are also a problem here. You, however, represent another editor that falls into the mold of Digwuren. There are numerous editors having a well reasoned debate on historical issues, but there are also numerous editors trying to score political points, some are Russian, or Estonian, or Latvian, or Lithuanian, or any number of other things... even Australian. The apology was to Peters, who turned out to be pretty reasonable, despite my initially viewing him as just an SPA. My impression of Martintg and Digwuren, however, remains unchanges, and unfavorable. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem might be Digwuren. I'm not even Russian (though I have some connections to the country), and only a month after having joined I had the pleasure of Digwuren repeatedly making personal attacks, following around my edits, and conspiring to brand me as a sockpuppet. I note that the vast majority of his contributions are anti-Russian (his latest article, for instance, just happens to be a three-liner taken from a news story about an apprehended Russian criminal). He has just returned several months ago after already having been banned for a year–a decision taking into account his advocacy and soapboxing, though primarily based on his general belligerence towards others; he does not appear to have benefited from the experience all that much. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or anti-Russian in his latest article (and in his articles in general). Russia does have some criminals, many, in fact, so what? There are other venues (like AfD) to address this issue if you think it is not encyclopedic, but in my opinion it is. After all, that one seems to be very prominent according to many sources. E.g. I may not like (to put it mildly) the pro-communist undertones in the content you create, but I certainly don't consider it a bannable offense. And I don't wish to conspire to brand you as a sockpuppet, but your extensive knowledge of the past conflicts on Misplaced Pages "only a month after having joined" is noticeable and your willingness to inflame them again is not particularly helpful here.

Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PU, the reason you were suspected of being a sock puppet is because 1) your account is new and 2) your edits WERE very similar to that of a confirmed sock of banned user Jacob Peters whose edits you even restored. Digwuren wasn't the only one who got suspicious at first. It happens.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in criminology, a subject of relatively sparse coverage on Misplaced Pages. If you liked Otari Totochiya, you might also appreciate the pages in Category:Crime in Estonia, most of which I happen to have contributed to. I have particularly fond memories of working on Rene Reinmann, but your mileage may vary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody here has been tired of the constant forum-shopping on your part. Bring it to the ArbCom, it will hopefully sort out the mess. Mind, however, that your own behavior, which can also be easily seen as attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground, will also be scrutinized, as WP:DIGWUREN, despite its somewhat misleading name, applies not only to Digwuren, but to all editors; many others from several sides have already deserved an "honorary" mention at the bottom of the arbitration page. Now, back to the facts (oh, wait, it was more than a month ago! You should be really desperate in your crusade), as I understand it, D has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies, he said that the material you strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources. I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, D was most probably right in his opposition to this, and it wasn't D who created a battleground in that particular case. Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. And, Hiberniantears, note that I am Russian, yet D doesn't fight me, probably because I don't fight him. This often helps. Colchicum (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you're a problem, or that everyone in those articles is a problem. I was just trying to point out that, as you note with Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN, the problem extends beyond just one editor, and represents problem editors pushing a variety of POVs. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the first part of the message was addressed to Offliner. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said over at Tiptoety's page this basically looks like Offliner making lots of random unsubstantiated accusations against Digwuren, mischaracterizing his (Digwuren's) edits, having his (Offliner's) friends show up and desperately hoping that something out of all this falsehood sticks. The problem with his contention above include presenting criticism of article text/material/sources as personal attacks, pretending that discussing involvement by security services in Wiki on a talk page of an article about ... involvement by security services in Wiki is "soap-boxing", taking insult at anything that can hardly be construed as such by anyone with a modicum of good faith, and generally wasting editor's valuable time. From the comments above it appears that this is a frequent tactic employed by Offliner - and at a certain point it becomes disruptive.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that pretty much covers it. If you can't attack the edits, attack the editor. And thanks to Colchicum for pointing out this is not about any inter-ethnic conflict, this is about the conduct of individual editors and the creation of battlegrounds (and who started the battlegrounds). PetersV       TALK 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, regarding Offliner's dim view of edits such as this one, I think that humanizing perceptions of "discrimination" and the role of self-perception is a crucial point. For example, on Latvian radio I heard a Russian woman call in to a talk show complaining that she was being discriminated against because her apartment block wouldn't grant her another parking spot for her second Mercedes, that she had already gone to the Russian consulate to lodge a formal complaint. That Offliner uses Digwuren's edit as evidence against him is, frankly, an indication to me that Offliner is not interested in thoughtful considered discussion of that topic. PetersV       TALK 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek; and I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Misplaced Pages pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket, hoping something will stick. Enough is enough. I think this merits an official action - at the very least, a ban on Offliner comments on Digwuren (a form of a wiki restraining order), if not an outright preventative block.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to the general issue, posting anecdotes such as the one just posted above, and the one linked to in that post, is not a proper use of Misplaced Pages . Actually, looking at that talk page, a good deal of it is similarly improper uses of Misplaced Pages by a number of editors of clearly different persuasions. . DGG (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of more block shopping by Offliner. He was warned over vexatious litigation, and recently received a block himself after block shopping somebody else for edit warring. I find Digwuren's talk page comments on topic and informative, nor has he engaged in any personal attacks. Offliner's and UsernamePassport's continued accusations about Diguwuren's personal behavior may in fact constitute a personal attack against Digwuren, if not harrassment. I would support a preventative block on Offliner to stop this combative WP:FORUMSHOP against his perceived content opponents. --Martintg (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that is Offliner who suspects other editors of being paid agents: . Biophys (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I analyzed the behavior of Digwuren and Offliner, and I think Offliner should be blocked for his disruptive behavior. He was blocked for 31 hours on 16 May, but he doesn't seem to learn anything. AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What kind of thing exactly, is it that Offliner "should be blocked for"? PasswordUsername (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Disruption, edit warring, and pushing his POV. He was blocked on 16 May. After returning from the block, his attitude hasn't changed. I just analyzed his edit warring in the bio of Johan Bäckman; such activities are unhealthy for WP. AdjustShift (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
        • He did only two reverts on Johan Bäckman–three if you count changing "found" to "claimed"–on two separate days and hasn't touched the article since May 18. I honestly don't get what "disruption" constitutes here (seeking admin help–ie, shopping–he was told to go here) and I'm honestly puzzled that you apply the epithet of "POV pushing" to one editor if you have examined both user histories. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Digwuren is somewhat disruptive, but so are some of his "opponents". Offliner's edits to Johan Bäckman were not constructive. Yes, he hasn't touched the bio since 18 May, but his edits were not constructive (eg. ). He should have posted something on the talkpage, and try to reach a consensus with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

About the accusations of blockshopping. How can I be blockshopping when the only thing I asked for is that Digwuren be given a warning to stop abusing talk pages? It takes about 30 sec for an admin to do this, and I think there his high probability that it will work. The reason why I'm asking for this is because my own warning did not help. I don't want Digwuren blocked; I only want him to stop this behaviour. Offliner (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing you and Digwuren can do is just walk away and behave. The only thing you'll accomplish here is getting yourself and a number of editors on both sides blocked and/or topic banned. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I said above, I think we should issue a community restraining order - the next time I see this circus back in town I'd like for us to be able to end it once and for all (if we are not going to end it now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User Petri Krohn

I am speaking with experience; Digwuren's first edit on Misplaced Pages was a revert of my contributions. In fact almost all of Digwuren's edits for the first two months were reverts of my edits.

Initially we fought over the Bronze Soldier. The early version of the article was largely created by me. My interest on the subject started a year earlier, when I took the set of photos that initially made up Commons:Category:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.

I gave up on the Bronze Soldier the minute the article left the in the news section of the Main page, and have hardly even opened it sense. Instead I continued my newfound interest in Estonia by creating tens of new articles on Estonian history and independence. All of them in turn became battlegrounds with Digwuren. I tried every trick to combat what I considered his abusive behavior. I reverted his edits, no help, Arguments would fall on deaf ears. I tried forum shopping, no help. I even tried writing to Misplaced Pages:Help desk, no response. I thought that it would be clear to any administrator looking into his edit history, that he is here only to disrupt Misplaced Pages. None of them saw it my way. The only thing that was somewhat successful was tricking him into 3RR. Even that turned detrimental, as his friends were able to (falsely) convince an administrator, that I too was guilty of 3RR. If some administrator ever took action against him, his sweet talk was able to convince them that he did not really mean to do anything wrong.

Digwuren was not acting alone. The Bronze Nights brought to Misplaced Pages a wave of nationalistic editors from Estonia. Later I would refer to this group as Korp! Estonia, in reference to the student nations of the Tartu University, the Alma mater of many members of this group. (Later, on the Finnish Misplaced Pages I read that the Tartu University is the last bastion of Greater Finland irredentism, but unhappily the article did not provide a reference.)

While I was in conflict with him, he did not contribute anything new to Misplaced Pages. He was however utmost skillful in turning any article into what I considered to be nationalistic POV. In wiki terms I considered all his edits to be WP:DE or WP:TE or both. Finally he made his first original contribution to Misplaced Pages, two stubs on the Soviet deportations from Estonia (June deportation, March deportation). At about the same time I made a conscientious decision to distance myself from anything he may be involved with.

My logic was this. If I leave Digwuren and Estonia alone, he will go around and find new “friends”. As I considered him a disruption, I thought he would be more likely to make enemies. At some point, I thought, this would lead to him being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages.

This has not turned out to be the case. He has made numerous new enemies. On the banning front the statistics are different. He and his supporters have come across numerous generations of pro-Russian editors. In the end, it has always been the pro-Russians, that have been permabanned. I believe I can name at least ten Russian editors that have been banned because of opposition to Digwuren and his supporters – and almost an equal number that have left out of simple disgust. The greatest loss to Misplaced Pages was Ghirla, who left, I believe, out of solidarity to me.

I was the first in this long list of fatalities. In WP:DIGWUREN I was banned by the arbitration committee for a year. I never thought the arbitration case would in any way be even related to me, as I had left all areas of conflict long before the case was even opened. I never participated in the deliberations and have never even read the proceedings. I hardly even know why I was banned. What I read from the decision is that I was banned for stating political opinions on article talk pages. In fact I believe I was banned for allegedly doing the same kind of “soapboxing” that Digwuren is accused of doing here.

It is a small miracle that a small country like Estonia can so totally dominate over its far larger neighbor. I seems as if Misplaced Pages has no Russian editors left. Those defending the Russian point-of-view are in fact from other countries. None of the true Russians edit or live in Russia, Australia seems to be a favorite address. The English language Misplaced Pages seems to have a systematic bias. The Estonian regime is aligned with NATO and the West. Most of the English language editors come from those same countries. Meanwhile the Internet is becoming ever more infested by right-wing hate groups. I cannot see how Misplaced Pages could escape this trend.

On Digwuren I can offer you no new advise. As long as he is a member of the community I will limit my contributions to the minimum. Offliner has far better changes. He is writing under an alias. Once he is burnt out and permabanned, he may hope to return some day under a new alias. I am writing under my own name. My good name is too valuable to be wasted in some vain effort to achieve neutrality.

As for Digwuren's future, I do not see the community banning him anytime soon. He may sooner be confronted by Russia's newest agency. I can offer him a friendly piece of advice. If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Misplaced Pages do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Misplaced Pages may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That last paragraph is horrifying. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to remove the implied threat there. //roux   07:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 68.4.53.113

User Talk:68.4.53.113 is persistently adding the text of a court case to Saddleback College. The case is in relation to an appeal by a student of the college against a decision by the college. The IP has been warned several times about adding this text. The issue doesn't seem to fit the definitions at WP:AIV and therefore I have brought the situation here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As it is clearly inappropriate material and disruptive editing by an individual using three IP addresses over a period of one month, I have semi-protected the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed to close RfC.

Hi folks, The RfC at the top of WP:NOT's talk page is still in need of being closed. Comments have basically stopped and we are past the 30 days by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Marcopronto

<transferring to ANI for visibility>

Misplaced Pages:Equality

The idea has been swirling in my head for a very long time on this, and from a variety of bits of feedback over time, and the massive amounts of commentary on-Wiki the past couple of days that somehow we admins are "above the rules", or somehow held to a differing standard than everyone else, I present an utterly simple proposal:

• Misplaced Pages:Equality

Feedback on Misplaced Pages talk:Equality, and thanks. rootology/equality 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User account request

I'm making a request on behalf of User:DAFMM. For a while he has maintained an alternative account, User:HandyTips, for reasons expressed on that account's page. He recently set up another alternative account, User:UniversityofOxford, apparently intending to make a switch from editing under User:DAFMM to editing as User:UniversityofOxford. Another user raised the issue of an inappropriate user name, and according to posts on my talkpage, User:DAFMM has decided to stick with User:DAFMM, and has requested the account User:UniversityofOxford be deleted. Since if User:UniversityofOxford did start making edits it would be swiftly blocked as a violation of user name policy, this seems like a reasonable request. But at the moment I'm unsure where else to put this request, as it doesn't seem to fit with any of the existing pages for dealing with user names and pages. Benea (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't delete accounts. The owner can, however, just walk away from it. If they tag any user pages with {{db-u1}}, someone will delete them. ➲ redvers 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion backlogs

The following categories are getting some major backlogs; any help clearing them out is much appreciated!

• Category:Misplaced Pages files with unknown source
• Category:Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status
• Category:Replaceable non-free use Misplaced Pages files
• Category:Orphaned non-free use Misplaced Pages files
• Category:Disputed non-free Misplaced Pages files
• Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (this one has almost 2,000 files)
• Category:Misplaced Pages files on Wikimedia Commons (and the "same name" subcat)

WP:PUF could also use some attention. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually felt like I was only one working on those specific backlogs, and, now that I don't have a reliable computer, I've seen many people discussing CSD having backlogs. I guess I really was one of the only people working there, haha. When I get my computer back (therefore, have more time), I'll get back on these. hmwithτ 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to do a bit, but there are just way too many files and I just don't have enough time. :( –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help from someone who is also an admin on Commons

Recently, commons:File:Flag of the African Union.svg was deleted as it includes a copyrighted logo, but it ought to be re-uploaded to en.wiki for fair-use in the two articles that link to it (African Union and Flag of the African Union). I've asked for help on Commons to recover the image and re-upload here, but there is no response yet. Thanks in advance for any help here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Any admins not busy, please attend to WP:RFPP. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly significant policy change by Arbcom

I'd like to draw attention to a couple of proposed decisions in upcoming Arbcom cases. Taken together, it appears that the standards for considering admins uninvolved appears to be tightening, to a possible unreasonable standard. The primary decisions in question are at Macedonia 2 - Use of administrator tools in a dispute, Involved administrators, and Uninvolved administrators. The combined effect of these proposed statements, along with sentiments expressed in the Scientology case, indicated a trend towards considering any admin who has made a single edited to a topic (not just an article) or come into contact with a user as "involved".

In my opinion, while I recognize the need for avoiding the appearance of bias, this is an unreasonable standard of involvement. Accusations of admins acting out of bias through prior involvement are already rampant; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon (in which it is argued that an admin who issued a warning is now ineligible to enact a block on that user) for a clear example. Tightening the standards of involvement to this level will only increase the wikilawyering that already goes on in these situations. Moreover, in volatile subject areas, such nationalist disputes, which already see little admin attention, this will only serve to reduce the number of active admins by disqualifying them from using their tools. We will also see fewer subject matter experts working in these fields as new admins; we can't expect a new user with expertise to build a wiki-career worthy of adminship without editing their preferred topic.

All in all, I feel that this is a damaging precedent that is in danger of being set. There has to be some room for common sense in considering whether or not an admin is "involved". I invite wider community attention to the issue. // Chris 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not set policy; neither have the standards of administrative conduct which it imposes for the purpose of considering desysoppings been substantively altered. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Uninvolved_administrators prescribes standards of involvement for the highly limited purpose of future arbitration enforcement related to a specific heated content dispute, and should not extend its purview into other areas or functions. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Involved_administrators simply articulates the rather unremarkable proposition that administrative actions which are inappropriate due to involvement in a content dispute do not become appropriate by virtue of the offending administrator immediately posting a request for review. That Mythdon has made a self-serving argument that the issuance of a warning constitutes "involvement" which precludes further administrative action does not imply that the Arbitration Committee, or anyone else with significant influence on Misplaced Pages, accepts this bizarre principle. The standards of "involvement" for the purpose of determing the propriety of administrative acts have remained relatively constant for some time: sysops may not take action

1. against an editor with whom they are currently involved in a direct content dispute
2. against an editor with whom they have been involved in sufficient past content disputes as to impugn their neutrality
3. with respect to subject matter with which they have sufficient current or past editorial involvement as to call their neutrality into question, and in a manner which is likely affect a content dispute (blocking and protection against simple vandalism, BLP violations, etc. is acceptable) Erik9 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We currently have about 4 or 5 different definitions of "involvement" if you sort through policy and active ArbCom findings. Some of the definitions are directly contradictory. This is a problem, since even under the best of circumstances a great deal of wikilawyering tends to accompany this topic. The definitions should be synchronized. MastCell  03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

The WP:UAA board is getting quite backlogged today. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No backlog now. :) Cirt (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page BLP violation

Gabagool has made an unsourced and highly controversial claim concerning a living person, Princess Märtha Louise of Norway, on Talk:Norwegian people . Since I am involved in a dispute with this user, it would be inadvisable to redact the offending portion of Gabagool's comment myself. However, I ask that an uninvolved administrator or other editor remove the WP:BLP violation. Erik9 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG.. well I'll censor myself then: "turned into a wackjob (claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels)" -> "made highly controversial actions, such as claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels". Hope you are pleased with yourself at least, acting like a censoring dictator, trying to make nothing into a big deal. User:Gabagool/sig 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, the entire unsourced and potentially defamatory claim concerning Princess Märtha Louise is unacceptable anywhere on Misplaced Pages; mere removal of the most gratuitously derogatory language is an insufficient remedy. Erik9 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be considered at the BLP noticeboard together with the relevant section of the article on her . DGG (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to edit in any way the biography of the person in question. I don't understand the ultimate goal of what you're trying to do here, the original discussion had nothing to do with that at all. But as I see no point in getting involved with anyone in such pity fights I did censor it away anyways. Again, hope you have reached your goal and are very happy now. User:Gabagool/sig 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I've added a source for the claim ; gratuitously derogatory language concerning living people should be avoided in any case. Erik9 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gabagool, our policy on biographical data about living persons is applicable across all of Misplaced Pages; that means articles, userspace, article talk pages, everywhere. Unsourced and potentially liable or slanderous statements about living people are categorically not allowed. Indeed, negative information about a living person must be even more impeccably sourced than any other information on Misplaced Pages, due to the project's global reach and the potential for negative and damaging publicity. That is what makes your statements a big deal, whether you see it as 'nothing' or not. It is not 'censorship', it is a recognition that in a venue as public as Misplaced Pages we have a duty to people to not publish unsourced allegations/opinions about them. //roux   03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards