Misplaced Pages

Nguyen Review on Quackwatch

Shell, could you offer some help in a 6 day edit war over the addition of this statement "Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy." to the Nguyen review in the Site Review section of the Quackwatch[REDACTED] article? The statement was derived from this statement "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." in the Nguyen review of the Quackwatch site which appears in the Consultant Pharmacist (American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. ). Quackguru has been reverting it for 6 days now with various reasons. Here is the last revert He is now claiming that Nguyen's view that peer-review would improve the Quackwatch site is a tiny minority view and therefore should not be in the article, as per WP:Weight. Can you give some guidance in this matter of WP:Weight if you have time? Here is the section on the talk page: Talk:Quackwatch#Nguyen_Review. I would appreciate any help you can give in this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 08:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you on this and other disputes with this same small group of people is to get more editors involved somehow. It should be pretty obvious by now that QuackGuru tends to be on the polar opposite of yourself and Levine; there's nothing wrong with that, but it does make it difficult for you guys to work out your differences into some kind of compromise.

After looking at the history of Quackwatch it does appear that QuackGuru is edit warring; I'm a bit concerned though that we've got anons popping up again and its a bigger concern that they always seem to pop up just in time to make it look like QuackGuru is the only one edit warring. I guess I'm going to have to ask a checkuser to flush the bin once and for all. Let me do some investigating and then I'll see if I can't wade in there too. Shell 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please check all the IPs for sockpuppets. The new IPs are making changes both ways. 86.146.119.24, 86.134.240.225 86.146.119.24 are all supporting Quackguru's reverts, In fact QuackGuru came to the defense of this IP, uncharacteristic of someone who is usually accusing all IPs of being sockpuppets). These IPs seem to have some personal vendetta and prior knowledge based on the remarks on their edit summmaries. The other IPs,166.205.131.73 69.234.129.52 support my Nguyen review changes. I would welcome a sockpuppet check.

To be honest, I don't like protecting a page like this against IPs, because they are usually the only new editors - but unfortunately, most of them don't go to the talk page to discuss their edits. A lot of them really are fly-by editors. 70.71.22.45 seems to an exception and has learned to participate in the talk discussions; but I wish he would register because, as I've told him, people (like me) just don't remember IP numbers. --stmrlbs|talk 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.174.126.62

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.174.185.155

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.154.164.246

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.173.111.155

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.173.129.141

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.174.109.187

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/32.133.106.62

The editor Stmrlbs welcomes an IP check. Here is a list of IP socks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell, please check these IPs against both me AND Quackguru. The IPs he just posted mysteriously appeared in a past discussion, then Quackguru used accusations of sockpuppetry to drive the discussion away from the content, as he is now doing at the Quackwatch page . He is now also making accusations on his User Talk Page This is a pattern of QuackGuru's. the rest of the section where QG accuses everyone who doesn't share his POV of being sockpuppets. Another example Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_30#Mysterious_IP_reverts. Then QuackGuru files an "incident" without notifying anyone, slapped sockpuppet templates saying that these IPs were suspected sockpuppets of me: , again without telling anyone - and I see he has done it again: . Nor did he mention in the incident report that he repeated vandalized Levine's user page twice, and replaced it with a big Sockpuppet accusation, even though QuackGuru had filed no WP:SPI report. When he was told to take it to the sockpuppet board, both at the admin board, and on the chiropractic pages - he never did - said it was "stale".

So, imo, this is just a tactic QuackGuru uses to harass other editors and to try to drive them away. I also think it is an interesting coincidence that these IPs seem to pop up when QuackGuru wishes to try to discredit other editors. So, I would appreciate a checkuser on these additional IPs QuackGuru posted for BOTH me and QuackGuru.

I would also like to know if QuackGuru's habit of slapping "suspected sockpuppet" templates on IPs without notifying the Users he is accusing is against Misplaced Pages policy? Thanks for your time in this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly I've been tempted several times to comment on the talk page that both of these editors should be taken out behind the outhouse and given a good spanking. They have both been editing warring. There are no innocent parties here.

As to IPs, yes, they all need to be checked, especially 70.71.22.45 and two other related IPs from the same region:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/24.68.247.69
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/96.48.249.100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/75.157.217.64 (added later)

They are all three four likely IP socks of the same user who refuses to use his registered username. Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. No innocent parties here. BullRangifer, since you've opened the door by insinuating that the 2 IPs are socks of 70.71.22.45 ("the same user who refuses to use his registered username"), I would like to say that BullRangifer also uses this tactic of accusing other editors who do not share his POV - both registered users and IPs - to bait and disrupt article talk page conversations . I am not the only person that has gotten after him for this: 106 Personal attacks (2nd section named Personal Attacks). Like I said, this is a strategy used by both QuackGuru and BullRangifer to divert conversation from content to discrediting other editors who don't share your POV - and they often use each other's accusations to bolster their own. I am sick of it. So, please feel free to check my IP now and forever more, because I have never used a sockpuppet. I have no problem saying what I need to say under my own handle. --stmrlbs|talk 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A diversionary ad hom attack won't help you here. It is perfectly proper to point out when socks are operating, and those IPs have been a problem, regardless of their POV. Editors should use their log-in when they have it, and they shouldn't use multiple IPs when editing. By logging in it makes no difference how many IPs they use because everything is registered to the same username. That avoids violation of a fundamental policy here. It is forbidden to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. All of an individual's edits should be attributable to the same username. Only under certain circumstances are multiple usernames allowed, and editing the same articles using different anonymous IPs isn't cool at all. What I have written is not a personal attack, but an attempt to get an editor to abide by our policies. Because these articles are covered by special ArbCom sanctions, Shell or any other admin can impose topic bans, blocks, require a user to use their log-in, or whatever is necessary to prevent disruption. Something needs to be done. I agree with you that a CU should be performed on all the editors in this matter, both IPs and registered users. There has been too much socking, meatpuppetry and tag-teaming going on. That's why I've been staying away from the subjects most of the time lately. It's a hornets' nest.

This latest edit war of yours is really a pain, especially since it's all been done and settled long ago. That you don't like the result shouldn't be our problem, but you insist on messing up a pretty well written section by going back to old matters that were reasonably well done. That's classic disruption and stonewalling. That QG plays his IDONTHEARIT game where he repeats himself is doubly irritating, all the while fighting alone against a group who tag teams him. Believe me, many share his POV, but abhor his methods. He's probably frustrated that I and many other editors don't help him, but his manner of editing irritates me, so he'll have to go it alone, even though it means that fringe POV pushers get the upperhand in their efforts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, and whitewash chiropractic. That his efforts sometimes border on whitewashing Barrett and Quackwatch doesn't help matters. Both sides engage in the same offensive actions, just in different ways. Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, how dare I edit a Misplaced Pages article when the ruling group of editors have decided it is perfect the way it is! I'm sorry, I guess I didn't read that part of Misplaced Pages policy.

Since you brought up Tag Teaming, here is a classic example that I will never forget. I started a new section discussing 3rd party opinions on the Board Certification issue, and one day the discussion is there, and going on, and the next day Poof! gone! courtesy of QuackGuru . I tried to restore it . Then BullRangifer archives the whole discussion again Decision supported by the team (which evidently I wasn't a part of since I wasn't asked how I felt about it.) Actually.. it was so outrageous, it was kind of funny.

But enough of the fond memories. I hope that Shell will continue with the CheckUser requests, and clear up the sockpuppet accusations. --stmrlbs|talk 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Working on this guys; its in my sandbox for right now while I dive in to the different IPs a bit. Shell 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shell. I really appreciate it. Can you answer my question about the proper procedure for templating suspected sockpuppets? Is it proper procedure for QuackGuru to plaster these IPs with "suspected sockpuppet of stmrlbs" (me)? He did this in the past without ever filing a report, and I see he has done it again. I just want to know what the proper procedure is for this. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that in all the noise. No, that's not appropriate and I'm fairly certain he's been told that before. I've reverted those recent tags and left a warning. Shell 02:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. QuackGuru also did the same thing to Levine2112 at the same time he did this to me last time. --stmrlbs|talk 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion for more editors to get involved... I tried, and found that when things didn't go QuackGuru's way, he began to shuffle around the comments, using a totally deceptive edit summary, which I found to be unethical and manipulative, recasting the entire conversation in a different light, an assessment another editor agreed with. I tried to revert this nonsense a few times, only to find Ronz suddenly rabidly attacking me for it, demanding I apologize for insulting the great QuackGuru. I've decided the page isn't worth fighting over, QuackGuru's OWN issues are completely repulsive to a new editor, in both senses of the word. I'd also like permission to email you regarding another related matter. ThuranX (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"only to find Ronz suddenly rabidly attacking me for it, demanding I apologize for insulting the great QuackGuru" I have to point out that someone was doing some attacking, but ThuranX appears to be confused as to who. Further, I don't recall anyone asking for an apology either. More confusion, I'm sure. Nothing some basic adherence to WP:CIVIL wouldn't have settled and resolved long, long ago. But this is the editing of Quackwatch, so editors have to make sure that the regular disruptive editing environment continues. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

a side note

I just wanted to make a note of something I was thinking about in one of the edit summary of 86.146.119.24: here where 86.146.119.24 reverts my version of Nguyen's review back to QuackGuru's version - the comment is "(undo vandalism by 2 well known fringe pov pushers)". I've only been editing regularly since April 2009, and have only edited on a few articles, some about alternative medicine, some not. So, for this IP to make this remark, they must be familiar with the edits that I do on these few articles. The alternative articles that I've participated on aren't exactly high profile. The Quackwatch and Barrett articles have very low view counts. I've done some editing on Colloidal silver which has twice as many people looking at it as the Quackwatch/Barret articles - but it is usually pretty quiet with only about 3 regulars - 2 of them admins.. So, Quackwatch/Barrett, Colloidal Silver, and Chiropractic are it for the "fringe" articles in my editing history. I have also edited "Blood type diet" in the past, but added criticism of the theory for that article. So, I wouldn't be considered a "fringe POV pusher" by the regulars on that article. I would think this indicates a strong possibility of 86.146.119.24 being or knowing one of the regulars on the Quackwatch/Barrett, Chiropractic articles.
Of course, there is the possibility that I've become so well known in a few months that even fly by IPs are familiar with my "fame". (But I think the probability of that is minute) --stmrlbs|talk 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If the edits had a different POV, I would have suspected Macromonkey of making them, as they resolve to the same area, but obviously there are other people living there. It might be a good idea to add that IP to your CU list. Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never interacted with a "Macromonkey". And, like you said, wrong POV. --stmrlbs|talk 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that one was already on there and I actually did note the use of "fringe POV pushers" since that's clearly not something an anon or new user would ever say. Shell 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clocking in

Shell, I was away all weekend. I just got back and I am trying to catch up here (but at the same time trying to catch up in RL). Looks like you're off to a good start. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance here. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I an very concerned about QuackGuru going around dropping "suspected sock puppet" banners on several IP talk pages such as this one: User_talk:76.222.232.146. QuackGuru claims to provide "evidence" on his own talk page, but it is very weak, maniputalively written and chock full of false accusations and bad faith assumptions. The fact that he has an IP editor (or multiple IP editors) reverting many of his edits speaks more to the low quality and biased nature of his edits than it does sockpuppetry. I am grateful that there are others out there who revert his bad edits when he makes them. Typically, I encourage these editors (or any IP editor I see) to sign up for a proper account 1) because I would like them to join Misplaced Pages and contribute in a manner beyond blind reverts under the anonymity of an IP, 2) to share their thoughts on the discussion pages and 3) if you check my history, you will see that I am a one-man welcome wagon machine (I've probably welcomed hundreds if not thousands of new IP editors to Misplaced Pages). Anyhow, I attest that I am not any of these IP addresses listed on QuackGuru's talk page or in your sandbox, I have no sockpuppet IP addresses nor Misplaced Pages accounts, and the few times which I've ever edited from my IP address (twice that I can think of a few years back) was done purely on accident and with much regret because it resulted in editors trying to geolocate and stalk me. QuackGuru has been warned about placing these labels on user pages before, but that didn't stop him from doing it again and I resent that he considers his twisted "evidence" to be proof of any wrongdoing on my part. He has done this in the past several times in an attempt to besmirch my reputation, even going so far as edit warring to blank my user page . His incivility toward me is beyond reproach. Given his behavior and attitude toward editors such as myself, I wouldn't even put it past him to be sockpuppeteering these IPs and edit warring with himself in an attempt to implicate me in the Misplaced Pages equivilent of a joe job. Again, I have no sockpuppets (IPs or proper accounts) and I am embittered that I even have to spend time defending myself against accusations lodged by such an uncivil and vindictive editor. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided evidence to an univolved admin that the IP 76.222.232.146 points directly to Levine2112. Levine2112 is very concerned alright. He is concerned he will be indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've now taken to canvassing, searching for an admin who will actually believe your twisted lies about me. Well, I've got nothing more to say except that I look forward to seeing how this works out for you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you admit to your IP socking before it is too late. If you apologise now it may not be too late. But that would be up to uninvolved admins to decide. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, stop. Just stop. Your evidence is flimsy at best for the majority of those IPs; its simply not possible to build a cohesive case based on a single edit. I understand that revert wars are incredibly frustrating, however, the way to fix this is to stop participating in them rather than try to make people who don't agree with you look bad. Shell 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

207.215.246.46 69.234.129.52 76.222.232.146 According to Whois these set of IPs match. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/207.215.246.46

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/69.234.129.52

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/76.222.232.146

According to another IP check the IPs match. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked another IP. 166.191.166.100 Does the IP 166.191.166.100 match the other IPs in Los Angeles, CA. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/32.174.126.62

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/32.173.111.155

How about these. Do any of these match the other IPs from Los Angeles, CA. QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Report done

Located here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chiropractic. Shell 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I'm a little confused about this. It is only the initial report that is done, right? I don't see my name. So, is someone else running the IPs against all the Users now? ... and people commenting at the same time? Does what is run depend on the comments? --stmrlbs|talk 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, that is the report with no conclusions yet. There are several parts; the first lists all concerned/possibly involved, the second is my comments on why I believe there may be sockpuppetry involved, the third is any comments from involved parties, fourth comments from others who might want to discuss the situation and finally a request for an actual checkuser (which is the part where IPs are checked against accounts). You are listed in the first section, but I did not mention you in the checkuser section since I have yet to see or find strong evidence that you were editing logged out to edit war or skew discussion. I believe the IPs that QuackGuru tagged as possible sockpuppets of you were all in that 32.x.x.x range but for a variety of reasons, including the fact that these IPs often made only a single edit each, I don't believe a checkuser of that range will be terribly helpful at this time. The clerk asked me to clarify which editors should be run against which IPs to avoid just fishing around; those comments and now the endorsement of the clerk do affect what is run. It may take a bit to get the actual results since its still a lot to ask a checkuser to look through.

As I've indicated (and Bullrangifer also commented) there is fairly strong evidence that range (among others) is being used improperly since there is more than one case where these IPs show up out of the blue when an edit war starts - the IPs all show evidence of understanding odd Misplaced Pages terms and only support a single POV. So whether or not all of the IPs specifically match-up with an editor, it seems obvious to me that someone is, at least, notifying people to come revert articles when they don't agree with the changes being made. This is just as serious a problem since it allows edit wars to continue past when folks would have been blocked for 3RR and the community considers those kinds of attempts to skew consensus to be disruptive.

You are welcome to comment in the "Comments by accused parties" section and add any evidence or thoughts you might have on the situation. If at all possible, its best to keep things brief and avoid arguments, though of course you are welcome to answer any claims made against you. There is some guidance available here as well. I hope that answers all your questions. If not, feel free to poke me again. Shell 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have plenty to say about the chiropractic and Quackwatch/Barrett pages. I agree with you 500% - no make that 1000% that these pages would be vastly improved with getting more editors on. --stmrlbs|talk 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

slight delay for me

Shell, one of the fans on my old laptop picked this afternoon to kick the can. I had written a draft of my comments this morning on that laptop.. unfortunately, I can't get to them. I am using my son's laptop, but I have to spend some time getting it up to date. I will submit my comments tonight after I write them up again. --stmrlbs|talk 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

added comment on Quackwatch. I will add my comments on chiropractic, to respond in part to BullRangifer, tomorrow. --stmrlbs|talk 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sanctions under Pseudoscience arbitration

Based on the checkuser and other factors, I have enacted some sanctions under the Pseudoscience arbitration. QuackGuru and Levine2112 are both banned from Chiropractic topics and Quackwatch for a term of six months. TheDoctorIsIn and WinrarWinner have been warned that they are limited to one account to use on these topics; any further logging out and editing these topics or discussion pages will result in either a block or ban. None of the other IPs/accounts checked came back with anything of note. Shell 06:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There were newer evidence presented with more IPs but a checkuser was never done with the other IPs presented. QuackGuru (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Levine2112 is already topic banned, I'm not certain that further checking is necessary. However, if you wish to do so and have sufficient evidence, you can open a report specifically for Levine2112 to have those IP addresses checked. Shell 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

After a lot of digging, there is sufficient evidence now and I do believe a checkuser can be done with the same report filed. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how those reports work - I thought you needed to open a new one if you had new evidence/wanted new ips or accounts checked. You're welcome to ask at SPI talk to see how the checkuser clerks want the situation to be handled. Shell 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser was done too soon before editors provided the evidence. If a checkuser is not run soon starting a new report could be rejected as stale. QuackGuru (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't actually have any control over the process. Its not like an arbitration - its not really meant to have people give evidence etc. You're welcome to ask for checkuser where ever you want, I was just trying to help you out with some advice and a suggestion of who might know for sure. Do whatever you want. Shell 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If the check was changed back to endorse then a recheck could be done. QuackGuru (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to do so - your ban would not prohibit you from editing that page, just the articles and their talk pages. Shell 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another admin could disagree with you. For example, I followed the advise of Elonka and continued to comment on user talk pages and then another admin blocked me for following her advise. QuackGuru (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what might have happened in that situation, but you are welcome to point to my comments here as a clarification that your topic ban only relates to editing articles and talk pages of articles that are related to Chiropractic. If you were blocked just for editing the SPI report, you're welcome to drop me a note and I'll resolve the situation (please note that if you are being disruptive on the report, that would be a different case where I couldn't likely intervene). Shell 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this a problem when I reverted an IP making edit. Please read my edit summary. This text was worked on my many editors. According to the reference there was only "showing some preference for the term IM". The IP changed it to "although many chiropractors prefer the term integrated medicine. It was some not many. I read the reference again before I reverted to make sure the text accurately summarized the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, if you'd like to challenge the restrictions placed under ArbCom sanctions, you're welcome to do so at WP:RFAR. Shell 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think it is a problem when I reverted the IP edit to accurately summarize the reference. I don't consider it disruption and you have not explained how it is disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not every edit you've ever made is a problem and I certainly haven't made that claim. Edit-warring is a problem - you aver that your edit was more accurate, the IP thought theirs was more accurate and you two edit warred. Except in cases of simple vandalism, Misplaced Pages doesn't care who's more "right" or more "accurate" - edit warring isn't an acceptable way to resolve content differences. Edit warring is disruption. Shell 09:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This was one of the dates you accused me of being a problem. But I don't see it was a problem. I understand you did not care when my edit was more accuarate and improved the article. I did not know Misplaced Pages does not care who over a long period of time has made many edits that improved chiropractic related articles. So if no one reverted the edit that was not an improvement then how does an editor improve the article. The IP changed the text that changed the meaning. It was not an imporvement. My revert to the long standing consensus is still in the article. I don't think it was a problem when I reverted to maintain the accuracy of the text. I don't think it is reasonable to ban an editor for six months for making making reverts to accurately summarize the text per explained my edit summary. I was not previously imformed that reverting edits such as the IP edit that was WP:OR was disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I knew that it was a problem for reverting such as reverting original research then I would of discussed it on the talk page first and let another editor revert it instead of being banned. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer has also agreed to be checked against the IPs helping QuackGuru on the Quackwatch article. Since this pertains to the original reason for this investigation - the IPs appearing on the Quackwatch article Nguyen dispute - I think it should added in. --stmrlbs|talk 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do so its likely you'll need to open a case on Bullrangifer since checkuser has already been run for the case I opened (which never included Bullrangifer as a party) Can I suggest though that this would be an exercise in futility? Its very unlikely that Bullrangifer uses sockpuppets nor are they generally disruptive in this topic area. I was a bit surprised to see the manner in which you vented your spleen on the case page. Shell 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought BullRangifer agreed here . BullRangifer has been the other regular editor on the Chiropractic article accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and backing up Quackguru's accusations by repeating them, without actually filing any reports. Eubulides doesn't do this - he is the 3rd regular editor on the Chiropractic articles. Eubulides seems to be able to disagree and argue about content without getting personal. --stmrlbs|talk 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge YOU are the only one who has suggested that I might use sockpuppets. There are others who disagree with my POV, but not even Levine2112 has accused me of sockpuppetry, and Levine2112 is the one of all of us who is the most computer savvy. He knows I'm really not very savvy at all. I know some very simple things, but not much more. You seem to think that I'm some sort of computer/internet whiz kid and am devious. I am neither. Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And, you and QuackGuru are the only ones that have accused me of being a sockpuppet. The fact that Levine2112 did not accuse you of sockpuppetry is because Levine2112 tried to keep the arguments focused on content, not personalities.

I never accused you previously of being a sockpuppet previously, in spite of the fact that you have implied that I was Ilena, a Scientologist (which was weird), a sockpuppet, a chiropractor, and working with Levine to control a network of sockpuppets. Imo, and perhaps this is because I am naive about Misplaced Pages, but I do not assume that every IP that appears must be associated with an established editor, especially on a[REDACTED] article with such a high view count, and, as I discovered, an article that has the subject of an article in a Chiropratic publication.
Even with Quackwatch, I thought the IP showing up on Quackwatch was QuackGuru or a friend/sympathizer of QuackGuru's - sympathizer being anyone that follows an article and knows the editors because of this. However, when I noticed the "well known fringe POV pusher" comment in relation to me, I did a search on Misplaced Pages of the use of "fringe POV pusher". To my surprise, I found that QuackGuru does not use that phrase that much, but that you do. Add that to the narrow range of articles, the fact that the Quackwatch article does not have a high IP participation that the Chiropractic article does, and that the phrase "fringe POV pusher" is used only once on the Quackwatch talk pages, so it is a low probabilitiy this would be picked up by an outside IP.

It is circumstantial evidence at best, but it is as much evidence as being a lone editor for a certain POV when there is a surge of IPs. --stmrlbs|talk 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullrangifer certainly did indicate that they had no objection, however, rules of checkuser still apply. Checkusers are not run to "clear" someone as they can't really be interpreted in that way. Since there was no evidence offered or found by myself that would suggest Bullrangifer used sockpuppets or logged out, they were not included. In fact, you (Stmrlbs) were only included as participating in the dispute, but no checkuser was requested for you and no evidence given, for the same reasons. Shell 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I requested that I be run through Checkuser. I thought that this was the purpose of Checkuser - that Checkuser was an automated program to check patterns/networks/logging-in-out. What exactly does Checkuser do, then? Is there some kind of pre-check that is done before running, and why is a pre-check necessary? Was a pre-check run on me? Was I checked at all? --stmrlbs|talk 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the section 1.6 where you explained more about the SPI checkuser process. Thank you for doing that. I've been reading other SPIs - but the format is a little different for this one. There are still some things I'm confused about:

• BullRangifer was listed as a non-participant, yet he submitted more evidence than anyone else under "other people's comments". He submitted his evidence before QuackGuru and before me. Is this the way it is done? Anyone can submit evidence for an SPI under "other people's comments" ?
• You say no evidence was submitted about me, but BullRangifer included me very specifically in his evidence :

1. "IPs behind User:Stmrlbs could also have been involved and should be checked."
2. "except for one SPI from B.C. who always supports Levine2112, and especially functions as User:Stmrlbs's shadow/alter ego, so I have added their locations. I have also bolded the probably related participants:"::::: As a "non-participant", BullRangifer lists more IPs than QuackGuru, and says "Please perform CUs of Levine2112 and Stmrlbs."

Was the evidence submitted by BullRangifer included in this SPI? --stmrlbs|talk 08:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, usually the SPI process is different - arbitration enforcement is a rare case. About your other questions:

• It is my understanding that anyone can give evidence. See for example Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shnitzled where another user added an IP to the report.
• I apologize for missing that. I did not submit any evidence about you nor had I seen evidence that led me to believe you might be operating more than one account so when the clerk requested I clarify who should be checkusered against who, I did not request you be checked.
• Yes. Again since I believe any editor can add evidence, it is "part" of the case. It would really have been preferable that the case not be expanded in this manner as it was already complicated. As I've said, quite repeatedly, if you folks think I missed something and believe a specific user is violating the sockpuppet policy, please go open your own report and handle this the right way. I understand that SPI reports are a confusing and little used area of Misplaced Pages, but piggybacking a variety of complaints on a report I requested for enforcement of arbitration sanctions wasn't the way to go. Especially not after I had the report up in my sandbox for days where anyone could have commented and avoided the need for this now. Shell 08:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I posted about a slight delay when the fan on my laptop broke. I was worried there was a time limit on the SPI, and it took me some time to get my son' old laptop to the point where I could use it. However, if I had known none of the information I submitted about BullRangifer would be considered because he wasn't named in the initial SPI, I wouldn't have bothered "venting my spleen" as you put it. I didn't really notice/think about the "fringe POV pusher" remark until after SPI process had already started, unfortunately.

Well, I will know better next time. --stmrlbs|talk 08:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be considered, however, the checkuser has already been completed for that case which is why I've been trying to explain (for days now) that I believe something more would need to be done in order to request additional checkusers be run. If there is evidence that anyone has been operating multiple accounts, the best way to handle that would be to open a case specifically about that person with the evidence that relates directly to them. If there are any questions about having a checkuser or anything more run on that SPI report, please take it up at the SPI talk page where clerks and patrolling admins who handle that can advise you. I apologize if my comment about "venting your spleen" came off poorly; that wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular but a comment on the wide scope of evidence and some of the bickering that's now on the SPI report. I should have worded that more carefully. Shell 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize what you are saying about submitting another report. I was just explaining why I could not respond to the initial report in a timely manner. I have learned a lot from this, and appreciate you taking the time to explain. I do have one more question. Can I email you? --stmrlbs|talk 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely understandable - someone dumped iced tea in my laptop last week. For some reason, it didn't like that. :D You're welcome to email me either through the Misplaced Pages function, or my email is listed directly on User:Shell_Kinney/Contact Shell 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

one more question about policy - outting during SPI

In the SPI, when I asked BullRangifer about outting Levine2112, he said this:

BTW, I have not outed Levine2112. It has been known for years by many editors that he edited from ---. That's no secret. He has inadvertently edited while logged out and has then signed in. That's not misuse, and can happen to anyone, including myself. Apparently Stmrlbs is the only one who didn't know. Levine2112 doesn't have any security issues becaue he doesn't criticize chiropractors! I have been threatened many times and regularly receive nasty emails or comments on my blog. My family has been threatened and I'm tired of it. That's why it is no one's business where I'm located at any given time. CUs can check my edits and the IPs behind my username at any given time, and they can then check to see if they have been misused. I have never been involved in cheating in a 3rr situation, never stacked votes, never pretended to be two different persons in order to sway a discussion, etc.. Since I have not engaged in such misuse, it wouldn't be necessary to publish where I have been located when editing. That would be unnecessary outing, and editors have been indef banned because they have outed me. My situation is taken very seriously here, for which I am very grateful.

I am going to skip BullRangifer's comments about his security issues. I might still be learning about Misplaced Pages policy, but even I know that BullRangifer's security issues do not give him any right to out other people. But, I do have 2 questions. BullRangifer seems to be saying that

1. BullRangifer had a perfect right to out Levine2112 because Levine2112's address was "no secret/well-known" because Levine2112 inadvertently edited, then logged in and signed the entry. The only editors that would know this would be the editors watchlisting the article, then they would have to use a tool to geolocate the address from this IP address. Only editors tracking Levine2112 and who wanted to know where Levine2112 lived would do this. I don't think this qualifies as making a person's address "no secret" - because the history entries are not searchable or picked up by search engines. You have to be there (with watchlist) Or use a tool that is available to find entries like this for a particular person. It is not something you would come across in a talk page. Again, this would not be common knowledge. I used this tool to check BullRangifer, and he has done the same thing, that Levine2112 has done, so.. can I assume that BullRangifer's location is not a secret and ignore WP:Who?
2. BullRangifer next says that he has a perfect right to out Levine2112 because Levine2112 was named in this SPI. Is that true? Is outting an editor named in an SPI ok? It is not considered outting?

--stmrlbs|talk 09:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand things, any information of a private nature should be emailed to the checkusers rather than posted on wiki. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as outing (linking a pseudonym to a real name) but its the same principle. A slip up with a login is likely considered private where someone publicly declaring where they live or work probably wouldn't be. That said, opening a thread on the noticeboard was the worst way to keep this from getting more attention :( Shell 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Imo, this seemed pretty deliberate, not a slipup. If it had been a slipup, BullRangifer would have said "oops" when it was noticed and deleted it. --stmrlbs|talk 09:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah no, I meant that Levine apparently slipped up once and edited while logged out, not that BullRangifer mentioning it was an accident. I believe that the SPI report has been blanked for the time being. Shell 09:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the incident. Evidently Levine2112 did try to contact the oversight committee, but did not get a response, and that is when he posted this incident. I just want to let you know that what I posted quotes to your explanation of what is private and what is not, because there seems to be a difference of opinion on this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, QuackGuru just resubmitted the chiropractic sockpuppet investigation again, minus your remarks, mine, etc. It is obvious he is just doing this because the SPI was blanked, in an effort to reout Levine2112. --stmrlbs|talk 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not terribly impressed with QuackGuru's decision here, I'd really have to toss away any assumption of good faith to decide that he did so just to out Levine2112. Also, since the thread on the noticeboard seems to have come to the conclusion that mentioning the city wasn't a form of outing, it would be difficult to censor QuackGuru for that behavior. I don't really see the point of another SPI at this time, especially so close to the last one (and I'm not sure what more would be done at this point anyways), but I did tell everyone here that if they had additional evidence about a particular editor, it would probably be best to open a report specifically for that editor. It would be immensely preferable if everyone could disengage for a bit. Shell 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, if this is the case, then anyone can use the IP that is disclosed during an accidental edit to say where a person is located and this isn't outing? So, this information is public and can be used by anyone officially during an SPI investigation? Whatever the case, I think this needs to be made clear in the WP:Outing. At the present time, it is not clear at all --stmrlbs|talk 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know - that would be up to the community in general. It might be worth a discussion at WP:Outing or some other wider community discussion to see what people think. Shell 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

About SPI reports and Checkuser

SPI reports are filed when there is a concern that someone is operating multiple accounts (this includes the use of undisclosed anon IPs); "operating" can mean physically creating more than one account, logging out to avoid getting blocked for edit warring or calling friends to join in edit wars or discussions to support you. Almost always, SPI reports are about a single person; they are listed along with any accounts or IPs that are believed to be operated by them. The one I opened was very rare and only used to check cases where people might be violating ArbCom sanctions.

Now specifically about checkuser. This tool is only one of the bits of evidence used in a sockpuppet case. A few editors with the flag can check personally identifiable information of an editor/IP and thus compare them. This information is only kept on the server for a month or so, meaning that these checks need to be run as soon as possible, or risk the data not being available to compare. The Foundation privacy policy restricts checkusers from giving detailed information and places limits on why and how the checks can be run; details are at Misplaced Pages:CheckUser. Note that checks will not be run to "clear" a person, since the information can't really be used in that manner. You can say "Yes, this account and this account appear to be the same person" but not "No, this person didn't use other accounts".

As I mentioned, this particular case was rare which I believe is one of the reasons for the confusion; I apologize for that. As I've explained above, if you feel there is evidence that a particular editor is abusing multiple accounts, it is very likely that you will need to open your own case. Usually the evidence is considerably longer with many diffs to show the reasons why you believe the editor is using multiple accounts. If anyone would like assistance putting one together, I would be happy to help. Shell 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For all your time and effort in addressing these problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New page development

Hello,

I want to publish a page regarding an Organization and have created a write - up also keeping all the rules and regulations of Wiki in mind. I wanted to get it reviewed and have it published. It would be great if you could assist me.

Waiting for your reply --Peswriter (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty LLC

I ran across the Comics Guaranty LLC page while doing typo patrol, and I couldn't help but notice that it's been semi-protected for over half a year. I am, however, not familiar with the article; is there any reason for it to be still protected? Sophus Bie 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism by a rather persistent banned editor. I'd tried short protections twice before, but the vandal returned shortly after protection was lifted. Since the article is low traffic, I'm hoping we can be more patient than him. :D If you'd like to give a shot at unprotecting, I wouldn't mind - I hate to leave an article in that state any longer than necessary. Shell 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain "breaks the transclution "

I find the sockpuppet investigation extremely hard to edit since I'm down at the bottom. I put the section in so I didn't have to look all the time for my comment within what seems like pages of text and wikicode. How does doing this "break transclution" (what is transclution?)?

boy.. one thing about Misplaced Pages.. it is not user friendly (as far as editing). --stmrlbs|talk 12:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion is when one page appears within another. You're used to this when using templates - you type in some code and the template just shows up. I know its a real pain to wade through all that, but for some reason, using sections will break the main page that shows all the sockpuppet reports. Sorry :( Shell 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'm familiar with transclusion. I thought the other word, transclution was some special[REDACTED] process, because I searched for it on wikipedia, and it appears in quite a few places. :)

Shell, do you remember what the problem was? because I tried a couple of different tranclusions, one of a simple page with sections that I created, and then I tried transcluding this talk page. I don't see any real problem. It puts a horizontal line dividing the main sections.. but actually, that might make a sockpuppet report easier to read. So, if you can remember what the problem is, I can see if I can get it to happen, so I can submit a bug report. To be able to use sections would not only make these reports easier to edit, but minimize errors. --stmrlbs|talk 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, that was just my typo :) Offhand I don't remember exactly what happens - I think it breaks the sectioning of the front page somehow - might try asking on the main talk page to see if you can get better details. It would be helpful for cases like this where so many people are involved. Typically though its just the person being checked and the person being reported - much simpler. Shell 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, it would help. Misplaced Pages is hard enough to edit! Ack! And I am a typo queen. But you can see from what I tried, that even your talk page transcluded fine, as far as I could tell - and it is fairly complex. What main talk page are you talking about when you say to check it to see if I can get better details? Sockpuppet investigations? --stmrlbs|talk 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was thinking the clerks and other folks who watch Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations might have better details (it was a clerk who took out the section breaks the first time with that explanation). Shell 05:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did ask this question on Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations, and you can see the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Why_can.27t_section_headers_be_used_for_SPI. It looks like recent software upgrades have fixed this problem, but it is hard to tell since SPIs are submitted the old way. Imo, the only way to determine if there is a problem is to start submitting SPIs with section headers - not everyone at once, but perhaps a few cases where participants were willing to try this, and clerks were aware this was being tried. Luna Santin said that she/he would be willing to try it out. --stmrlbs|talk 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for sorting that out - maybe this will lead to some format changes to make large reports easier to edit. Shell 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom f/k/a 7thDr block

I strongly disagree with this block. The original rationale, violation of 3RR, was baseless. There were only two reverts. And one of them to deal with vandalism by an obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet with an IP address in Fairfield Iowa. There was no attempt to avoid the 3RR rule, the name change was obvious, and explained to all because the editor got fed up with being mistaken for a male. The "new" rationale for a ban is equally specious. The edits in question were pursuant to a suggestion by a neutral, disinteresed admin, WillBeback, who only got into the case following the refusal of some editors to abide by WP:COI. And the threats and incivility have been all in the other direction. Fladrif (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The original block was for edit warring and personal attacks; saying that other editors did it too is not an excuse to be unblocked. As of yet, 7thDr hasn't even indicated that he understands why the block happened, which leaves me with no choice but to leave the block in place.

When I determined that 7thDr was using another account to avoid the block I investigated further. The second account was not being used properly - if 7thDr would like to use only that account, I'd be happy to reverse the blocks - but one does not use an alt account for participating in a discussion twice, edit warring along with your first account and certainly not to make personal attacks on other editors. After blocking Lotus Blossom, 7thDr continued to evade his block using other sleeper sock accounts. This is a very serious concern now. Shell 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You'll notice that my "attacks" were directed less at the user in question, and more at the attitude the user's userboxes conveyed. It's 2:41 AM here now, but I will be happy to discuss this further tomorrow if desired. Keepscases (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we all need sleep. I will say though that you continue to downplay the attacks (using quotations this time) which is why I can't withdraw my support at this time. If you don't feel there was anything inappropriate in the way you handled the situation then it really leaves me no ground to stand on in opposing the ban. Shell 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still maintain that my comment was based on the userboxes the candidate selected (I believe I said "the userboxes paint a picture of a candidate who is..." or something to that effect). As I've said before, if someone selects userboxes that make him look like a jerk, I don't believe I'm in the wrong to assume he's a jerk. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and thoughtfulness. Keepscases (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely understandable - userboxes can certainly lead you to conclude that someone is a "jerk", my only concern is that you express your conclusions without actually calling them a "jerk". I think the fact that you mention atheism (and said the whole wikiproject shouldn't be admins) instead of focusing on the userboxes may have been what led editors to be concerned that you were targeting a specific group. Anyways, best of luck going forward! Shell 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject will have my blessing if they denounce hateful userboxes; there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, nor is there anything wrong with working on atheism-related articles. Keepscases (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gopal Subramaniam and James Augustus Rooth

Hi Shell, thanks for the histpurges on these. One thing that bugs me though, I believe that you have purged both a bit too far in their history. Both had had the copyvio mostly removed by others but the articles are now credited to me (James) or a bot (Gopal). Is there any way to fix that so that the correct authors are attributed?

Thanks, and sorry for being a pain about this. MLauba (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I could take a look again, but I actually stopped after those two because I noticed the timestamps you gave didn't match up exactly with what I was seeing as timestamps. Is it possible that some setting in options could be showing two different times based on our timezones? The timestamps were close, but if they were actually off by a few hours due to my settings or something, that would explain why you're not seeing as many revisions as you think you should. I'm sorry I forgot to leave a note about this earlier - I did mean to :D Shell 09:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we had already recognized that issue a couple of days back, at WT:COPYCLEAN#Busy, busy... and here comes MLauba with his history purges. I reset my own prefs to UTC following this, but it's indeed a major pain in the backside. MLauba (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah darn, missed that. I set mine back to UTC and was able to fix the two articles. Glad you caught that! Shell 10:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, Shell. I think I may have figured out what you meant in this comment. I've added a clarification, "Supporting a position is not 'derailing'", to my own comment to try to overcome the mistaken appearance: . I hope this succeeds in making my meaning clearer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No actually that's not really it. While the comment came off a bit harsher than I intended, what I was trying to say is that having GoRight and yourself follow Abd around and claim that he's not misbehaving in every dispute resolution discussion about him isn't at all helpful to the process. "Derail" probably isn't a good word there, but I think the spirit is correct. The evidence and comments by you and GoRight would appear credible if they at least acknowledged the community's concerns rather than this constant insistence that nothing Abd has ever done is wrong or disruptive. I'm sure I've done things wrong from time to time and I would hope that folks I'm friendly with on Misplaced Pages would have the courtesy to call me on it, rather than pretend otherwise. Without good feedback, how can we grow?

I guess the bottom line is: Can you honestly look at the times he's encouraged banned users to circumvent their bans or the times he's called everyone "involved" that didn't support his outcome (oddly, those who do support him and meet the same criteria aren't involved) and still say that there is nothing wrong with his behavior? Shell 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've criticized Abd at times, and he's refactored comments in response to my criticisms. I haven't commented on every aspect of Abd's behaviour; that doesn't necessarily mean I approve of things I haven't commented on. I haven't been involved in every dispute resolution discussion about Abd. People with different positions may disagree about what is or isn't helpful to a process. It's mainly the word "derail" that I disagree with.

Abd is complaining about people appearing in multiple discussions and always taking the same sides, and now you're making essentially the same complaint about me and GoRight. Either it's OK for everyone, or it isn't OK for everyone.

I acknowledge that many people have concerns about Abd's behaviour. I realize that Abd has made mistakes and that some things he's done have led to some disruption (although others were involved in the chains of events too).

I'm not aware of any situation where Abd has encouraged a banned user to circumvent their ban. I'm not sure whether I've seen situations where he's called everyone on one side "involved"; if I did, it would require taking time to study the situation in order to figure out whether I agreed with that or not.

I haven't used the word "cabal" myself; I've only argued against those who seemed to me to be making inaccurate or exaggerated statements about Abd's use of the word.

I hope this helps clarify my position. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well crap, I suppose it was my fault for looking only at the behavior of the two named parties and not realizing that everyone there seems to be involved in the underlying Cold Fusion dispute, including yourself. In that case I'll probably add some evidence about the things I'm referring to with regard to banned users and wikilawyering. Must be the summer heat ;) Shell 08:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC

Re your comment at Rlevse's talk, he helicoptered in and started shooting in all directions without first getting up to speed on the case. Just an ordinary day for an arb. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he might have gotten some of the details wrong, but he is right about parties of a case blocking each other. My only concern was the confusion between the ban length and if he meant to say that someone could come along later and change a sanction without talking about it. Doesn't look like that's the case now that he's up to speed. Shell 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re

Responded to your question on my talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I actually didn't quite ask the question that I wanted, but you've answered it in later clarification. Shell 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Amendment

Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the Falun Gong topic ban you imposed. See . ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Shell 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT on species

Hi,

Please don't capitalise specific and infraspecific epithets in the DEFAULTSORTs of taxon articles like this. I don't know where this sudden push to capitalise the first letter of every word in the DEFAULTSORT came from, but it was challenged and removed from WP:CAT a while back; yet people continue pushing it through with AWB. I've just had a long dispute with Rich Farmborough over this; see User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Defaultsorts on species, User talk:Rich Farmbrough#DEFAULTSORT on species again, User talk:Rich Farmbrough#DEFAULTSORT on species AGAIN_2. Please don't make me go through all this again. :-(

Hesperian 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a link to the WP:CAT discussion, it would probably be a good idea to take this to the guys that maintain AWB and get them to change the rule. That way you don't have to wear yourself out running around to tell every AWB user :) Anyways, I appreciate you letting me know AWB was doing something no longer supported by consensus. Shell 08:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William Monahan

Can you please revert the List of works by William Monahan to an earlier version before indef banned editors work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enders Conundrum (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since that article is just a list, I'm not certain why reverting it would be a good idea. Are there items on there that are incorrect? If there's errors, we can certainly fix them. Shell 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Hello. As you know, an admin (KillerChi...) was outed as an admin who has a STRONG POV on the content subject (homeopathy) and therefore not a good "non-involved" admin to be working on the ANI. I welcome you...but I (and anyone who wishes to participate in the Talk or articles pages related to homeopathy) would benefit from knowing what serious "crime" I committed during the short period in July that I participated on wikipedia. Please be specific...and please also consider the several good RS, V, NPOV references that I provided (and for which some editors here have stonewalled). The various wiki editors who accused me of high crimes are all editors who believe that homeopathy is a complete fraud and now even an admin who posed to be neutral has now been shown to be non-neutral. I previously called for a non-involved admin, and you seem to fit the bill. However, because you have not commented at all, it would be beneficial for all involved to have your analysis of "the problem." I would also like your opinion on what can or should be done with admins who pose as non-involved editors but who are found to have strong POV on the content subject. DanaUllman 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern over whether or not KillerChihuahua was a neutral admin was why I offered to close the community discussion. I do not agree that her comment means she has a "STRONG POV" nor do I believe that her reading of the situation was incorrect or biased, however since she participated in the discussion, letting someone else close it was a good idea. After reading the thread, I came to the conclusion that there was strong support for a ban and that while not everyone could agree on what form that ban would take, the general consensus was to attempt a topic ban rather than block you from the site entirely.

Regarding the "crime", as you call it, I believe that was thoroughly discussed both in the related arbitration case and in the thread I referenced when notifying you of the decision. I can see by that discussion that you do not agree your behavior was problematic; clearly a large number of editors disagree as did the Arbitration Committee when it banned you. If you would like to review specific instances, you might want to check the diffs provided in that thread which discussed continued advocacy on your part, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of consensus discussions.

I'm not sure if anyone may have pointed this essay out to you before, but WP:TIGERS might be a good read. A particularly pertinent point is As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Misplaced Pages editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article. - I would add that distorting discussions is also problematic. Because of your strong feelings about homeopathy, you may not realize when your passion crosses the line into disruption, so its especially important that you listen to the feedback you're receiving from other editors. If I can help you with understanding the feedback you're receiving or reviewing any specific situations, I would be happy to do that.

As far as dealing with administrators who you feel have crossed the line to "involved", standard dispute resolution procedures can be used. Typically it starts with discussing your concerns with the admin; if the discussion doesn't resolve your concerns, you can open a request for comment about your concerns to get additional feedback from the community. If the community does not agree that the admin is involved, you've reached the end of the line and will need to find a way to work with them. If the community agrees that the admin is involved, they should recuse themselves from adminstration functions in that area or article. If the admin does not recuse or continues to be problematic after a community discussion that agreed they were involved, arbitration is the last step. These are basically the same steps you would use for any instance in which you have concerns over an editor's behavior.

Hopefully that has helped answer all of your questions - feel free to ask for clarifications or additional questions if you have any other concerns. Shell 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I was "outed"? Dang. That's too funny, especially since my only claim was "I am reasonably uninvolved" (emphasis added). Anyway, I came by to thank you for stepping in and handling this; as I noted on ANI you were a better choice than I. I wasn't overjoyed about being the one to offer to handle it, but at the time no one else was offering. I'm glad someone with no involvement whatsoever was available and willing to step in. Muchas gracias, that was a real headache. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I know how those discussions can get lost in the shuffle after they go on for a while. I'm glad I noticed before another three day discussion started about your close :D Shell 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, you seem quite lovely and quite fair as an admin and meditator, though in this case, I am still confused. I asked you for what "crime" I committed since I have been back (because I am not being blocked for my previous work...but for my involvement since my return). I couldn't help but notice that you didn't refer to any "crime" I committed (I say "crime" because a topic ban is a serious penalty, and it might be good for other editors at the homeopathy article to know what does and does not work. I asked this same question to KillerChihuahua directly at her talk page, but she didn't answer. Because you have made the new decision on my case, it would seem reasonable for me to ask you to answer this. I am glad that you brought up TIGERS because I feel that my Talk contributions sought "fairness" and not one-sidedness. I did the academic thing of bringing up references to the Lancet and to the Cochrane Reports (it is a tad ironic that ALL of the Cochrane Reports that have had "negative" results to homeopathy are actively referenced in the article, and yet, the TWO Cochrane Reports that have had positive results to homeopathy are not discussed OR referenced (the 2nd report was from a 2009 review on the homeopathic treatment of people experiencing side effects from conventional cancer treatment). It is not a mistake that those wiki editors who are one-sided (against homeopathy) have stonewalled and blocked inclusion of these references. I sought to begin with the influenza reference and soon discuss the other one.

I cannot help but sense that you made your decision based on what antagonists to me have said rather than go to the Talk page itself to see what I actually wrote...and how several other editors need to know about TIGERS. I cannot help but sense that these editors feel great that they have successfully topic banned me even though they have shown much one-sidedness.

And yes, I do feel that KillerChichuahua was "outed." Although she asserted herself as one to be "reasonably uninvolved," it is clear by her statement from August 9th (as noted in the ANI) that she has a extremely strong point of view on this subject! Although KillerChichuahua may do great work on[REDACTED] on various subjects and mediations, it seems apparent that she has seriously erred here...and I feel that the final result of your decision got warped in the process. Fairness is important...and I do not feel that I have been treated with that fairness.

So, yes, I do want to bring this issue to the ArbCom and would like some instruction on how to do so.

To be clear with you and others, I am quite jealous of a lot of wiki editors who have much time to do work here. I actually have very limited time to do so. THAT is why I cannot edit other articles...I simply don't have the time. I prefer to edit articles on subjects about which I am already knowledgeable. My academic background and writing history has taught me to be intellectually rigorous...and the fact that so many of my writings have been published in peer-review journals and in respected other sources is evidence of this. Sadly, however, some editors here who have a different POV than mine seek to mute those with a different POV. DanaUllman 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)