Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:12, 1 January 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

• Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

some one want to formally close this? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be formally closed until it has been decided whether a topic ban needs to be enacted and, if so, what its duration should be. If it turns out that consensus is for a topic ban (I cannot tell at the moment), it would have to be formally logged here WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deb seems to be the only one opposing it, the other two only oppose it becuase its not enough. So consensus seem pretty clear to me for a Editing restriction The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• The thread contains two community sanction proposals, one for a page move restriction and one for a one month block. Since discussion has essentially ceased, I ask an uninvolved admin to review the discussions and determine whether there is consensus to implement either sanction.  Sandstein  16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• My understanding is that there was no support at all for a one month block. However, as ResidentAnthropologist correctly says, there does now seem to be almost unanimous consensus for a topic ban from discussions of page moves/article renaming anywhere on wikipedia. I'm not sure about the duration. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of that agreement is the half-dozen POV-pushers I happen to have annoyed lately; but the genuinely uninvolved have commented strongly enough that I intend to use WP:RM routinely whatever may be imposed on me.

I would also request that any restriction be applied to Born2Cycle (talk · contribs) who has taken to closing non-consensus move requests (at, for example, Talk:Queen_Victoria#Requested_move) in accordance with his own opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best place to request that. I'd like to see the two things kept separate and give him the opportunity to amend his conduct. Deb (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unarchived (archiving comment) "User blocked indefinitely, this issue can be revisited when the user responds to the issues raised"

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Misplaced Pages and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought[REDACTED] was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Misplaced Pages, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable. If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Misplaced Pages standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: three month block

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Misplaced Pages. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of fake sources

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money () he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Misplaced Pages, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Misplaced Pages and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Update comment Please see below. I can't strike anything here specifically, but I see now that there are some problems with the presentation of events here and that there seems to be no evidence that Squeakbox ever did solicit fraudulent sources. --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on[REDACTED] for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Misplaced Pages is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects, some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion, occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals, etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: ). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Misplaced Pages into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Misplaced Pages account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Misplaced Pages -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Misplaced Pages to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Misplaced Pages policy--edits that don't comply with Misplaced Pages policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Misplaced Pages into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Misplaced Pages articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Misplaced Pages. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Misplaced Pages -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Misplaced Pages, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. So if I've understood correctly SqueakBox wasn't sikkant, i.e. he did not write that. I'm glad, because that would have surprised me greatly. SlimVirgin 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TL:DR nutshell: this section seems to be misleading, and I suspect that the header and timeline should be revised. I gather from his note at his user talk page that he had responded to that individual, bidding to create an article, but withdrew it with an indication that he may not have thoroughly read the ad. Not a stellar moment, but a pretty significant difference from actively soliciting fake sources!

It looks like what we have here is a contributor creating articles for pay that he should realize, based on his time in saddle, lack sufficient reliable sources to clear notability. This seems problematic under WP:COI, and it is particularly problematic that he previously indicated he would not do this and not only did it again but denied it: . This is a problem of a much lower magnitude than falsifying or soliciting fake sources, but still a problem. Paid editing is often a "caveat emptor" situation, but if we know that a contributor is creating subpar articles for money and particularly one who is selling his reputation ("On[REDACTED] I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of[REDACTED] rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs" emphasis added), then it becomes a bit of a black eye for us if we permit him to continue. SqueakBox needs to either abide by his pledge not to sell his services as an editor or to disclose his behavior when he does so, and he needs to make sure that any articles he does create in this fashion meet all relevant policies and inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a block to tarnish his wikireputation so he can make less money with it? It seems warranted based on the above. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree that we shouldnt block him based on just damaging his reputation since that is resprsehnbile. HOWEVER, i am concerned about weather or not we are legally obligated to notify his employers about his extensive lbock history. they might be paying him with the expectiaton that he maintain a good reputation and contribute aritlces that they can exploit since they willbe around for a while. if he has presented himself as a respected editor in good standing but he has all these blocks, i am concerned that he might not be as effective at his paid editing as he could be and that we might be held responsible for weakening his efforts and damaging his work product with these blocks. is there anyway to oversight his blocks so that they arent publically viewable until he has a chance to respond to each one? User:Smith Jones 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to respond

SqueakBox has been editing today, but has not responded on his talk page or at this ANI, which he has been informed of. I started this ANI hoping that (a) he would respond adequately, and (b) if not, some action on the obvious problems may be taken. There is a danger that neither is likely to happen as the conversation has been fragmented, especially by the somewhat spurious/stale fake sources issue. Does the community believe any action should be taken here, or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

His failure to respond to the issues raised compounds the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's see: Serial mendacity (the "fake sources" stuff is particularly beyond the pale), refusal to respond to concerns, broken promises, etc... Whatever one's views on paid editing, this kind of paid editing shouldn't be tolerated. He's already demonstrated he's going to game the system. Eith block him indef, or unblock all the past paid editors and editors blocked because there usernames were obviously promotional blah blah blah (which is a lot more honest and transparent than this). This isn't even a hard one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Has evidence been produced to substantiate the "fake sources" stuff? --Moonriddengirl 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• it turned out to be an misunderstanding, MoonriddenGirl. SqueakBox has since epxlained to the satisfaction what had happened and there was no tintent to deceive or present "fake sources' (whatever that means) into Misplaced Pages. SqueakBox is not legaly or policyly obligated to respond to WP:ANI accusations and no one can force him or control what he says on his talk page. I dont think that the spurious or fake sources issue hshould be held against him since it was blown out of proportion and taken out of context and apart from that he has done nothing wrong re: paid editing. this issue should be closed as resolved in my view. User:Smith Jones 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• The fake source issue is just one of the charges against Squeakbox.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's the point, really. Can we take action against a user for serially lying to the community? Undoubtedly his edits have been sub-optimal (i.e. the paid articles that got deleted), but is the mendacity (i.e. lying about not repeating that failure) deserving of a block or restriction? Because frankly, if that's not the case, can I unblock User:Thekohser, because the issues are trivially different? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Block. This is just not what[REDACTED] is for. Why should everyone else sweat blood to create good content when an experienced editor who definitely knows better is doing this sort of crap? Fainites scribs 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole dysfunctional system is supposed to be built on trust. Liars are abusers of trust, whether serial sockpuppet abusers like benjiboi or this guy, who hasn't been caught socking yet but is still a proven liar. Kick him to the curb. Teh community (whatever that really is) does this every day. Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. But if he isn't indeffed, i wholeheartedly endorse unblocking every account ever blocked for paid editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. Because a person with this number of edits is an asset to wikipedia. Thus it is a balancing act. COI policy is unenforceable. The problem is not paid editing, the problem is crappy articles on non-notable subjects. Maybe he needs to be blocked until he comes clean. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Block for at least a month, possibly indef. It's pity that Squeakbox didn't respond to the discussion here; not because zie is obliged to, but because zie might have have offered some reason for me to reconsider my support for a block. However, squeakbox has already confirmed that zie created a previous article with an undeclared COI, at the same time promised not to do so again. That promise has been broken, no defence has been offered, so let's get on with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. See Special:Contributions/SqueakBox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's good then. I was hoping to get his help on an unrelated matter and he has yet to respond to me. I was just concerned that he might not be logged in and might have become preoccupied, especially over the recent holiday season and overlooked this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRD (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Calling for his ban is inappropriate; the idea is to get him to stop this unhelpful behavior, & if all reasonable efforts fail, then he is shown the door. This is why I recommended an indefinite block: indefinite as in "can be lifted at any time", not as in "an infinite period". An indef block might just work as a clue-by-four to get his attention -- which we don't appear to have. Instead of showing him the door, we give him the choice to either start working with the community. Or find another hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing to a close

It looks like the community are in favour of a block, but I'm yet to see any solid policy basis upon which to make such a block. The problems people have brought up are:

1. Squeakbox has a tendency to make poor-quality paid-editing articles and has incurred the displeasure of the community previously
2. Squeakbox has abused the trust of both his clients and the community both by a.) continuing to make poor articles and b.) not declaring a COI (as he undertook to do)
3. Squeakbox already has a massive block log, so a short block (less than three months) probably wouldn't have an impact on his editing
4. Squeakbox isn't responding to this discussion and seems unlikely to do so

So, folks. The options, if we don't want to see this at ANI again, seem to be that we either "continue monitoring and fixing Squeakbox's edits" or we "block Squeakbox until the community can be sure he's not going disrupt the project by creating sloppy paid articles for cash". Which is it to be? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Previously I believed some sort of restriction might be the best course of action. But since SqueakBox is effectively sticking two fingers up to the community by not commenting, I would suggest an indefinite (not infinite, of course) block may be the only way to ensure a dialogue with the user. As for worrying about the "policy" behind a block, WP:BLOCK says "(blocks may be used to) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• this block wont interfere with his ability to comment on his talk page right? while i am uncomfortable with the idea lf blocking someone just to get their attention, it might be necessaryin this case since he wont speak to anyone about these issues. my only concern is that he should have SOME outlet to come to the table, at least on his talkpage if nowhere else, and that all discussion should be CC'd to his talkpage or redirected there to make sure that if he DOES change his mind and want to angage with us, it is at least possibl.e User:Smith Jones 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this matter has been slightly different from CMLITC's. SqueakBox was caught writing an article on a non-notable subject for money, & agreed to stop writing articles for money. Then he was discovered writing a crappy article on a notable subject for money. (And as THF pointed out above, had he written a suitable article instead, only those stridently opposed to paid editing would have cared.) When confronted with this discovery, he responded by saying it was a lie on his talk page, & since then has ignored all further discussion. Maybe there is no explicit policy against everything SqueakBox has done in this instance, & many would argue his departure would be a net loss to the project, but do we really want someone volunteering who is disrupting Misplaced Pages in this manner? If someone has a better solution than a block or a ban to stop his low-grade misbehavior, I'm willing to hear it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• 'comment - if his main crime her eis writing a"crappy article" that is otherwise on a notable subject is and is allowed to be on the Misplaced Pages, why shouod he be blocked for this? every article on Wikipeida starts out weak and stubby; that is why this is a collaborative process, because no one prson can turn out a brilliant, Encyclopedia Britannica style article on their first try all alone. i myslef have made many articles such as Jan Scholten. Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy and Manuel Bonnet that were initlally poorly written and almost on the verge of being deleted; but I was able, with the minor assistance of some other editors, to make this articles into the good and high-quality writing that you can find at those articles today. if I had been blocked simply because the very initial effort was not as good as what is there now, many articles would have gone unwriten and we would have lost an excellent editor. lets not make a mistake by BANNING SqueakBox instead of just doing a reasonable indefinite block. User:Smith Jones 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Block This is really beyond the pale. There are legitimate concerns being raised here, SqueakBox is hurting the encyclopedia by promoting non-notable subjects and making poor articles about possible notable subjects for money, he lied about his activities, `and he won't respond here. Block for at least three months but preferably indefinitely so that this he will be forced to engage the community in regards to this.

SqueakBox has now posted an unblock request

• The appeal is at User talk:SqueakBox#OmniPeace. I regret, because I like Squeak and have previously found him a dedicated editor, that the appeal does not address the communities concerns; that he was prepared to offer such poor quality edits for pay, and that he has not addressed the fact he had already undertaken not to make such edits previously - which undertaking he did not hold to. The fact he has not recieved payment is, I feel, irrelevant. Squeak needs to acknowledge the communities viewpoint in the matter, and give believable undertakings to address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• While I have found a pleasant repentance in the unblock request "I wont be editing the Beber Silverstein article again or ever accept a paid contract re[REDACTED] again" there was also "I didnt even know there was an issue" which seems to contradict what LeeHeardvanU reports above, suggesting Squeak is not fully on board perhaps. I don't think an unblock request can be properly considered so early on. S.G. _ping! 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" here. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received the following bid: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On[REDACTED] I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of[REDACTED] rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. Kim Dent-Brown 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --Hinata talk 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The message is clear: never be open about paid editing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary; it is Squeak's lack of openness about the recent commission that is the problem. Paid editing is not a hanging offence. Telling fellow editors xe will be open in future, and then concealing a commission, may be. It's the concealment that's the mistake, not any openness. Kim Dent-Brown 13:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I met a paid editor only this morning who, frankly, is rather a pleasant chap and writes rather good articles before submitting them for review by other people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The unblock request seems disingenuous. He is again asserting that he was not paid for the job; this may be technically true (perhaps they didn't come through), but it's undeniable that he asked to be paid for the job and had every reasonable expectation that he would be. He also claims to have been unaware of the ANI conversation, which is implausible. He was notified that it would be going to ANI on 12/26 and notified that it was on ANI on 12/27. He edited on the 29th and 30th. Certainly, he may be very busy in real life at the moment, but it's not likely that he would have failed to check his talk page on either occasion, and there were no messages on other subjects to distract him or to trigger the "you've got messages" bar. --Moonriddengirl 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If he makes it explicit that he won't ever bid on a single wikipedia-related project on sites such as elance and freelancer, than I'd be good for an unblock. But he needs to be honest about this. The current unblock request is the same wikilawyering he's always done when confronted with this. He states he "never received a penny" for the article, but he doesn't acknowledge whether he made the bid in the first place (which its obvious that he did). Oftentimes payment for Misplaced Pages-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted. ThemFromSpace 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remain Blocked We should be sending a clear message to people such as Squeakbox. Editing for money is extremely dangerous to the project, as all kinds of blackhattery can occur. Phearson (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, he was notified of the discussion here, and continued to edit until he was blocked. Disingenuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Themfromspace wrote above: "Oftentimes payment for Misplaced Pages-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted." I had no idea this was so common. If it really has become common enough that punters and editors know what usually happens, and the punters know to withhold payment to wait for AfD, then it's time we introduced some careful rules about what's acceptable so editors know how to behave. As for Squeakbox, I wouldn't want to see him stay blocked, but he does need to come here and explain. SlimVirgin 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked for now. I can't see at this point how Squeakbox can regain trust, but I am open to the possibility that if zie discusses the issues, then consensus on the block could shift. I would have supported an unblock-to-allow-discussion-at-ANI, but Squeakbox hasn't requested that ... and the "I was too busy" excuse doesn't add up, 'cos Squeak edited elsewhere. On the substance of the issue, the "won't do it again promise" is inadequate when we've heard that before, and the "never received a penny" assertion looks disingenuous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) In March, it appears that Squeakbox failed to disclose a conflict of interest, was caught at it, and undertook to always make such disclosures in the future. He has apparently again failed to disclose a conflict of interest, and his unblock statement of "I have never received a penny from Beber Silverstein" has shades of disingenuity — as others have noted, this may simply mean "I didn't get paid because I got caught". While Squeakbox assures us in his unblock request that he will not "ever accept a paid contract re[REDACTED] again", the community seems less inclined to be trusting this time around. I would suggest a much more specific framework, if the community feels that unblocking Squeakbox is worthwhile.

1. Squeakbox will not accept compensation (broadly construed, including but not limited to cash, benefits, discounts, memberships, other in-kind consideration, donations to charitable organizations on his behalf, etc.) for the purposes of Misplaced Pages article writing (creation or editing) for one year from the date of his unblock. Squeakbox will not bid on contracts for such tasks on elance, freelancer, or similar sites during this time.
2. After one year of compliance with #1, Squeakbox may accept compensation for article creation and editing, but must clearly and explicitly disclose the existence of any compensation arrangements or potential conflict of interest (broadly construed). He does not need to disclose the detailed amounts or nature of compensation, only acknowledge that it exists. This disclosure must clearly and unambiguously appear on the article's talk page and on either his User or User talk page under a suitably descriptive section heading (Paid editing or Potential conflict of interest would suit).
3. Squeakbox will similarly disclose on the article's talk page any off-wiki contact he has with an article's subject, as well as with the subject's friends, associates, or agents where any discussion related to Misplaced Pages takes place. (This disclosure is only required if Squeakbox subsequently edits the article or its talk page.) This disclosure is required even if no compensation or consideration is exchanged.
4. Disclosures described in #2 and #3 should ideally precede the edits they relate to, but in no case should take place more than one hour after.
5. Squeakbox will disclose to the community (on WP:AN, with clear reference to these conditions) the complete list of articles for which he has received any compensation (broadly construed, as in part 1) within 7 days of being unblocked.
6. Failure to abide by these terms will be grounds for a summary block of up to three months by any administrator, subject to review (and upward or downward adjustment of length) at AN/I. The one-year timer on #1 will be reset after the expiry of any such block. Late disclosures under remedy #4 may be handled on a case-by-case basis. In general a voluntary self-disclosure – however late – that comes before he gets caught should be treated more leniently than one which comes after; nevertheless, such errors should be extraordinarily rare.

Did I miss anything? Truth be told, I don't think that framework really extends much beyond the sort of disclosures editors with a potential conflict of interest ought to be making anyway. I make no comment on the appropriate duration for Squeakbox's present block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When It comes to money, money wins at the end of the day. I bet you that he will just continue working on the article until he is caught again, either through this account, or sockpuppetry. Phearson (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• CommentThe above is too complex and unenforceable. Keep blocked until he tells his full story and then decide. There is no need to impose year-long hardship ban. Just insist on notification and/or mandatory reviews of all new or rewritten articles. - BorisG (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Interim oppose Having reviewed the discussion on his talk page, SqueakBox doesn't appear to understand what the issue is -- that he promised to stop creating articles for pay, & went back on his word. I can understand him being too busy to participate adequately on Misplaced Pages (I received an angry ultimatum from my wife to stay off the computer Christmas weekend), but I can't imagine any veteran Wikipedian having a quick look-in & not checking the new messages she/he has been alerted to on her/his talk page. Not acting on them is another matter; although a simple "I'm busy in real life -- can't respond now" would have avoided a lot of trouble for him.) What I want to see from SqueakBox before I can consent to lifting this temporary block is a substantive engagement with the concerns raised here, not brusque responses like "I have received no payment from Beber Silverstein" ("the check is in the mail" is not an adequate defense) or "all I want is to edit my tv and other articles" (then don't offer to write articles on Misplaced Pages for pay in the first place). -- llywrch (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly, if there's no policy barring it, absolutely nobody here should be saying that an editor cannot accept money for editing/creating an article. That's complete bunk. I can see potential legal issues from trying to do that when you allow other editors who do paid work remain unbothered. The problem doesn't seem to be that he's paid, but that it's not disclosed. So make that the requirement - that if SqueakBox accepts a commission, they must disclose that fact on the talk page of the article in question. And then just treat it like every other article. And if he doesn't, block him for THAT reason. But saying "No paid editing for this editor, but this other one is fine" is not right. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that this editor has evidently written bad articles for pay. WP:COI is not a problem with involved or paid contributors who put the needs of the project first. An editor who writes well-sourced neutral articles on notable subjects is doing a service for the project whether he is also getting paid for it or not. Editors who take money to write content that lacks reliable sources and cannot clear notability guidelines (when I gather they should know better) are doing something else entirely. --Moonriddengirl 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Our policy is WP:PROMOTION. If there is any promotional intent behind the creation/editing of an article, it is in violation of our editing policy. ThemFromSpace 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• That is not what the policy says - it notes the issues in complying with WP:COI and the appearance of promotional content within article space, but nothing of the intent. Misplaced Pages:Paid editing was the proposed policy, which is currently moribund. The split in the community as regards "editors for hirer" should not be fought over the issue of whether Squeakbox is able to give believable undertakings for his future conduct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Endeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to the relevant policy, legal threats should be reported here. This case is borderline, so I think others ought to take a look. The relevant diff: . The page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Endeology. --Danger (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a legal threat. I suspect that what he's trying to say (though without providing verification) is that the FTC regulations allow[REDACTED] to set its own rules, and hence[REDACTED] is not subject to claims of "freedom of speech" and the like. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see it as a legal threat either, but I've closed the AfD as a SNOW delete, so given that the editor is a SPA who only edited in that area, the issue is probably moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, this one IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, there's really not. WP:NLT is meant to encompass the implications of legal proceedings, so that people don't use that as a method of intimidating other users. Constantly citing your lawyer is not conducive to cooperative editing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • "Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit..." is an attempt to intimidate, and is also bogus. You don't have any legal "right" to edit anything in particular on wikipedia. And your comments are the kind of stuff editors get indef'd for. You're lucky the admins are feeling generous today. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Baseball Bugs. Quoting laws and your lawyer isn't going to gain you ant friends here. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Exactly. You call down the thunder, even so much as a bad case of static cling, and you'll reap the whirlwind. —Jeremy 06:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

{{resolved|Fluoride article semi-protected.--] (]) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer

The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should we start handing out rangeblocks? We've done it for less than this... KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time. One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Misplaced Pages norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created. This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Incapable of understanding how Misplaced Pages works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one. ~ Matthewrbowker 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I pretty much fail at quotes... Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc talk 08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not under any illusion that there will be real opposition to this. I mostly just want to dot the i's and cross the t's so that nobody has to worry about technically being liable for edit warring when they revert this guy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Ban. Tofutwitch11 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Alert. Now they are canvassing sysops for reinstatement! See contribs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Canvassing arbcom is more like it. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bye Bye! Phearson (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Misplaced Pages needs less cranks, not more. If all you've done is promote a fringe theory that would embarass the hell out of a birther, you're not liable to contribute anything of value to Misplaced Pages. (Sad thing is, thanks to the Net, conspiracy theories are a 50-cent piece a grassy knoll.) —Jeremy 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I strongly support this -- I've had to deal with several socks of this user in a few incidents, and it's clear that the user has no intentions of productively editing. I like how AndyTheGrump put it: "Incapable of understanding...why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across". The addition to the edit filter sounds like a good idea to me, though I lack the technical knowledge to actually do it. — GorillaWarfare 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• support community ban. Enough is enough when we have to have a formal community ban discussion for someone. It's simple, be a POV pusher and not follow simple rules, you're not going to be allowed to collaborate and help others build a Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your help though. Dusti 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci disrupting the SPI process

Mathsci (talk · contribs) has develooped an unconstructive mode of behaviour in connection with banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs), who has been apparently been guily of sockpuppetry on controversial Race-related article. Recently an SPI case was raised against BT35 (talk · contribs). User:Mathsci judged this case and falsely found BT35 guilty without the formality of an investigation. He has displayed an astonishing zeal in labelling alleged socks of this user such as 124.115.214.202, 166.111.120.63, 128.40.189.186, 86.189.26.144, Frostbite Alan2, Frostbute Alan3, Frostbite Alan, In with the old, TohsTogNeroc, 86.189.18.110, Frank Dickman, 86.177.2.57, Juden Raus, Grinkagronk and Suarneduj. It is very nice of him to act as clerk for these SPI, but this is hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious to disengage from the WP:BATTLEGROUND over Race articles. It looks more like gloating over his defeated enemies to me. However, it is of more concern to see that in his amateur SPI detective role, Mathsci has actually impersonated an admin, leaving a bogus block message with a fake signature here. It seems clear that in spite of his avowed intention to disengage from these topics, he is lurking on controversial race-related pages and tagging anyone who expresses an opinion he dislikes as a racist sock of his adversary. Of course BT35 may be Mikemikev irrespective of what Mathsci chooses to think. After these facts were pointed out on the relevant SPI page by 212.183.140.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci declared the IP user a sock puppet and used that as an excuse to delete the embarassing comment. This obsession with dancing on the skull on his fallen adversary is contrary to the spirit of his assurances to Arbcomm that he will stay away from this area and disruptive to the SPI process. 212.183.140.36 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is frivolopus request by an IP which seems to be a proxy account. This is very likely to be banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as in the past the account was used in late May for editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Disruptive postings of this type by Mikemikev are mentioned in the ArbCom findings. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

After long enough, and enough socking, it makes little difference. --Jayron32 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Site-banned for 12 months. The "impersonating an admin" charge is just barely plausible -- Mathsci signed the block notice as Maunus, but it was several minutes after Maunus had blocked the account, so it wasn't a "bogus block message". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So, to translate the OP, "I'm a banned user. Please pay attention to me" ? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? --Jayron32 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one minds, I've taken the liberty of blocking the ip. He appears to be using several ips, so I suppose the only effect this will have is to send the message that he's still banned, and we can just keep removing his edits and blocking his ips until he gets bored and goes away, or gets old and dies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like Mathsci copied the block template (with Maunus's signature) from the user page to the user talk page. I can see why that was confusing and probably not a good idea in retrospect, but it doesn't come across as impersonation to me. I'm all in favor of banning Mikemikev if he's not already banned. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the CCR&I arbitration. I think a permanent community ban would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. He was blocked indefinitely on August 18 by SarekOfVulcan for making a string of personal attacks (a week before WP:ARBR&I closed). Here's the ANI report ... and this is the diff on ANI that precipitated the block. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:ARBR&I not WP:ARBCC, let's not get carried away :) Just as a note, usually when reporting supsected Mikemikev sockpuppets I do so by requesting a checkuser. I have made several, some of which Mikemikev has listed above. All my checkuser requests have been confirmed and are listed on the confirmed sockpuppet page. At the moment, during the Christmas-New Year break, it seems conceivable that Mikemikev is with his family or with friends, i.e. editing elsewhere than normal. That would explain the latest set of edits. The editing style confirms the editor, if not the precise geographic location and the operating system/computer (a Christmas present?). Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev's also likely responsible for the disruptive edits to the articles by open proxy IPs like this one: detected here Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other edits via the Vodafone proxy 212.183.140.***

• 1:
• 52:
• 59:

Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal Community ban for Mikemikev

Mikemikev for Socking and Evasion of a ARBCOM site ban and is hearby banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support on the basis of the user's contribution history and repeated disruption of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support (I was involved in the arbitration page, and I opposed Mikemikev's edits at the time) Racism, insulting other editors, trying to impose his personal opinions in the article, pretending repeatedly to be someone else while block-evading from an IP, inability to simply drop an issue and calm down, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support "Juden Raus"/"suarneduj" as well as other antisemitic confirmed socks, such as Oo Yun (talk · contribs), indicate someone whose sole aim is to offend others and cause disruption. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I see no sign that this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support WP's wasted enough time dealing with him already. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed; no-one who uses up to 29 socks/IPs to evade an ArbCom ban should be welcome here, period. --Dylan620 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Thought he was already under both a community and an arbcom ban, but if a third ban makes it easier to remember, then go for it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support though unneccessary. Could anyone see him being allowed to edit even in absense of a formal vote? --Jayron32 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, I forgot that was what kicked the indef block off. Support like anything. He's under an Arbcom 1-year ban and an unilaterally-imposed indef block for threats of violence. Imposing a community ban would mean that he's got to convince the community that he can come back and be a useful editor -- not just a single unblocking admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't recall any useful edits from this user, even when they were calm. Any future presence is certain to be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Although he's already banned by ArbCom, so this isn't really adding anything new. Nevermind, I see the Arbcom ban was only for a year. Lets make this one a permaban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I once checked and I think I found one constructive edit - maybe he corrected a typo. Any such positive edits are most certainly rare, and really droplets of water in an ocean of tendentious SP POV-pushing crap. Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Misplaced Pages, so I would se we passed the point of no return quite some time ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Misplaced Pages" Utter lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This IP address (81.187 ...) has only ever been used by Michael Coombs; can we just go ahead and block it, or do we have to check first to make sure it is not a public computer? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I make little effort to hide my identity. Someone who spreads as much crap as you would be wise to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? What do I have to worry about? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He might sign you up for membership at a gay dwarf porn site. Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case "Ew." HalfShadow 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of checkuser data

I am concerned that certain users appear to have privileged access to checkuser information and that information derived from those logs has been discussed here. Please may we know how, and by whom, this information is being shared? Zarboublian (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where in this discussion do you see an indication that CheckUser information – actual content, as opposed to a description of results – was made available to someone who isn't authorized to have it? I ask, because I frankly don't see it. What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There could be an unexpected issue of wikistalking involved here, of the kind Professor marginalia has already mentioned in a related context on the SPI report page. Occasionally wikistalking is handled off-wiki and checkusers are contacted privately. That happened with A.K.Nole and Quotient group (no longer editing) who came to an off-wiki arrangement with a member of ArbCom to stop following my edits. If that were to recommence it would be easy enough to contact a checkuser in private: in the case of persistent wikistalkers that is often the only possibility left open. An account that was started a few days after another was left aside and which showed a tendency to follow another user to sharply delineated project pages would probably result in such a report. But in the case of Mikemikev, matters are quite different as I am just one of many targets. There are no wikistalking issues involved in Mikemikev's case. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned about disussion of Mikemikev's computer and operating system, which would have derived from the user agent string in the checkuser log. But I guess that Mathsci has explained why he needs special access to checkusers. Zarboublian (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to talk about details of how checkuser results are derived. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither Mikemikev's edits nor the techniques used by checkusers, of which I am quite ignorant, are the problem here. That problem will be dealt with in a different venue. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mikemikev

I have no idea who 212.183.140.36 is. This episode and the same cabal who always act in fraudulent concert shows which level this medium has descended to. What is your evidence that 212.183.140.36 is me? I for one know there isn't any, I guess you don't really care either as long as you get to satisfy your disturbed egos. Have fun, hope to meet one of you some time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On December 27 I asked User:TenPoundHammer to tone down his edit summaries and to stop removing {{Expand}} from articles while the template is at DRV (per WP:TFD/H ). Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of User:Boing! said Zebedee, TenPoundHammer has continued both behaviours.

In these diffs TenPoundHammer yet again "screams" at other editors, just as he was doing before. In this diff TenPoundHammer states "Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator."" in reply to User:Newyorkbrad.

In this diff he again calls someone a "moron" and in this diff he states "fanwank" which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited before in calling other editors a "dumbass". Other edit summaries such as "tell me what lapse in judgement made you think some freaking BLOG would make a reliable source... are you out of your mind?!" and "fail" are also troubling.

Despite asking TenPoundHammer not to remove {{Expand}} while it is at DRV, he has continued to do so while continuing the use of misleading edit summaries such as "fix" and "driveby". In checking each of these articles, the maintenance template placement seemed to have been done both in good faith and justifiable based on the article length. (Note that even if this template is "deleted" it won't simply be "removed" in bulk from articles.)

I also noticed TenPoundHammer has continued other past behaviours including making very questionable AfD nominations, such as Mashable and has also continued to repeatedly replaced speedy deletion tags after they have been removed by administrators. I happened to see this very issue of TenPoundHammer's speedy deletion tagging of {{Freshman Members of Congresses}} brought up on User:DGG's talk page just a few days ago.

While I don't have the time or patience to go through TenPoundHammer's full contribution history of the last week or so, especially as he often makes many edits per minute, I think the above diffs should be more than sufficient to demonstrate some of the continued problems. I don't know what needs to be done here, but given repeated past AN/I discussions regarding TenPoundHammer's behaviour, he clearly still fails to understand that this stuff is simply not acceptable behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite lots of undoubtedly good work, he does seem to be in a particularly bad mood at the moment and is being rude and lashing out at people for no good reason - after my comment here, his response to me is here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And only yesterday, he was being abusive to JohnCD, here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

The problem is that TPH makes lots of edits that benefit Misplaced Pages with less than optimum edit summaries (i.e. the fanwank one - it was, indeed, an edit removing an unsourced sentence which consisted entirely of unsourced fanwank, but, hey, this is a collegial environment). If you can find a major issue with one of TPH's edits that is seriously out of order, then warn him, but I'm not entirely sure why we're at ANI yet. What admin action is required? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need some way of convincing him to stop being so nasty to people - he does lots of great work, but going round calling people "dumbass" and "moron" is surely not what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I'm making - if his edits are out of line, warn him. As far as I can see, there are no warning/incivility/whatever comments on his talkpage except the one pointing him to this ANI. One would've thought if his editing had been so uncollegial that there would've been some sort of attempt at negotiation before the inevitable ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Black Kite, but if you don't see any incivility warnings in his talk page history, you must not be looking that hard. I've got no desire to get TPH "in trouble", but it would be nice if he'd knock off stuff like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Would be great, but WP:WQA is the place for this, not ANI - again, what administrator action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, people asking for help often don't know what the answers are - does it not seem reasonable to come here and ask "Can any admins suggest or do anything to help?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He often does very good work here --he is extraordinarily effective at finding articles that certainly ought to be deleted. But he would be so much more effective if he did not also nominate for deletion articles that there is no reason to delete--I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. I see this as the same sort of hasty judgement that leads to unreasonable edit summaries. We're here because these matters have been mentioned to him repeatedly over a very long time, and at AN/I. . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't. We're here in the hope that sombody can find a suitable way to communicate with him. Nobody is at this point asking for sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We just want him to acknowledge these issues and work toward them not happening, correct? Yeah, i've had some run-ins with TPH, generally at AfD. I will admit that he does get rather hostile whenever I end up voting keep and give references to show why. Silverseren 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just seeing so much idiocy around here anymore. Things like !voting "keep but source it better" and then failing to show that any sort of sources exist. Then the article gets kept, nominated again two years later, and everyone says "keep but source it better" again failing to provide sources. Other things too — like an experienced user taking a merge request to AFD, n00bs adding "Character X's socks don't match in this scene"—style trivia to movie and TV articles, people insisting that episode articles should be automatically kept just because the show is notable. Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it. "Speedy" deletion that takes longer than a full day before someone nukes it. Niceness has gotten me nowhere with these and countless other issues, so maybe some of us just need a slap with something more serious than a trout. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

TPH, your perception is spot on.But you need to realize something, and to be fair it took me years to come to terms with this myself: Misplaced Pages is essentially a social community with the encyclopedic content being an incidental by-product. Don't emphasize content over the social aspects. That way madness lies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes it's that that gets to me too. I think you'd really have to be thin skinned to take offense to an edit summary of "Fail", for instance. And the thing about not wanting to invoke IAR would sort of fall under the social part too — it seems I have to beg and plead to get any administrative action done, no matter how trivial (mostly G6 deletions, which I've seen sit for upwards of a full day). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You could try being a little less impatient and a little less shitty - if being nice doesn't work, being shitty is even less effective. And there's really no urgency for most of the deletions you request - who cares if it takes a day to delete something harmless? You work at a very fast pace and spend many hours here, but you can't expect everyone else to do the same and work at the same pace as you. Misplaced Pages and everyone associated with it are not here to jump at your every command, and other people have different takes on things. In every recent fight you've had that I've seen, the other parties have been civil and have explained their thoughts to you - it's simply not the case that you're always right and have to be obeyed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I agree that "Fail" isn't an offensive summary (not useful or informative, which is what they're supposed to be, but not offensive) - but what about "dumbass", "moron", and all the other shitty abuse you dish out? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Re "Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it.": I saw that one, and it was nothing to do with the admin being afraid of anything - the admin simply thought it would be wrong to invoke IAR for CSD purposes because CSD is deliberately tightly defined, and they explained that quite clearly to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To echo Black Kite's (at least) two questions above, what admin action is being requested here? —DoRD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know precisely - I can only speak for myself, and all I'm here asking is "Can any admins here suggest anything that might help with this situation?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in general, TenPoundHammer has made a lot of positive edits. My own past interactions with him have largely been positive, but a diff such as this which User:28bytes partially linked to above is not an example of appropriate behaviour. If a new or otherwise non-established editor were to make such an edit, he would more often than not be blocked outright for disruption.

This AN/I discussion from November 2010 (which seems to be a continuation of this AN/I discussion) includes quite a bit of discussion regarding problematic behaviour from TenPoundHammer.

As far as warnings go, in keeping with don't template the regulars, many concerns have been raised by others on TenPoundHammer's talk page without using templated warnings. If he is unwilling to listen to others, including both administrators and non-administrators alike, then WQA would not really be helpful either. Somehow other editors need a way to communicate to TenPoundHammer that the general incivility, hostility, and combativeness, as well as the language of his edit summaries needs to change. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that, this behavior has been going on for years, and I think it's obvious to anyone with any familiarity that WQA would be a waste of time. Now, I might be misjudging it, but I actually think it's getting worse. When I first encountered TPH several years ago, he was often curt and brusque and made many bad AfD reports, but I don't remember the degree of incivility and abuse that we're seeing now. Over the past month or so, he seems to have been getting into an increasingly bad mood. And that really can't be good for him either - are we seeing signs of burnout? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitely see signs of WikiBurnout here. (I suspect every long-time contributor goes thru the Slough of Despond over Misplaced Pages. Some emerge at the other end with a far less positive attitude towards this online encyclopedia idea & what it has accomplished; some never emerge.) However, the best place to discuss TenPoundHammer's behavior would be in a RfC/U, not a WP:AN/I thread. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Never had a problem myself with Hammer and I have encountered him more than once, especially early on. Maybe he is getting burned out: I don't know. He's got a "spitshine" clean block log (except for the "joke block") for a long time here. I agree with those above who think this needs another venue. Doc talk 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're probably right, and I guess RFC/U is the proper place. The only trouble is I'd feel bad about doing it - I know it's still "informal", but it does feel like cranking it up a notch, and TPH is someone I genuinely respect for his long-term contributions. I think I'd rather just leave it be for now, myself - I've had my say here, and we've been able to tell TPH what we think is wrong. Hopefully he might think about it, and accept that these are the words of well-meaning Misplaced Pages colleagues, and we can see how things go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WHY IN THE WORLD was a bunch TPH's edit summaries deleted? What a gross misuse of admin tools / oversighting rights. There's absolutely NO REASON WHATSOVER to rev delete them. Oversighting is annoying enough when it's within policy, and we certainly don't need admins/oversighters to shoot from the hip and revdelete stuff where a rollback would have done the job. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Which ones were oversighted? Can you give examples? As far as I can tell, none of the links given above have been oversighted. (And tone it down a little, no need to yell.) Silverseren 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I revdeled a bunch of CHECKYOURLINKS x 20 as being purely disruptive, as they were flooding the contributions list. I stopped when I was questioned on them, so you can see essentially the same text in the general area. Doing it once wouldn't have been disruptive -- doing it 20 times within a minute was, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And since it was an editsummary issue, rollback would not have done the job. You'll note I only rolled back a couple of edits, where I immediately corrected the link to point to the intended target. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's still no justifiable reasoning for suppressing them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. Now that I've undeleted them, go try to read that portion of his contribs log -- or imagine what RecentChanges would have looked like while that spree was running. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this sort of stuff would get a non-established editor blocked for disruption. TenPoundHammer needs to understand that this behaviour is not ok. I didn't want to initiate a RFC/U because they often can turn very ugly, and I don't think that would have helped here at all.

TenPoundHammer, if you are getting too stressed out, take a break. For a specific diff or set of diffs, simply bookmark it and return to it a few days later. If someone else hasn't fixed it, fix it when you are less stressed. I really don't want to see you end up getting yourself blocked from a stress-induced outburst (I'm speaking from experience here). Edit: After writing this (but before posting) I noticed TenPoundHammer has indeed now gotten himself blocked. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I've interacted with TPH many times before. He/she is a good editor and usually had a good trustable judgment. However some of the comments in his/her edit summaries are not WP:CIVIL. Regardless of how good one's edits are it doesn't excuse the brash or sometimes crude use of language. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. However I agree with Silver Seren, some of those edit summaries did require removing as they could have caused offence to other users. Now instead of dragging the issue out how about TPH is issued with a polite and informal warning about calming down his/her tone of voice and choice of language. If there are any future issues then admins can consider other alternatives. But lets not execute one of our better editors just because he/she has burned out a little. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl indeffed me for the "CHECK YOUR LINKS" rampage which I did using the unlink tool — I'm just so sick and tired of people who don't bother to check where their links are pointing to. I think the indef block was overkill to the extreme, but no matter. I've been unblocked now and I'd say this block was just the wakeup call I needed. All of the "stupid" things I'm repeatedly seeing on Misplaced Pages may still piss me off, but it seems quite clear now that lashing out on-wiki is a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, she indeffed you for removing dozens of perfectly good links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW TPH, there's a dab-solver tool for the dab links. Just copy this into your CSS file and you'll have easy access to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I hadn't spotted that there was an existing thread on this, so i had just opened a new one at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree.

As noted there and on your talk, you need to try a much better explanation of what you were doing. This was simply mass-unlinking without checking, and I make no apology for the indef-block. I am glad that Sarek unblocked you to allow a cleanup, but unless you a) fix every link you have removed, and b) give a better explanation than this, I think some sort of block should be restored.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly would such a block achieve? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unless TenPoundHammer will voluntarily desist from mass removal of links on a multiply-flawed basis, some restraint is needed. The unlinking tool is clearly not safe in TenPoundHammer's hands, and I am not aware of a way of simply disabling him from using it (tho pls correct me if that is actually possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

It seems to me that TPH basically said he was lashing out in frustration (and we've seen him getting a bit stressed lately), and that he realizes he needs to stop doing so - he's certainly more than capable of using the tools properly, and I think we should respect what he says and give him a chance now, without any immediate further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If TenPoundHammer said he will clean up whatever messes he made and is changing the way he does things going forward, I don't feel reblocking him would serve much purpose. In my past experience in dealing with TenPoundHammer, if he says he will fix something, he has taken care of it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check below, under #TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. I have just been checking and find lots of edits which TenPoundHammer says he has already fixed, but hasn't. Whatever your past experience, it sadly doesn't match with what's happening now: a tantrum with powerful tools followed by false assurances that a cleanup has been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him some time to find and correct whatever mistakes he made. It is very easy to make a huge mess with automated or semi-automated tools but correcting it manually takes a lot more time. If TenPoundHammer is ultimately unwilling to change his behaviour, he could always be placed under an edit restriction forbidding him from using automated tools. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does take time, but TPH said that he had already done it. Given his false assurance that he had already cleaned up, I saw no point in trying to monitor whether and when he decided to clean up, I rollbacked the changes which he had not already reverted.

It seems to me that this spree, and the false assurances of a cleanup, are enough grounds to apply that restriction now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone should start an RFC/U already, I don't see what admins can do here, but if I had to go find diffs of all the times TPH's unproductive editing has had me tearing my hair out, it would take days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is more activity on the other thread, can we combine these please? Dusti 17:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper

As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete.

  That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Misplaced Pages? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?—Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is not harassment to stalk people inter-wiki and then put sarcasm, ridicule, personal insults, belittlement, mud-slinging in almost every edit summary (see them from those and previous dates) and talk page comment (see them), then I am wrong in using that word. I didn't think "a good contributor" ..."usually basically right about the underlying issues" (comment below) was allowed to behave like that. Maybe I am wrong about that too? I have never behaved like that or anywhere near it, but then again I make mistakes sometimes and am perhaps not that valuable. And since I don't want Kuiper on my talk page (because he makes me literally nauseous), that makes me automatically wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing does not give diffs to support his allegations, but maybe his complaint is about things like this, where I had the audacity to question his claims of expertise? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

When someone asks you to stay off his page, you should stay off his page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also for notifications according to policy? I did not know that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He claims you're using those notifications as an excuse to pester him. A compromise could be to have a separate sub-page to list those notifications, and he can decide whether to watch-list that page or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing is claiming a lot of things, but I have no problem at all with not notifying him. By the way, he likes posting invective on my talk page at Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The previous ANI from last weekMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked_for_a_long_time has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way. PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem. I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please!!!!! Not even gentle is necessary, just civil, without sarcasm, ridicule, mud-slinging, assumpton of bad faith every time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused someone of "hoaxing" (which is intentional falsification as per definition) and there was no substance to the accusation of any kind, I would certainly feel like I was attacking someone personally. I hope I am not wrong in feeling that way. Falsifying WP intentionally isn't extremely despicable behavior, and wrongly accusing someone of it isn't a personal attack? What could be more detrimental to the reputation of a WP editor?

But then again, perhaps I am of a very old (obsolete?) school that doesn't even think the unnecessary word choice "cry", as used above, is particularly polite and constructive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper wrote that the article was a "possible hoax". If there are no written sources where this name form is used (off the Internet), I think "possible hoax" cannot be seen as a personal attack in itself. On the other hand, this situation is rather complicated. An interesting question is what rules should apply if someone asks some other person to stay off his talk page? Ulner (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "politeness and civility", as admins have told me in the past. If someone asks me not to post on his page, and I continue to do so, that's impolite and uncivil - as is using a notification as a pretext to getting around it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some posts are mandatory on the talk page, i.e. when filing an ANI Incident, or when proposing an article for deletion. These posts should be allowed in any case I guess? The problem is that usually a content dispute is in the background, which makes it necessary to post messages on the user's talk page. Furthermore, Surtsicna and Andejons have also been told to avoid SergeWoodzing's talk page. I'm afraid I don't see any easy solution of this conflict. Ulner (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that Woodzing also "warned"(!) User:Sinneed to stay away from his talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors need to be civil enough to work together to be here. If there is a long standing history of harassment, then further action needs to be taken to protect the user(s) involved. If User:SergeWoodzing can provide diffs (collectively and only for here on en.wiki as we deal with issues here, not elsewhere (there are admins for elsewhere)) and can prove gross harassment, then sysop action against Pieter Kuiper needs to take place. Pieter Kuiper please be respectful of users wishes to stay off of their talk pages and not Troll users, as that is harassment. If you are indeed stalking a users contributions and following them to WP:AFD or elsewhere, that violates Misplaced Pages policy. We work together (please see WP:ATTACK). My hope is the two of you can resolve differences (regardless of what they are) and work together. Dusti 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried". I asked him to remove the personal attack, and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI, who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI, which incidentally was closed without action.

Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action. Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page. He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.

Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.

TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And he's now canvassing users' opinions of the 7-year old offsite remark . At some not-too-distant point, continuation of this behaviour may qualify as harassment. I'm not familiar with the WP:AE terms for the topic - they may have some relevance too. Rd232 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has not been as active in the last several weeks. However, in response to Jehochman's question to Carolmooredc whether she was an "anti-Israel activist", Darkstar1st replied, "Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried". The specific complaint was that Carolmooredc was "writing a bokk and using wp to make her pov". No one saw a COI and the alleged POV was anarcho-capitalism. TFD (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The attack account User:EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! popping up there seems to have a fair probability of being Darkstar1st, given the context of its contributions and content of the deleted userpage. If it is, that would certainly be enough of a pattern to justify some action. Perhaps a passing checkuser could confirm. Rd232 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it is a sock of banned User:Karmaisking, and it is probably too late to perform CU. That account commented in the COIN discussion. Karmaisking has provided extensive advice at Darkstar1st's talk page beginning here and most recently has invited him to join the Mises Institute wiki. TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer unlinking spree

I indef-blocked TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when zie went of some sport of wild unlinking spree, in which the hammer removed links en masse with a disruptively long edit summary.

Per my comment on TenPoundHammer's talk, the explanation given does not add up.

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) unblocked TenPoundHammer specifically to allow a cleanup, and appears to have deleted the edit summaries.

I hope that TenPoundHammer will complete the cleanup as promised, but I think that a better explanation is needed about what was actually going on here. So far as I can see, the edit summaries are least of the problems ... because TenPoundHammer was engaged in some sort of mass-delinking exercise without any sign of scrutiny of what was being done. The edit summaries actually did us a favour, by drawing attention to this spree of disruptive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems every single day I find links pointing to disambiguation pages. The first several that I found were all links for people who didn't have articles, so I falsely assumed they were all like that and unlinked. I've done en masse unlinks like this before and never had problems. As promised, though, I have been going back and cleaning them up. As per the other thread on me, it seems I've let Misplaced Pages get to my head and I'm lashing out at everyone over tiny things, and I admit my "CHECK YOUR LINKS CHECK YOUR LINKS etc" edit summary was clearly out of line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors. I've finished all the David Porter links accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I thought, the edit summaries did us a favour ... because if this sort of blind-mass-unlinking has been done before, there will have been un-noticed damage on those occasions.

  Your comment "never had problems" is alarming, because you appear to mean that nobody objected to you, rather than that no damage was done. What steps are you going to take to check that the links you removed in previous mass-unlinking sprees are restored? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to go back through my edit history then and see if I did do any damage. As far as I can tell, every other instance has been justifiable like the John Reid one — i.e., removal of dab-page links that were in reference to someone who didn't have an article. As I said, I restored all the David Foster links. From now on, if I use the unlink tool like this, I'll check the incoming links first to see if they should be fixed instead of removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this is the wrong starting-point. They may have been links to someone who should have had an article, and you appear to have made no effort to enquire whether disambiguation might be the appropriate response, rather than unlinking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• John Reid, the songwriter, doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. Does it really make sense to leave the link to a dab page where he isn't even mentioned? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I generally had checked before when using unlink. David Foster was a momentary lapse in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm slightly confused...what exactly is the damage that has been done, if, as TPH has said, the links he de-linked were links to disambiguation pages where the particular intended link didn't have a specific article to point to? To me that would seem to be a case for de-linking, since people who click the link aren't going to be able to find the subject article they're looking for on the disambiguation page and there is no more specific article to link to than the disambiguation page. Ks0stm 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• The issue was that I removed some David Foster links that should have been repaired to point to a musician's article or a Naval officer's article — granted, it wasn't that disruptive since at least half the articles had a valid link and the link to the dab page anyway. As I said, this is the only time that I've ever had a misfire like this with the unlink tool. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "cleanup" is inadequate. I just started checking the David Porter links, which you said you restored .. and the first one I checked of those you had not reverted was Liquid Swords. That was an undisambiguated link to David Porter (musician).

I don't intend to examine every one of these links myself, but you have just demonstrated that as well as doing inadequate checks before using the unlink tools, your cleanup is also sloppy. Please can you just restore all the links you removed, and leave it to more careful editors to assess whether they should be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links at your requests. I don't think I need to restore the John Reid links since, as I said, all of them seemed to be appropriate because they referred to a John Reid not mentioned in the dab page. If you want me to restore those anyway, then I will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just restore them all, please, and leave them to be checked by someone who is willing/able to apply more attention to them than you have been doing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you said here that you "restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links". I hadn't noticed that there was also a David Foster unlinking spree, and assumed it was a typo ... but since you say it wasn't, I have been looking around further. In this post on Sarek's talk, you said that Foster was a one-off slip of concentration, but that's not the case, is it? There was David Porter too.

I don't like what I am seeing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And more. Checking back further, I find this a link to John Reid, which shoukd have been dabbed to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, but was instead unlinked. TenPoundHammer says that he has fixed the John Reid links, and that's clearly not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still more unfixed stuff: , , . All of them were undabbed links to John Reid should be to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan), which TenPundHammer says he had fixed.

As to the songwriter, there were a dozen or more links to that songwriter. What checking did TenPoundHammer do see whether a) the songwriter was one of the musicians of that name who already have an article, or b) someone else who should have an article on them?

Yet TenPoundhammer says the John Reid links have already been cleaned-up by him. Not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G. _ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability. Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

My other thought is that I think it's generally more helpful to unlink redlinks within an article, say, when an overzealous editor has Wikilinked all the actors in a film's cast, many of whom are generally not Wiki-notable, then it is to unlink the same Wikilink across different articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that TPH should just not be using this tool! Can anyone make it so? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here, but from an outside viewer a couple questions do come to mind. First, why was an indef-block appropriate in the first place? Second, why does it appear that bad faith is being assumed here? Tuxide (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. An indef-block is not a permanent block; it is a block until until the issue is resolved. At the time of blocking it was not clear whether the account had been compromised, the editor had lost the plot, or what. As usual, once the editor had promised to claen up, the block was lifted.
2. I'm not sure why it appears to you that bad faith is being assumed; it's up to you to explain why you think it looks that way. For me all I can say, is that after unblocking TPH gave several explicit assurances that he had already cleaned up several parts of the mess, and those assurances were false. I don't know whether that's bad faith on TPH's part or sloppiness, just that it doesn't add up to someone who can be trusted to clean up the mess which can be made very rapidly with automated tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed. In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so. What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring). Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter: , , . Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position. I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo. That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith. Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes. Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   You wrote above "What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence)" ... and now you claim you're being misrepresented. Try to make up your mind why are repeatedly alleging ABF, and when you change your mind don't accuse others of misprepresenting you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I was referring to TenPoundHammer's claim (or your version of it) being logically incoherent; I just chose not to name individuals directly because I don't really care who said what. Tuxide (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I abused any other tool? This whole discussion has been entirely over the use of unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer does not seem to have messed up with any automated tool other than the unlinker, so I do not see any need to restrict his access to anything but that one. I've never used Twinkle myself, so I do not know if it possible to technically disable just that part of it, but even if it's not it doesn't matter. An editing restriction does not need to be any more than simply an undertaking by TPH that he won't use the unlinker on pain of serious consequences. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think there's any need for a technical block (which may well not be possible - I don't know). I'd say a voluntary ban on using it is all that's needed. If TPH agrees not to use it, I'd be happy to take his word for it - and if he did use it again, sanctions could be considered then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I won't use it, simple as that. Consider this resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just want to go out on a limb here and say that this looks like it's a large misunderstanding. TPH does seem to have gone to left field with his unlinking spree.... but there isn't an actual rule against it. Some people just don't like red links. I believe, looking through his insane amount of contribs, he's done unlinking before. BrownHairedGirl I do want to say you were trigger happy and an indef block was inappropriate for this situation. An indef block is without expiry. It's what we use for bans, etc. no? A talk page note or warning would have been more appropriate, and if you got no response then a block should have been instated. TPH was inappropriate of doing bot like actions (mass unlinking) and he has agreed to not use them. Assume good faith, let this issue drop as the compromise seems to have been reached. Dusti 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add (albeit not as an admin) that I agree with Dusti, in that your application of an indef block to force TenPoundHammer to reply to you (which is in effect what it was doing) was very "trigger happy" as Dusti put it so well. That clearly looked like its use as a punishment, and as I've been taught as an admin elsewhere, blocks are preventative, not punitive. A note on his talk page such as "would you mind explaining what you're doing?" rather than hitting TenPoundHammer with a Ten Pound Hammer would have been a lot more conducive towards assuming a little good faith and resolving in a slightly more peaceful manner. BarkingFish 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, an indef block is not without expiry, and is not the same as a ban - this indef block was used to stop an activity that was ongoing, not as punishment, and was clearly intended to be reviewed once TPH responded (which, in fact, it was). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocks do not have an expiry (yes, they can be undone via Unblock) however, when left, there is no expiry. This block as used to FORCE a user to respond, when there was nothing to respond to. No attempt was made to discuss the user, nor was he sufficiently warned (not that you have to warn a user before you block them). I just think it's a gross misuse of blocking. Dusti 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there were attempts to use Talk pages, as the editor was on a very high volume spree of doing a number of things that people had asked him to stop (see the earlier thread, above). They weren't working and he was ignoring us and continuing. I think it was a necessary block, which was clearly not intended to be permanent. It lasted less than 20 minutes, and it looks to me as if it had the desired effect - it forced a dialog and we got a good outcome. Sorted. Time to move one. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block as used either. TenPoundHammer was using a script to do rapid mass-unlinking, among other things, and the block as applied seemed to help. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts: 1) Ten Pound has indicated he could live with an editing restriction against the use of unlink. Whether that can be enforced in automated fashion or not, that would seem to address a substantial portion of the problem noted. 2) One remaining issue is what is our policy (or should it be) on blue links to disambig pages, where the targeted person does not appear on the disambig page. I don't see a clear answer from the above, but think a consensus view should be reached and communicated to Ten Pound (and the rest of the community). And I expect that Ten Pound will be happy to follow the consensus view. 3) I believe that indef blocks are being used more frequently the past two months, and are counter-productive when used against editors in good standing whom one can address on their talk page with a simple request along the lines of: "would you mind not delinking any pages while we sort this out -- or would you prefer an indef block in the interim?" While Ten Pound and I often have philosophical differences, he is a helpful editor in good standing with a keen mind who seeks to better the project--no need to blast him off of[REDACTED] as we are discussing an issue such as this one. 4) I thank Brown for her good work here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re 2) I'd have thought just regular linking policy - if it's a subject who would be likely to warrant an article, make it an unambiguous redlink, otherwise unlink. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin privileges misused during "content dispute"

I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to solve it, but as of right now, a few individuals with the admin bit have used their privileges to remove the discussion notifications for {{Expand}} and protect the template.

User:Brandon clearly doesn't like the display small notification we transclude with templates such as {{tfd}}, {{being deleted}}, etc, and I don't like it much myself, so much so that I've been attempting to improve it so that it is less (as Brandon put it) "disruptive".

That said, we provide links to such discussions because it is important that the community knows of them and participates. In this particular case, the TfD close is widely disputed and the deletion review notification really should be visible. {{tfd}}'s inline notification was visible during the TfD for {{Expand}} (and during this TfD an editor even linked a non-neutral RFC tag into the discussion). Removing the deletion review notification at this point is going to create even more dispute as to how this issue is being handled.

I'm more than happy to work with Brandon to improve the display of {{being deleted}}, and User:Bsherr is also trying to come up with a solution. Using admin privileges (be it one individual or several) to remove and prevent the display of a discussion notification for a widely disputed TfD and deletion review is simply not appropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• You've stated what you believe, but you haven't provided any links to evidence or said what adminstrative action is required. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought I included this link. It is clearly visible in the edit history here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have no bone to pick in the {{expand}} dispute, I honestly and truly don't care about the outcome. I do however object to dragging protracted wiki-nonsense into article space. There are much better ways to inform editors than littering 18,000 articles with two different notices that no reader has a chance in hell at understanding. I'd personally suggest WP:AN and WP:Watchlist notices . Brandon (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You could've contributed to a talk page discussion and helped us come up with a better way to display such notifications. We've shown these messages for {{tfd}} and {{being deleted}} for quite some time and I agree, it all still needs improvement. Removing all message display during a widely disputed TfD isn't the right way to go about improving this though. I've been actively working with others to improve {{delrev}} since it originally (as I mentioned on your talk page) used a full {{mbox}} template since we had not previously had a need to DRV a widely used template.

    What we currently have is the solution which came about from prior talk page discussions. If you can come up with a better solution to keep otherwise well meaning editors from removing a "deleted template" which is under deletion review from articles, while also providing a link to the discussions, I'm all ears. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

    • As I've mentioned WP:TFD specifically covers this situation by advising that the template not be transcluded. I can't believe we've ever trancluded the full mbox either, so this is adding something that's never existed, not correcting a current problem. Please don't frame this discussion like I'm overriding any standing consensus to have these messages transcluded. The trancluded text was added by yourself to the DRV template two days ago and I have yet to see any requirement for {{tfd}} to be transcluded either. If you strongly believe these notices are worth putting in articles, then gather consensus on a visible page and the matter will be settled. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The trasnclusion count is actually about 16,078 , not 18,000. That also includes 500-1000 transclusions within the User:, User talk:, Misplaced Pages:, etc non-article namespaces, with the actual article transclusion count at around 15,000. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologizes for the inaccuracy, I still find that to be a rather large number of articles. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The link provided does not appear to me to show use of adminstrator's tools, and there does not appear to be any use of the tools required? Unless there are strong objections, I am going to move the discussion to a more appropiate place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This became a matter for AN/I when User:MZMcBride (also an administrator correction: former administrator) jumped into things to revert to User:Brandon's preference of not displaying the discussion message/links just before the template was protected by User:PeterSymonds, (obviously also an administrator).

So yes, I would object to "moving" this discussion somewhere else at this point. I am well aware of what was discussed "off-wiki" just before this sequence of events. The way this sequence of events played out skirts 3RR while "protecting" Brandon's preference and "locking out" any attempt by others (including administrators per WP:WHEEL) to restore the transcluded discussion message/links. While Brandon didn't misuse the tools, and MZMcBride technically didn't misuse the tools, this whole sequence of events is tag teaming with the use of administrative tools to protect another admin's preferred version. Maybe PeterSymonds and MZMcBride didn't think this through before doing this, but the net effect is the same: This is a gross misuse of the administrative tools, no matter how those involved want to spin it.

My own "preference" (and I don't think I'm being too unreasonable) would be to see {{Expand}} placed back the way it had been before Brandon (who I noticed hasn't even been very active lately) discovered and objected to the transcluded discussion notifications, and have him engage in discussion to help us come up with a better way to present this information. No one else objected to it previously, and consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions, especially for discussions such as this which have very wide reaching effects. Brandon didn't complain while {{tfd}} was still transcluded, and there is no harm in having these remain transcluded while the DRV and other discussions about this template are still in-progress. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be a bit more gentle with the readers when you bring an issue here in future, and spell everything out for us. I looked at the history, looked at what you'd written here, and there was nothing that looked untowards. Now that you've actually explained this I'll not move it, of course. Plus I'm looking closer at the history to see if it's as bad as you say... Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools and I feel quite strongly about this. We are having the DRV precisely because of the way the closing administrator decided to close the TfD involved (I won't get into that here). --Tothwolf (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that you want to transclude the message onto mainspace articles so that editors don't remove the template from them. Is that correct? If so, I'm a little puzzled: why would they think to remove the template in the first place unless they had already visited the template page? —Emufarmers 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The effect is pretty much the opposite, particularly when the notification box is added to a template which can be used multiple times inline within a single article: this trashes the article(s) quite thoroughly, as happened with Template:Font—no article diff as the template is now deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFD explicitly states there is no requirement to tranclude the template on article containing the template, going as far to advise against it. So "consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions" is simply just not true. You haven't actually shown a single policy or consensus forming discussing that transclusing the template is required. Advertising debates regarding major changes to the project fall under the domain of AN and watchlist notices, not article entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Brandon (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The text you continue to try to use as justification for your actions was meant to apply to inline templates (such as {{Font}} mentioned above) where the display of a notification would disrupt the article text. This is also covered at Template:Tfd#Which type should be used? where it shows such an example of an inline template along with the text: "As can be seen, the downside is a greater degree of interference with the article's text, so the decision of which type to use, should be made on a case-by-case basis. In the rare case, where the insertion of any template is deemed too detrimental to a large number of articles, it might be advisable to completely disable the notifications."

The template you removed the notification from however, is not an inline template, it is a message box template, where transcluding the notification does not harm the output of the template or article text. If you genuinely feel that this is likely to cause further confusion for others, then perhaps we need to update the text at WP:TFD. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The real point is that while there remains a reasonable chance that the DRV will not confirm the tfd decision, it would be much more difficult and disruptive to remove the template while the deletion review is pending, and then have to restore it-- this would be the case with any very widely used template. If , on the other hand, the final decision is to remove it, then the weeks delay in doing so will not matter. Thus the notice tothwolf wants is altogether reasonable. More generally, the failure to include deletion notices for tfd discussions is a contradiction to the normal openness of Misplaced Pages content decisions; TfD is already essentially the province of those supporting deletions, and the result of not notifying is to suppress meaningful input from outside. Of course, the TfD regulars support not notifying--it is one of the Misplaced Pages procedures showing the greatest degree of ownership. My own opinion for how to handle it is to use tfd as a screening device only; any deletion opposed in good faith must come to a more visible part of the project. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If people started removing {{expand}}, presumably it was because they saw {{being deleted}}. If that's a concern, then {{being deleted}} should be removed from {{expand}} until the deletion review concludes. {{delrev}} seems more accurate, and I don't see what's gained by having it along with {{being deleted}}. —Emufarmers 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools, and feel quite strongly about the issue (as I feel the community should, and as wp:admin suggests should be the case). That said, while admittedly I have more to review, I'm not sure I see the abuse by Brandon here as of yet. As to the substantive notice issue that is at the center of the dispute, I tend to side with Toth's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Block review:User talk:Skysong263

This user is arguing that their edits were did not qualify as vandalism, and I have to say I'm inclined to agree. The blockingh admin edit warred with them and finally blocked them, apprently never thinking to explain themselves in plain English, instead slapping down the usual series of escalating vandalism notices. While the blocked users edits were probably wrong, I don't believe they constitute vandalism, therefore both the edit warring and the block are unjustified. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the blocking admin here, and I have to disagree that I didn't explain myself "in plain English". I noted on my talk page (with a talk back on the user's talk page) as well as the article's talk page and an edit summary that disambiguation pages are not used to direct readers to external links. The user continued to add the external links despite the explanation, so I put in a 12-hour block. If anyone thinks that the block is unnecessary or too long, then s/he is welcome to unblock, but it's inaccurate to describe this as a content dispute. ... discospinster _talk 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this as an uninvolved admin, my opinion is:

• External links do not belong on dab pages. So discospinster is correct there.
• Before the block, discospinster did contact the user, and also left a warning with you will be be blocked in bold. The user who was blocked continued anyway.

Given those bullets, I think that the block was justified. However, I would suggest that more detailed warnings, rather than templates, are often more effective in educating users when they are (unintentionally) violating our norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My two penn'orth is that while User:Skysong263's attempts to add external links were misguided, they were not vandalism. User:discospinster, an experienced admin and editor should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR. Their warning came only at the end of that chain of reverts, not on the first posting of the external links. My own view is that User:Skysong263 should have their block lifted immediately, with a warning about external sites being given. User:discospinster should be warned that their belief that this was vandalism was mistaken, and that further reversions will break 3RR and invite a brief block. Inexperienced users need help and explanation, not arbitrary blocking. At the very least, User:discospinster should have asked an uninvolved admin to make the block. Kim Dent-Brown 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was not vandalism, but I think that "you will be blocked" is clear enough to get the point across. The blocked user made the same inappropriate edit after being asked not to and then formally warned not to. That warrants a block; I don't think we should let the "vandalism" thing overshadow the actual edits. discospinster should adjust his or her communication strategy, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Vandalism is the insertion of obscenities, non-sense or blanking of articles. These edits looking like good faith attempts to improve the article. Is it just me or does it seem like more and more editors are carelessly throwing around vandalism accusations these days? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, after being warned, Skysong made this response, and chose to revert yet again. It was a valid block, as far as I can tell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) First, with regards to the comment "should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR" -- I did explain this early. If you'll note the timeline of editing, at :51 User:Pol430 gave the first "test" warning; at :53 I responded to User:Skysong263's comment on my talk page explaining the disambiguation page guidelines; at :55 I noted in the edit summary that ELs do not belong on the page, and User:Skysong263 undid this edit one minute later; at :57 I placed a warning on the user's talk page; at :59 I made a similar note on the article's talk page. So there were two explanations before any type of warning, then one after.

Second, vandalism is not the only rationale for a block; it also includes disruptive editing. This is what I perceived User:Skysong263's behaviour to be, which prompted the limited-time block.

Perhaps other administrators would have done things differently, but I don't believe that what I did falls outside of the blocking policy. ... discospinster _talk 00:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, discospinster was not WP:INVOLVED, so there was no need for an "uninvolved admin". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Disambig#External_links guideline: "Never include external links...." It is not a content dispute but a deliberate flouting of guidelines. The block seems reasonable. TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See also the attacks here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: It may not have been intentional so much as hurried: perhaps the blocked user simply didn't take the time to investigate the link they were given. That doesn't change the validity of the block, but it gives a different possible explanation for the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see User:discospinster is at fault here, the reverts were valid for the reasons already given. I performed at least one for the same reason. Weather or not the warnings given were correct for User:Skysong263's edits is not especially pertinent now. The point is, that User:Skysong263 should have responded to the warnings with discussion rather than continuing to edit disruptively. Blocks are protective not punitive. User:Skysong263 has only been blocked for 12 hours in order to protect Misplaced Pages from what was un-constructive editing. User:discospinster's actions were made with the good faith notion of protecting Misplaced Pages from un-constructive editing, pursuing policy minutiae is rarely helpful to that end. If the user is requesting to be unblocked then the reviewing admin should consider whether they believe on reasonable grounds that the user will edit constructively. (IMO) Pol430 talk to me 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm somewhat surprised at the "two wrongs make a right" kind of arguments I am seeing here. Yes he was warned to stop, but the warnings were for vandalism, which, although clearly incorrect, these edits were not. Therefore, edit warring over it was not an appropriate response and contrary to our policy on such. A brief protection to force more discussion could maybe have been justified, but a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would have certainly blocked, but for WP:DISRUPT rather than vandalism - per the link provided by SarekOfVulcan at 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) the editor was indifferent to the advice they had received and was going to continue. The block stopped the potential for ongoing disruption. It also appears that the account is sufficiently experienced, or has taken the time once they were no longer able to edit to click the links, to be able to Wikilawyer the wording of WP:VANDAL. So, Discospinster may have ticked the wrong box when applying the sanction - but the net result is that disruption to the project was ended (and if that is two wrongs making a right, then sobeit). No need to beat up on a sysop for making an paperwork error in protecting the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If they had been warned for edit warring, which is what was actually going on, I would fully support the block. They were warned for vandalism. Since they weren't in fact vandalizing they were perfectly free to ignore the warning. I don't think it's a case of wiki-lawyering, admins are supposed to be able to recognize the difference between edit warring and blatant vandalism, and to handle each situation appropiately. I'm sure DS is a fine admin, but this particular block was not done appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is "perfectly free to ignore" a warning that they are about to be blocked. If you don't think that you are doing what the warning says, it would make the most sense to stop editing articles entirely and immediately clarify what's going on. Continuing to do exactly what you have been doing on the basis that the warning must be misplaced is patently unreasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out that the definition of "edit warring" is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"? Again I will assert that I did not simply revert without comment; I explained the reasons for my actions to the user more than once before posting a single warning. Furthermore, the issue was not strictly a content dispute, which implies a disagreement -- the WP:DISAM page clearly states that external links do not belong ("never include external links"). The user's edits might not have been vandalism but the issue was not merely a difference of opinion. In certain situations the admin must use experience and discretion in making a decision, and that is what I did. Anyway, I think User:Pol430's suggestions below are a step in the right direction. ... discospinster _talk 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discusion regarding disruptive editing and warning users about such things. I have also proposed a solution. I feel the template talk page was the most appropriate venue. Follow this link: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#A new set of templates aimed at disruptive editing Pol430 talk to me 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Attacks and outing

I would like to ask someone to have a look at this post by User:HeadlessMaster. WP:OUTING and calling me a "pure communist worshipper" in the same post. I guess insults like the "communist" bull go with the territory, but alongside attempted outing its not something I think should be ignored. That is dangerous, serious stuff, and frankly I would like to see something done. There is no way it was not deliberate.
(P.S. I restored the report, I don't think it reveals anything itself and the relevant post has been deleted. I'd like to request the outing to be viewed in light of the rest of the attack.) --DIREKTOR 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the outing (maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing?) but it does seem a rather hefty personal attack. --Ks1stm (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Was that an revdel or an oversight ? Is there an log of the remove action ? Anyway Fred Bauder has copied the text back in (thats why the links are dead now) wich means HeadlessMaster's text is now misattributed to Fred... 217.235.33.74 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The outing was indeed there. I am also aware that Fred copied the text back (after removing the outing), which is why I specifically mentioned that the text was posted by User:HeadlessMaster. I also posted a new link. --DIREKTOR 12:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you are aware of that. This doesn't answer my question about the log. And posting a refactored comment under wrong attribution is still a fishy move. Since Fred Bauder hasn't even commented one has to take your word that there was something outing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the original, and I can confirm that was something in it that could well have been outing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The user repeated the outing on his talk in spite of warning about this report . --DIREKTOR 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So what happens now? The guy's insulting and openly flaunting his ability to try and out me. Do I need to take this to oversight after all, what? --DIREKTOR 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anytime someone is being outed, the very best way to deal with it is to go to Oversight immidiately. Posting about it in a public forum lke this increases the chance that the outing will be seen by more users. Details of what oversight is doing and exactly what is being suprerssed will generally not be discussed on-wiki, as that is contrary to the whole point of suppression. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What Beeblebrox said.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Political prisoner page – Request for opinions on my level of involvement

It has been suggested that I should not be performing in an administrative capacity on Political prisoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Slim Virgin's opinion carries a lot of weight with me, but in this case I find myself so strongly in disagreement that I’m asking for input from the crowd. This is a follow-up to a previous ANI thread. My brief summary of events prior to that thread:

• There was a low-level edit war on Political prisoner, including reversion of sourced edits without appropriate edit summaries.
• Even brief examination of the other material on the page shows that no clear inclusion criterion had been established.
• The much-newer accounts were making good-faith attempts to use the talk page and were conforming to the de facto standards.
• I first requested and then warned several editors that greater emphasis needed to be placed on collaborative discussion and less on reverting, and that they were only to revert once.
• One editor choose not to engage in discussion with me and reverted twice more without first using the talk page.
• I blocked that editor and opened an ANI thread here. Some discussion ensued.
• My prolix-as-always response to the various opinions in that thread is here.
• The block was lifted and the page fully protected.

Following on from this, I carefully considered the various advices offered. My most recent edit to the talk page of Political prisoner reflects that consideration. Which brings me to the purpose of this posting: Is there general consensus that I'm involved in this in an editorial capacity, and thus should not be acting as an administrator?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just paged through about several pages of the article history, dating back to 2009, and I don't see where you have ever edited the article in question. Where is the contention that you are involved? How can you be involved in an article you haven't ever edited? --Jayron32 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman is involved via the talk page, you don't need to be involved via the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested and I support it that Aaron Brenneman is a long time (a couple of years nearly) returning admin who has appeared to be struggling with his admin tools and shouldn't be using his admin tools anywhere until he is up to speed as they say..personally I have watched his contributions since his return and I don't support his admin status at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bidgee Ah, yes. I just finished reviewing the talk page. Since Aaron Brenneman has expressed an opinion on which side of the dispute he favors, he should probably not have used his tools. I'll admit that the result would likely have been the same, but in the future its always best to ask for someone else to pull the trigger. As a total aside, and irrespective to this, Aaron Brenneman's interpretation of policy regarding removal of sourced edits seems in error. Per WP:BURDEN, contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. Disucssion MUST occur, don't get me wrong, but insofar as material is contested in good faith, where the quality of the source is under good-faith dispute, it is the burden of those who wish to include disputed material to establish quality sources before it is added, not the other way around. The best solution for any contested material is to leave it out while it is under discussion, rather than to leave it in. Always default to "not in the article" until such time as it is established that it belongs. If consensus develops quickly, or if quality sources are found easily, it can be quickly and easily returned. --Jayron32 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that Aaron Brenneman isn't giving the whole facts of this case, the article history only tells part of the whole saga but the article's talk page tells a lot more and the fact myself and Stepopen discussed why the sources didn't or were not reliable POV free sources to cite on what it was alleged (that Manning and Assange were political prisoners), so I did discuss but not as much as I should have (I admit that) but Aaron Brenneman's threats on my talk page was completely out of line (since he's view that the content was fine even though another Admin said it wasn't and even has the same view over the new editors ) and he should have taken it to ANI then or got a third party Admin to deal with the alleged issues.

Fact is Aaron Brenneman never even warned Cecilex yet threatens myself (twice) and Stepopen?

Aaron Brenneman fails to see what he did wrong and will not settle the fact (Also see the ANI thread over the block) he wrongfully blocked myself more then an hour after I did the undo and the fact that another editor used the rollback tool. Fact is both WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMIN policies were breached. All I have asked from Aaron is to annotate the block stating he did it in error and the it was a wrongful block and a meaningful apology. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally reply so quickly, preferring to let consensus build, but...

• @Off2riorob - What I'm "struggling" with right now is the fact-free slag-off you've just committed. While people are certainly entitled to the opinion that I should review, can you please provide a diff that shows both A) someone suggesting that I'm not up to speed and B) policy or guideline that shows I'm not actually up to speed? So far, every time someone says that and I go and reread the page in question (since I pretty much always read them before doing anything, eh?) I'm right. Then when I link to pages and discussion, all goes quiet... Just because you say something enought times doesn't make it true.
• @Jayron32 - Can you please provide a diff where I support one side with respect to the content issue? The editting behaviour I warned and blocked for included removing material that directly supported the newer user's statements. This isn't a question of if the sources were good or not (they weren't) but the editting atmosphere, including ownership of articles.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you express opinions about the quality of sources at several points, at 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) and at Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC) for a few examples. By expressing those opinions, you clearly indicate that you think the sources are good or bad; which is taking a side. In general, you probably shouldn't express opinions over the quality of sources, and then block those people who express different opinions than your own. As I said, given the behavior issues it would have likely been the same result, so it would have been better to ask another admin to perform any sanctions. This isn't a "Aaron Brenneman should be desysoped" issue, this is a "Aaron Brenneman made a little mistake, and should likely try to avoid such a mistak in the future" sort of issue. Just try not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions. Its better to just ask for another admin to act; if you are right in needing a block against another user, it will be backed up by a neutral admin who can pull the trigger. --Jayron32 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully, but I'm still not able to grok. I'm really sorry. I'm looking at my edit of 01:18, 17 December 2010 right now:

I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:

• The "vandalism" was a single emoticon buried in text, and
• The "dubious and unreliab sourc" was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

I am utterly gobsmacked by the suggestion that this edit makes me involved. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations, my comments of 01:18 are totally consistant with those principles. By the "not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions" standard, how in the world are we meant to perform our duties as adminstrators?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That one edit probably not so much. The sum total of all of the talk page discussion is likely adds up to a small amount of involvement. You can perform lots of admin actions, for example, you can merely leave a note at WP:AN asking for another admin to administer the block in question. The issue is not in actual impropriety, it is in the appearance of impropriety. As soon as you say "these sources are good, and these other ones are bad", as you do at several times in the discussion on the talk page, it's probably not the greatest idea to block the person who has a different opinion. Note that this does not mean that the person should not have been blocked. As I said several times, they should have been blocked. Just not by you. There's several hundred very active admins, someone else can always pull the trigger if it is obvious. I issue blocks and protections myself all the time, but if there is ANY chance that ANYONE could say I was involved in a discussion or editing, even if its minimal, I always ask someone else to do the dirty work. Blocks get issued, just by people who haven't already been involved in multiple, threaded discussions with the blockees over the content of the article. --Jayron32 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Must... resist. Rational... discourse... taking... effect.

I don't like what you're saying. Like, at all. However it is clearly a tenable position you're putting forth. My biggest concern with it is that we (as admistrators) are better placed to make decisions when we've been involved in the discussion. ("Involved" in the general since, not the[REDACTED] term of art.) I shall stew further on this dichotomy. Thank you for taking the time to make your meaning more clear to me.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aaron here. The whole point of admins not using their tools in cases where they are involved is to prevent abuse due to conflicts of interest, where the admin is clearly siding with one of the parties in the dispute. However if, like Aaron, they show a remarkable capacity for staying detached from the topic, and are involved in a totally administrative capacity, I don't see how their long-term involvement in the article is not a plus, rather than a reason for them to step out when administrative decisions need to be made. If anything, an admin who has actually had been keeping track of what is going on throughout the course of the dispute will be in the best position to make blocking decisions (which, if done right, require an insanely large amount of research for lengthy disputes) and other difficult administrative choices. I don't understand the logic by saying that a person that has no idea what is going on (or a very limited idea, based on the selective truths that people present on noticeboards) should be preferred over a person who knows a lot about what is going on.

And by the way, I still haven't seen a single person that insinuated that he was biased, or involved in anything other than an administrative capacity, either provide a diff or apologize for making a baseless allegation. One of these two things should happen immediately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that the interpretation that stating that someone is a political prisoner is a BLP violation due to the term being derogatory is very creative. I see that the whole section has been removed at this point. un☯mi 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean, "creative"? It's contentious material about living persons. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh, Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner".. un☯mi 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• From Courcelles's comment in User_talk:Courcelles. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron - Without commenting on this specific incident, I think you would have to admit that there's been a number of questions and concerns expressed about your admin actions since you returned from your break. Some of these were discussed on your talk page, and never hit AN/I, but you're obviously under increased scrutiny because of it. Don't you think it would be advisable to hold off on performing any admin actions for a while -- say a month or so -- until you're back in the swim of things? After all, Misplaced Pages got along without your participation while you were away, it'll survive another 4 weeks without your admin input. It would be best to just edit for a while, and monitor AN/I and AN to adjust your understanding of current Wiki-culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It has to be obvious to other editors why an admin has arrived at a page: it's usually because of a complaint on one of the boards or talk pages, or a serious BLP issue. We can't just arrive willy nilly and start telling other editors what to do. Aaron hasn't explained how he came to notice that admin assistance was needed at Political prisoner, and his initial posts on the talk page gave no indication that he wasn't there as an editor. Aaron's block of Bidgee was inappropriate for that reason; his opposition to page protection on RfPP after Bidgee requested it was odd; and his block of Bidgee thereafter odder still. That Bidgee requested admin help on RfPP suggests that he didn't see Aaron as an admin at Talk:Political prisoner, or he wouldn't have needed to go to RfPP; Aaron should have realized that meant the roles had become confused, and he should have waited for admins at RfPP to deal with it. In addition his posts since then on Bidgee's talk page here, following the AN/I discussion, have not been helpful.

I have concerns in general about Aaron's return as an admin after a break. He hadn't used the tools much for a couple of years, and not at all for 14 months, until September 2010 when he deleted two talk page histories, User talk:Aaron Brenneman (restored by Moonriddengirl), and User talk:152.91.9.144, though nowadays best practice is not to delete user talk pages unless there are privacy/harassment concerns. Then after a few (uncontentious) user page deletions and an article speedy deletion, his first admin action directed at another user was this sudden block of Bidgee.

Aaron, I think it's in your own interests to avoid using the tools until you're familiar with the changes in admin practices since you were active. Most of your adminning was in 2006-2007, when things were very different, and the notion of "involved" was more fluid than it is now. SlimVirgin 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year, everyone. Also,

@Jayron32 - I've had a good think about your Caesar's wife dictum on administrative behaviour. After this consideration I must, with respect, disagree. We use "rough consensus" instead of "true consensus" in making decisions, why is that? Because there is a large enough plurality on Misplaced Pages that some level of disagreement is expected, even desired. If, as in this case, an administrator has taken the time and effort to engage in a topic (to examine the article's history, look at the contributions of the principles, read (and re-read) supporting policy and practice) then we shouldn't throw that time and effort away based upon a minority dissent. We don't need to be totally above reproach, we simply need to do the best job that we can. It's a much better use of time to have a good think about if someone is involved or not as per Misplaced Pages:Administrators, and to get consensus that "Yes, some people on the page may not like it, but this admin has the imprimatur to warn, block, etc. So play nice." This also avoid the re-work necessary to get a drop-in admin up to speed on the local situation. If that linked policy needs amending, we should take it to that policy talk page.

@Jrtayloriv - thank you.

@Beyond My Ken - First, the use of "admit" is unfortunate on your part. It strongly implies that, to date, I had been somehow denying that there was noise. I'd direct you to my earlier response to Off2riorob. If you have a specific case where you see that my actions are not supported by policy, please do point it out. Barring that, the simple presence of disagreement is not sufficient evidence that I'm out of touch. Please note that there are over 600 pages of archives for this noticeboard, so disagreeing is what we do. The increased scrutiny that I'm being subjected to has been mostly lazy hand-waving. Which, I am beginning to recall, was always the "wiki culture" on this board.

@Slim - I must begin by stating that I have tremendous respect (and no small amount of affection) for you. The manner in which you've stated your disagreement should be an example to everyone who comments on this board: Clear, with links to relevant diffs, and obviously having done the homework before commenting. Thank you. However, with respect to the substance of your comment, I must (for the most part) disagree.

• My initial comment did not state I was an administrator. This has been mentioned several times as where this episode went off the rails. In response to this, I'd like to ask a rhetorical question: Looking at my edits and then the immediate response, is that how we'd like editors to be treated? Is it only administrators who deserve calm deliberative responses to neutral queries? It should concern us more that this was the response from Bidgee, not less.
• My opposition to page protection is totally sound as far as policy and practice. I'd ask everyone to actually read the protection policy, to look at the page history, and comment based on that.
• My comments to Bidgee's page have been, at all times, calm and respectful. I've tried very hard to engage that editor in meaningful dialogue, to encourage them to use dispute resolution, to come down from the Reichstag. That he has refused to do so reflects poorly on him, not me.
• My deletion of my talk page and the IP talk page are not "best practice." This is, however, simply a difference of opinion. It's not totally forbidden, it's just slightly unusual.
• My block wasn't "sudden." The editor had been warned, both in person and on the articles' talk. When he removed the warning from his talk, I explicitly said I would block him if he failed to keep to one revert and use the talk page first.

In general, I'm disheartened how easily "I don't agree with you" get supplanted by "You don't know what you're talking about." While it's important that (as members of the sysop group) we have some consensus about what constitutes "normal" behaviour, it's also important that we encourage a diversity, to avoid mono-cultural groupthink. When there are cases raised that are outside the norm, we should be engaging in careful, considered discussions. Opinions (particularly unsupported and regurgitated ones) greatly lower the quality of these discussions.

I've came and asked for input, and I've received some. I'll be taking all of that input into account moving forward. I really appreciate everyone's contribution.

But I'm not going to be stepping away from the tools. This is perhaps no longer appropriate a discussion for this noticeboard, but I'm happy to leave that decision to the peanut gallery. If there are continuing concerns that anyone would like to air, User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Administrative_actions.2C_and_concerns_thereof would be a fine place.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly surprising when you airily dismiss legitimate complaints from veteran editors and other admins as "lazy hand-waving". You would be better advised to stop blaming others for your errors, and realize that you are significantly out of step with current admin practices, which is what numerous people have told you, but you refuse to hear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DC - compromised account?

I've seen DC (talk · contribs) around quite a bit, and he seemed like a great editor... until he vandalized the user pages of two editors with the comments "I'm a stupid nigger" and "I'm a twat." He then proceeded to roll back my query about the edits in question. Either DC has officially gone insane, or (more likely) his account has been compromised. --Dylan620 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted this below, but it appears to be connected to User:Justice America, which is detailed below. Very weird. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd find it perfectly believable that DC and JA were both compromised by the person behind the VOA CassidyQ (talk · contribs); they're both caught in their autoblock. --Dylan620 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Justice America

Similar to above, abusive editor, or compromised account? I got a profane e-mail and don't believe I've ever encountered this editor, and I can't decipher the autoblock situation on his/her talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Very strange, it seems to be the same message as on User talk:DC's talk page, as mentioned in the thread directly above this one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that Justice America was last majorly active in November 2008, when they stood for Arbcom with this statement. Since returning in early December of this year, all of their edits are problematic. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then I likely opposed JA at Arbcom. The only other possible connection I can see is that the DC account supported a recent RFA that I opposed after he announced that he would be away most of the week. (And there are a few curiously new accounts supporting that RFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the connection with User talk:CassidyQ? Justice America and DC have both gone off the bend, then tagged themselves. . Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←I'm looking into this now. It appears that these accounts may actually be sleeper accounts. Admins, please hold off on taking any administrative action for a few. Thanks, Tiptoety 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Once you get it sorted, there's an RFA that will need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK to make this into a sub-thread for the discussion I initiated on DC just above? They're both related somehow, and it would be a pity if these threads went into different archives (hence rendering the usage of the word "above" a paradoxical one). --Dylan620 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tiptoety 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Looking at DC (talk · contribs)'s block log, it appears he has tried to play the "compromised account" angle before. Unfortunately, he was not as smooth in covering his tracks this time. It would appear that Justice America (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and DC (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed socks of CassidyQ (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 appears involved somehow. I'm still thinking that CassidyQ (talk · contribs) is the sockmaster. All blocked now, if someone wants to tag go for it. Tiptoety 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail; who deal with the RFA and how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How can CassidyQ be the sockmaster when the account was created months/years after the other two? Surely either someone has compromised DC's account, or DC has gone troppo with his main account and a sock (CassidyQ)? Of course the second theory is based on DC and JA having been the same person all along. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was simply going off of the fact that CassidyQ was the only one currently blocked, so I made her the sockmaster. But, I guess if you want to get technical it would be DC. The reason I am saying the accounts are not compromised is 1) how often does an account become compromised twice, and 2) there is no technical evidence to show it has been compromised. The IPs that they have been using for a while geolocate to the same location of the IP they edited from today. Tiptoety 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically JA would be the sockmaster since he came before DC did (JA: June 2008; DC: August 2009). --Dylan620 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I don't think the "compromised" theory holds up either on what I'm seeing. DC's vandal edits had very particular targets, mainly related to WP:ITN. DC has a regular editor there for some time. Looking back through his talk page archive it seems he's had short fuse problems in the past concerning ITN, so this just seems to have been another blast, and very much a blockworthy blast at that. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note to Self: never tag, even if encouraged, unless looking into yourself first.) I'll switch the tags and remember not to tag before making sure again. JA is the puppeteer then? Doc talk 08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. Tiptoety 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say wait til everything shakes out to figure out who's the master. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it appears that Justice America is the oldest account. It seems DC was the good-hand account...--Bsadowski1 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@Tiptoey: no need to apologize: I've seen more than one "completed" SPI report that had to be corrected after the fact. I'll defer to SG and either let someone else correct the tags or wait for further developments. Doc talk 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't wait for me, I've had a leaky roof for two nights, and need some sleep and some time to work on more of this. I 'spose tags can be changed later if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The other interesting question is whether DC or JA had some previous run-in or issue with Tony the Tiger or Candlewicke, which would explain the vandal edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You could check their FAC/GA/DYK etc intersection, but TTT is kinda hard to avoid, so I suggest looking at Candlewicke :) I'll look into more of this after I get some rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←DC's account has been compromised before, taking part in similar antics. It was put down to the account being based in a university campus dorm room, and someone else had used the account when he forgot to log off or something. I don't know if the real real DC could just be some sort of victim of a mass college revolt(?) whist returning home for New Year etc. —  Cargoking  talk  12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF, if the user has twice managed to leave his logon unsecured in a public place, he ought not be editing here anyway; and if he does online banking, he might want to check his current balance and see if there still is one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't speak if I haven't looked in to the history but while a twice compromised account may be possible, it seems odd that this time? the person who just so happened to compromise it also happened to have a few sleeper? sockpuppets which he/she used to post the same nonsense. Were these sockpuppets used for the same nonsense when the account was compromised before? Personally I'm inclined to believe someone drinking (or smoking or whatever) too much during the new year celebrations is a more likely cause here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But because the account was based at a university campus, these other accounts could possibly be used by other people on the campus who possibly could have used DC's account, and were vandalising at the same time. (I am not trying to stick up for DC btw.) —  Cargoking  talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Had some sleep, may not get to all the work I have to do on this by today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the more I think about this I just don't buy that some random passerby or cheeky college roommate made comments about two other editors. It just does not ring true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is form between DC and TonyTheTiger here, evidence that the attack on TTT was not random. I'm struggling to find the specific connection between DC and Candlewicke, other than that they are both regulars at ITN. Unfortunately ITN's archiving system makes it difficult to find particular examples of conflicts. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DC's TTT edit really ought to be revdel'ed, IMO. That's not the kind of thing an editor should have to see in their user page history. 28bytes (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The last time DC went on the rampage, or his alleged compromiser, the pages were presumably in his watchlist as they had been recently modified. This could be the same again. —  Cargoking  talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

jlesco

Jlescoe made a very scary noise on my talk page . Not sure what that is all about, but I never had edited anything related to Mormons. Phearson (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a reaction to a message I left at an IP editor's talk page (presumably his) a couple hours ago. New editor who doesn't seem to know how to identify who he's engaging in discussion. No idea how he found you, but I think you could safely ignore it. alanyst 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant it towards Misplaced Pages as a whole. I just happen to be the one he picked up from the petri-dish to be yelled at. Phearson (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is likely the same person that was editing Joseph Smith, Jr. as an IP last night. Here is a similar post on Katie's talk. I will watch-list the article and see what happens next. --Diannaa 04:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig Vincent

An IP claiming to be the subject is taking part in an edit war at this article (now up for AfD). I could block the IP as they've been warned, but am not sure that that is the best thing to do. Right now the IP is removing citation needed templates saying that as he's the source of the information they are inappropriate. I've protected for 6 hours to try to get this sorted. Although the IP is getting very hot under the collar, and an editor has put "rv v" in edit summaries, this is just a content dispute with some obvious COI. Is the best thing to do to extend the protection until the end of the AfD (which isn't normal) or just go ahead and block if the IP won't agree to stop? Maybe a couple of other voices will convince him to stop. I've tried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think SPAs should be blocked. HeyMid (contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. Kim Dent-Brown 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good note. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Chiming in as a non-admin involved in the AfD ... While this is another round of ammo in my staunch belief that we need an official guideline to go along with WP:BITE that newcomers have a positive duty to become familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and practices, as well as the responsibility to comply with WP:CIVIL, let's not get too bitey. This is a rookie who plainly has no idea how we do things, and needs education more than a smackdown. Heck, I'm currently participating in a RfC where the subject's incivilities rank in the hundreds, and for some reason he's still allowed to edit.  RGTraynor  11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:SqueakBox

Requesting an unblock regarding the thread further up the page. I don't know the history but seems contentious enough to open it up here IMO. Personally I don't think an unblock is viable so soon. S.G. _ping! 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And I suspect that it won't be long before others agree, looking at the old thread... S.G. _ping! 11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have unarchived and re-opened the earlier discussion with a sub heading noting the unblock request - best that it is all kept in one place, where any person who has missed it can review the prevous discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

main discussion and unblock discussion --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The 'old hands' of the community are all well aware of Kohs and the history of his blocks and unblocks. If anyone finds any sockpuppets of banned editors, Kohs included, they should bring them to the attention of ArbCom (if private information is involved) or any interested administrator and expect swift and decisive action: but there's no current need for administrator action here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to the attention of the community a website called Mywikibiz.com, which is being run by a person of the name of Gregory Kohs, which I believe was suspended by Jimbo years ago. I was browsing through some of the freelancer websites when I came across a website profile which stated:

As the founder of MyWikiBiz, the first paid editing service associated with Misplaced Pages, I know the ins and outs of manipulating Misplaced Pages. Some of my editor accounts have been "banned" by Misplaced Pages administrators, but what they don't know and can't stop are the manifold continuing accounts in good standing that I operate on behalf of paying clients.

I also investigating this site in connection to a WP:COI investigation into another editor (which a separate thread will be started shortly). I find this extremely terrifying that there are people out there who puff up articles for money. Phearson (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We are aware of it, there was an WP:AN thread about three weeks ago. General consensus was as long as they obeyed our Policies and guidelines there is no problem. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Strike that it was another similar Business. We have an article on this guy as well MyWikiBiz The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

However if they are socks of a banned user, that's not nice, is it? - BorisG (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If they're banned, aren't you obligated to block their socks upon discovery, "good standing" or not? HalfShadow 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We generally do. However, this is a voluntary project, no one is "obligated" to do anything.--Scott Mac 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you know what I mean. HalfShadow 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

By definition a blocked editor cannot have accounts in good standing. Kohs used to be a reasonably good article creator though as far as I've heard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If he's out there writing corporate articles and there's nothing wrong with them, I say ignore it. We routinely ignore banned editors who return with a new account as long as they aren't causing trouble. If he's creating problems, they will be noticed soon enough, we'll trace the accounts involved, and block them. I've blocked a number of Kohs socks over the years when he's gone out of his way to make them evident. Jehochman 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree in ignoring banned editors. They are to be banned when their sock is made known. Phearson (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what admin action are you asking for here, Phearson. I think we all agree that Greg Kohs is banned and is likely to remain banned for the foreseeable future. What is it you want done? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue water navy page

Can admins take control of the situation. I cannot handle it anymore.Bcs09 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that actions are only going ahead on consensus of regular article editors and not on a whim, user Bcs09 disagrees with this and I welcome any outside help. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've issued 3RR warnings to both accounts involved in the edit war on Blue-water navy. It seems like you guys are having a content dispute, so consider dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mosmirenjohje

User:Mosmirenjohje joined a discussion, which he probably couldn't have known about if he was a new user. He may be a sockpuppet so a CU is needed.--— ZjarriRrethues —  17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here, or the reporter has failed to say what exactly is wrong with this. Phearson (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What other evidence do you have other than that ZjarriRrethues. I also agree with Phearson. Baseball Watcher 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer experiments creating disruption

• Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 96.247.28.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Science&HiTechReviewer who claims to be using this account to experiment with Misplaced Pages. Now that he's edited enough to be autoconfirmed, he's become more disruptive: continuing to focus on other editors, and now edit-warring to remove tags added to identify specific problems in the content he's previously reverted , and reverting a merging of information under dispute that includes dubious information .

Past ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Editor_Science.26HiTechReviewer

He began labeling my editing as "vandalism" with his 00:13, 30 December 2010 AN attempt. Despite the response from Trebor , he wasn't swayed , and is now throwing the label of "vandalism" to justify his edit-warring: .

When he first brought up the "vandalism" accusation on the article talk 14:41, 31 December 2010, he was rebutted by PrimeHunter Habap, yet he's continuing there as well:

Maybe we should fully protect the article while we get this settled? --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the ideal of[REDACTED] is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification or better source material. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality and excellence of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken. A number of editors on this page have been trying to help improve the quality, but this editor continually is reverting proper edits, questioning primary sources, and reverting back to inaccuracies, character slurs, and inappropriate references. These types of actions are very disruptive and counteractive to the overall process of improving the excellence of the material presented.

Vandalism occurs when someone deliberately tries to tamper with the facts relating an historical event or profiled person. This can be done by inserting improper facts, removing important contextual information, unfair juxtapositions of unrelated events giving the false impression of cause and effect, and also by revising corrected inaccuracies and errors. The term vandalism can also be applied to the unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources. There is no problem in questioning sources, but this editor is only questioning the sources of others, but not his own, even if they come from the very own source! iWhen a standard for source material is not equally applied across the board, then it becomes biased, and falls into the vandalism category, especially when such edits appear to have the impact of distributing only negative information or removing positive information (or the reverse).Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I write and give talks about misinformation and disinformation in important public forums, and sometimes I find examples of such misuse in these types of interactions, is besides the point. I would like to see the process work properly. It is my trumpet song to bring attention to these sorts of abuses. I have no problem with his making edits as long as they do not interfere with the factual content, do not promote a hidden agenda, are spiteful, and stick to what Misplaced Pages stands for.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding tags in which an editor has found legitimate verifiability concerns, or inconsistencies regarding verification thereof, is not vandalism. –MuZemike 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In spite of Science&HiTechReviewer's claim that he is here to experiment with Misplaced Pages, his contributions suggest that he is just the next in the series of pro-Naveen Jain promotional editors. There have been past complaints about this article at the COI noticeboard. A review of Talk:Naveen Jain will give a flavor of the past problems. The talk page shows that one registered user, by fixing a previous mistake, admitted he was editing from an IP belonging to the Intelius company, of which Naveen Jain is a founder. In the past, IP editors have frequently tried to remove well-sourced negative information about Jain's legal troubles. Science&HiTechReviewer's edits fall under the clause of WP:COI which provides:

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

As this section provides, a direct proof of COI is not needed if the account is clearly an SPA here on Misplaced Pages with the mission of promotion. If Science&HiTechReviewer continues on his campaign to insert pro-Jain material, without waiting to get support from other editors, I think that a block for edit warring or disruptive editing might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, per WP:DUCK. Without Jimbo's confirmation, I'd assume he was just another sock/meatpuppet. He's been making very similar edits as employees of Intelius: removing the same well-sourced information, removing and dismissing the same sources, placing the same emphasis on information that is poorly sourced, providing the same arguments. I'd like to attribute this to just stubborness combined with a lack of interest in reading past discussions and doing in-depth research. Regardless, given that this is a long-disputed BLP article, some further precautions look necessary. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A new SPA, Mists out of Time (talk · contribs) has emailed me information that suggests personal links between P3opl3watch3r (talk · contribs) and Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs). I don't have time at the momement to investigate further, but from the looks of it, it's probably meatpupptery. I doubt if there's a good case to be made. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer is now up to four reverts at Naveen Jain on 31 December. In each case he claimed to be reverting vandalism. This amounts to a plain WP:3RR violation, irrespective of the promotional editing. Can anyone argue that a block should not be issued? The reverts are , , , . EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. I see a content dispute. Tiderolls 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just total crap. I have explained myself fully with regards to all my edits, which are factual only. I am not anyone's puppet. I don't have any connection to Jain or anyone else I am editing, and I don't edit my own wiki entry, which is far longer and has been up for a lot longer than Jain's. This is just the reverse being claimed here. It appears that only negative edits are being done. I think my arguments speak for themselves, and are valid as such. I have over 15 books published under my name, and countless articles, and I do believe that I know something about scholarship, and that applies to the Information Age as I give invited talks about it enough.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have my own theory of who S&HTR is (of course I mustn't post it here per OUTING) and if my guess is right, then yes, in my opinion he has a COI. In any case I think the experiment should stop, or be done much differently, as I feel it is illegitimate from a WP policy standpoint in its current form, and I find some aspects of it ethically questionable. I actually do think S&HTR's critique of Misplaced Pages has a lot of validity, but he's pursuing it the wrong way, and it's especially obnoxious of him to pick an area (problematic BLP's) where we know that we suck and we've made it our top priority to improve (with considerable success so far, but a long way to go). It would be much better for him to visit some of the more successful parts of Misplaced Pages; for example, by getting involved in an FA campaign. I have some other things to do right now but I can post more on this later, and (from the viewpoint of a longtime semi-disgruntled editor) I'm willing to get into a 1-to-1 talkpage discussion with S&HTR about Misplaced Pages in general and how to edit successfully, if S&HTR is interested in that. Meanwhile, Jimbo says S&HTR offered to say who he was, and I'd like to take S&HTR up on that offer, if it is still on the table. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually turning out to be hilarious. I am happy to privately reveal my identity to anyone that wants to know. So yes, that offer is still on the table. I am not connected to the person that is the focus of this bio. That would be evident from the reveal. I am happy to point to long posted videos of me moderating distinguished panels on this subject, echoing the same arguments alongside Arianna Huffington (no, I am not associated with her either), etc. I am not in the high tech industry though I speak and write about some of its dangers. Listen to my arguments. They are not unreasonable. I am not trying to hide behind Wiki rules. This is standard scholarship stuff. There was a reason I picked a "controversial" profile. I got a couple of others I am working on too, because that is where you find things out. It isn't safe. That's how physicists work, you scratch at those areas that have issues. My training. It wasn't to cause offense, and it certainly wasnt' to be anyone's puppet. I went through a lot of trouble going through all the junk in the system to try to improve things, and see what happens. It is frustrating to see it all unravel, and revert back to the same errors. That's not progress, nor improvement. I don't like my time wasted in these ways. If good edits are made, then great. Everyone is a mixture of good and bad information, just want to make sure it is correct. It is true I haven't gone in detail through all the history on this page, and was pretty unfamiliar with the chap, but this afternoon I did, and I can see that some of this stuff has been discussed before, but why wasn't some of the errors corrected back then? The process is not working well here unfortunately. I am hopeful that this will end with a productive dialogue.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have an idea. I can set up a free conference line, and anyone who wants to speak to me can get on, and I will happily reveal myself, and then you can google me, as long as my profile is not revealed here. This may dispel any notion that meatpuppery is going on, and the like, and that all this stuff fits squarely into the profile of what I talk and write about. I am happy to take this conversation off line, so I am willing to put up. So, who will go for it?Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we've established that the edit-warring was over sourced information removed without reading the source or reading discussions about the source closely enough to notice the details. So much for accuracy and scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

S&HTR, I think your offer to self-identify privately to random WP editors is honorable, but isn't really the way we do things here. To the extent possible, on transparency grounds, we frown on that type of private, off-wiki coordination between most editors, and instead have just a few editors (specifically Checkusers, Arbcom, and Jimbo) authorized to deal with confidential info on the community's behalf. I was really hoping you'd announce yourself here on-wiki, but the next best thing would be to email the info to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org and then an arbcom member could comment here on your possible issues, without specifically identifying you. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that S&HTR is indeed experimenting in order to produce a report about our editing, I would strongly advise him against basing the presentation around a single case--especially a case where the cover of doing ordinary editing was not able to be maintained. There are many reasons why certain subjects arouse controversy in Misplaced Pages, and by using any one particular article, especially a living person, one is apt to draw unrepresentative conclusions. In this case it was an article that was the subject of alternately promotional editing, and negative comment upon the validity of the person's work. If the purpose was to find how Misplaced Pages attains balance in such a situation, it was not necessary to probe: an examination of the existing edits would have told the story--but would tell the story only about the particular article--there will be other stories at other articles. There is perhaps a pattern, but it is the comparisons that will disclose it--an n=1 study where the identity of the editor was semi-disclosed partway through has no validity. Misplaced Pages is properly very sensitive about anything that might be considered a breaching experiment for such can be the excuse for any sort of disruption; at the least, it immediately raises the question of whether there were other undisclosed "experiments." And in general such probes with public sources of information, while I think often valuable, are always questioned: see Sokal affair. And S&H will have now found something else out-- people at Misplaced Pages does not like overt or implicit appeals to authority or connections, or people one knows. Of course, he could have found that out also by examining the archives, either on-wiki or the various mailing lists. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the appeal to authority especially annoying. I find being used as an "experiment" annoying as well. The "partial reveal" of the experiment is a Schrödinger's cat to me. --Habap (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 2011 ...

Don't suppose any admin could magically turn back the clock a week so I can prep some stuff for the WikiCup? ;) Wow, it's actually a new year. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fetchcomms! Yeah, 2010 blew by pretty fast, but on New Year's Eve, don't you always wonder where on Earth the year went? --Dylan620 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thirded! Happy New Year! Though I've already been saying Happy New Year in my country since an hour back :) HeyMid (contribs) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well here in the Bay State, we've still got five more hours to go. (Wouldn't you be an hour ahead, Heymid?) --Dylan620 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fourtheted! Happy Yew Nears!!!@# ;P -- œ 03:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible incident it is! Making the 2010 a 2011 without consensus! I demand a revert! Phearson (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

L.O.L.!!! :-D Yeah, it is interesting that the "Happy New Year!!!" messages are here on the Incident noticeboard, instead of the regular/main Administrators' Noticeboard, which may well be a better place for them. X-D 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To all as well ... my only question being, will this violation of notaforum lead to trouts, or to the ever-more-popular (they don't mean forever) indef blocks?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, outright ban 'em I say! Take 'em out to pasture! Off with their heads! Let them eat cake! <insert historic rabble-rousing statement here>...and so on. :) Happy New Year all. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I would of course favor trouts over indef. blocks :-), but someone could always move this thread (and the other one below) to the main Administrators' Noticeboard. (Funny note: two admins are guilty-as-charged of posting on this page in the other thread below, "Happy New Year, EST", especially the one who opened it, SarekOfVulcan. Also note the admins who have posted in this thread X-D.) 09:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research/linkvios by 174.28.41.201

174.28.41.201 (talk) has been engaging in original research at Jeopardy! theme music, such as at , (reverting a user who explained his removal of the section), , . He has been adding as "sources" YouTube videos that are clearly copyvios, such as , , , , . RJaguar3 | u | t 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson

I've documented on his talk page three instances of uncivil behavior on the part of User:Pmanderson within the last day or so. I'm copying those comments here:

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES . Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Misplaced Pages - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Any one of these comments taken in isolation is not really egregious, but taken together it amounts to harassment:

a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

These comments are distressing, they make working on WP unpleasant (others have noted the inappropriateness of these types of comments as well), and they are obviously intended to undermine me. Per WP:CIVIL they are also "taunting or baiting": "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves".

I've asked PMA repeatedly to raise concerns about the behavior of other editors (namely me) at the appropriate forum, starting with that editor's talk page (as I did with him), but he persists. If he has legitimate concerns, then he should pursue them in an appropriate manner, not by making derisive comments on article and guideline talk pages. PMA has a long history of make these kinds of inappropriate snide remarks about fellow editors with whom he disagrees, and I'm asking for administrator intervention.

At a minimum, I ask that he be restricted from making derisive comments about others, or sharing concerns about the behavior of others on article and guideline talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the focus of your editing in recent years has been on naming conventions, rather than article editing. You have been brow-beating editors who disagrees with you in page move discussions or naming convention RfCs. Perhaps the right course of action for Pmanderson would be to start a user RFC to get community input.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the second in under a year, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Far too much time is spent on[REDACTED] debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's rather disturbing to read, in a citation provided by B2C himself, that B2C intends to devote years to his pointless crusade. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that these comments rise to the level that they need the attention of ANI. Born2cycle should learn to be more concise and conciliatory on talk pages. Also, warning templates on Pmanderson's talk page are more likely to escalate rather than reduce tension. TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson is consistently slightly derisive and uncivil, constantly accuses people of being vandals and not assuming good faith. But doing anything about it is a long and painful process. It's not worth the effort. Try to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Born2cycle and Pmanderson have both been guilty of incivility in recent weeks. I also recently placed a complaint on OpenFuture's talk page a few days ago about his comments towards me, a complaint which he promptly deleted. All three users (and possibly a few of the others who have been involved in the debates in question) need to cool it. I respect them all as contributors, but my own patience is wearing thin. Under the circumstances, I feel the best thing to do with the current discussion is to bin it and start again with a bit more mutual understanding for 2011. Deb (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential outing

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Misplaced Pages. That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google. He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- œ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per OlEnglish here, I gave Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) a warning about posting personal info (using {{uw-pinfo}}). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask. --Jayron32 04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On your head? -- œ 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbanks Ali, good call. -- œ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EST!

And many happy returns. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same from me :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto from Ohio. Happy New Year! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Happy New Year from North Carolina!!! :-D 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming EST means Eastern Standard Time, it was a Happy New Year here 15 hours ago. You guys are so slow. (PS: EST is not exclusive to USA) HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New York *is* the capital of the world. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Rhodie checking in :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess your Eastern Standard Time is different from our Eastern Standard Time. For us, the new year came only about 25 minutes ago. We watched the news and saw the Acorn-drop in Raleigh, N.C., and the celebration in Times Square, New York (as well as seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P). 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And just when I thought I'd managed to repress the memory of the Backstreet Boys, they show up... I thought I hated them in the late 90's, but now I really hate them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kicking off the new year with a bit of your own WP:OR on ANI? How could you? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P Cannot unread. 2011 is now ruined for me, thanks ;) GiftigerWunsch 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Adding my late new year greetings to my fellow wikipedians across the pond. GiftigerWunsch 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And CST

Hiya! Nakon 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt , in an attempt to influence a AfD. Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabirro

Gabirro (talk · contribs)

Gabirro has received final warning (for living person violations), but continues to edit war and ignore NPOV and general policy. Greenman (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards