Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 19 June 2010

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Ratel

Re: : interesting. A quick skim of that page didn't show any struck-out edits; is there a sock-puppet investigations page for the details? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It was a private request, and it was just a couple of the snowballed "keeps". I'm not even sure why he bothered. --jpgordon 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What were the other accounts and have they also been blocked? Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was User:Unit 5; there weren't any others. --jpgordon 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Misplaced Pages policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Re: comment at Circumcision

Please accept my apology about "put up or shut up", but I hadn't appreciated you were an uninvolved editor nor involved in the investigation about the user concerned. It came soon after a similar comment by an involved editor on the page, who when challenged for making a similar statement had not substantiated his comment. I have had no contact with the user who has now been blocked before a request to contribute to the discussion a week or so ago. What concerns me is that this request cam from an IP within the range that have been identified, but looking at the contributions of that user, the only overlap is with the circumcision article, and there are two IPs where these requests for input come from, so one can reasonably assume they are one and the same user:

• 172.190.204.241
• 172.191.234.191

However, what strikes me as odd is that this IP user also included the user he is supposed to be the sock of in the list of people he requested to contribute. If you look at the user's comment on his own block, he seems completely oblivious of his being blocked for using IPs - but talks about an association with some other user who was not even included in the alleged sockpuppetry. I would be concerned if this user was subject to an investigation without being informed of this. I was not aware of it, and I can find no discussion of this recent investigation on his talk page, so am left wondering by the lack of response to the accusations, which if he was not aware of the procedure, how he could have responded? I have to bow to your experience in these matters, but I am left wondering how far we can be sure all of this is the same user as the one who has been blocked, and not a new user with a similar perspective? During the discussions I did not get the impression that these IP edits were the same individual as the blocked user - but I guess I wasn't looking for that at that time. Mish (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I'm not that thin-skinned; "put up or shut up" is only bothersome when the target has nothing to put up. I explained over on the Circumcision talk page that we're deliberately quite vague about what technical information is available through checkuser. --jpgordon 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I was a UNIX systems admin for ten years, and I was intrigued as to how one could pin a DHCP assigned address to a particular user without having access to the system that assigned the IP address. It would be theoretically possible if you had access to the MAC address of the network card on the PC being used, but that information is not available via WHOIS. So, I was unclear how it could be established. However, I looked into User:Yris edits, and initially they seem to be completely independent of the editing history of the user in question, until the last edit made, which seems to follow on from the requests from the IP addresses I detailed above. So, I guess this could be a different user who began editing anonymously, then created an account - or... it was who you say it was, concerned he would be blocked again, and setting himself up with a new account to try and get round the block. My feeling at the moment is that given it started with circumcision and ended there - you may well be right; I am disappointed with the user if that is the case - one thing I have learned about these policies is that they do tend to curb the worst of our potential behaviours. But, part of me also hopes we haven't just blocked a new editor who was starting go about things the wrong way. Not my problem. maybe one day Misplaced Pages will entrust me with some of its secrets, but the libertarian-anarchist within doubts it.

I do have another question, unrelated to this topic: out of interest and for future reference, if one finds oneself in editorial conflict with an administrator, and they respond with profanity and incivility - what is the correct procedure to follow? Mish (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the best place for complaints of that sort, I think. As far as the "secrets", they're not really secrets; the trick is in interpreting the data. --jpgordon 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson

I appreciate your balanced observations and hope you will weigh in on this. User DougHill has been inserting a conspiracy theorist category onto this page for retired FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I'd like to clean this page up and get rid of the unreferenced material, but I think it will be an uphill climb when another editor is insisting that Mr. Gunderson's only notability is as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks! Winksatfriend (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend

Unprotection

Can you please unprotect User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang? Sorry. I am sorry if what I said in User talk:Bowei Huang was inappropriate. I promise that I will never say anything inappropriate there again. I promise that I will never make any more requests for unblock there again. I promise that I will either leave User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang blank or redirected if you unprotect them. So can you please simply unprotect User talk:Bowei Huang now? Can you please simply unprotect User:Bowei Huang too?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Please stop bothering me. If you want the page unprotected, go to WP:RFPP. --jpgordon 03:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DeeKay64

Thanks so much for unblocking me! ;-) Can you tell me what I have to do now to get my 1541 Ultimate article back, which was deleted without any discussion whatsoever? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to go through WP:DRV for that. --jpgordon 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just did that! ;-) -- DeeKay64 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More Brunodam

Hello JP, Bruno's back, with this tomfoolery , and as User:Old1980s, whose user page bears an uncanny resemblence to his old sock User:DuilioM, and whose editing interest bears an uncanny resemblence to Bruno. Thanks for your attention as always, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Comment from banned user removed) Yup, got that one and a few more. --jpgordon 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, as always. Seems to have been a stick into a hornets' nest, that one. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sockpuppet

Not really worth a sock check, it's already thrown away. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeahbut, he often creates them in bunches (like this time.) --jpgordon 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bunches? I only found this one but more might turn up tomorrow (the search function seems to be delayed by a day or so - you probably know more about it than me). I did a couple searches and checked the history of some likely page but that's the only one I've seen so far. If I see more, I'll let you know. Thanks for the block. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

SheffieldSteel has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

You did unblock 1 party in the edit-war, but I had declined the other one ... you're welcome to balance things out, if you wish (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Union (supermarket)

So it seems that one day after the semiprotection you put on this article expired, the same anon editor keeps attempting to add te same unencyclopedic list of former locations. In short, I think either the anon needs a block or the page needs an extension of semiprotection. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's no fun. I did block the most recent IP; perhaps that will deter him for a bit. --jpgordon 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The tips you deserve to hear

Someone who is obese has put on weight to the point that it could seriously endanger their health. Currently, obesity in the UK is increasing - over half of women, and about two thirds of men are either overweight or obese. Childhood obesity is a growing concern.

The health risks of obesity include heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and osteoarthritis. The estimated cost to the country is 18 million sick days and 30,000 deaths a year. Deaths linked to obesity shorten life by nine years on average.

Many people now lead a sedentary lifestyle and eat more calories than they use - so it's more important than ever to be aware of the risks of becoming overweight.