Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 26 March 2011

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Ban national(ist) barnstars

Dialogue among Misplaced Pages contributors is already heavy with all kinds of biases, including those caused by competing nationalisms. Barnstars that are nationally denoted, without carrying any other qualification, should be banned because (a) they promote divisiveness, when barnstars are supposed to be a playful pat on the back by a fellow wikipedian, and (b) actually denote a compromise in the principles of Misplaced Pages through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased. Note that such barnstars are almost always "awarded" to fellow compatriots, thus adding to cliquishness and tribalism. (I submit a random example of such a barnstar for purely illustrative purposes.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work in Albanian pages, keep up the good work, cheers!x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to y by x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. They are used in a similar fashion like thematic barnstars. Armbrust _{Undertaker 19–0} 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. Most WikiProjects, which this appears to have come from, has their own barnstar. WP:VIRGINIA has their own (see at the far bottom; my creation) and that is in the US. So, this isn't just countries, but states. It is something to award members of that specific WikiProject when they do well inside that WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Working "in Albanian pages" could mean helping keep them neutral, as opposed to acting "in the interests of a certain nationality". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:MFD or similar as its not really something admins have any particular influence over. I personally don't see the problem with this kind of barnstar, though I suppose it's possible for them to be misused by some editors (in which case the best response would be to sanction the editor using barnstars to reward bad behaviour rather than delete the barnstar itself, unless it was created for some kind of offensive purpose ). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Od Mishehu: Yes, in theory it could mean "helping to keep them neutral". In practice, it never does. I cannot remember ever having seen any of these "national" barnstars awarded in any scenario other than the one where it's awarded by one nationally-driven agenda account to the other in reward for helping to fight the fight. – The other thing is that even if they were intended in a neutral, constructive way, their wording and symbolism typically doesn't fit. Using terms like "national merit", together with political symbols like flags, practically screams "patriotism", i.e. a pro-nation-X agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's one - User talk:KnightxxArrow#Barnstar -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I was afraid people would focus on the Albanian barnstar, and this is what happened but Albania -or any other specific country- is not the issue. Picture any other flag here, your own country's, if you want. The issue is that national(ist)-tagged barnstars and symbols tend to worsen the significant and already extensive problem of competing nationalisms in Misplaced Pages editing. It is indeed, as Fut.Perf. reminds us, extremely rare to see national barnstars awarded to someone for objectivity or pure encyclopaedic work. Time to re-adjust our focus, methinks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Maple Leaf Award Nation themed barnstars are not a problem, and for editors that work on articles related to a specific country, offer a nice local touch when rewarding good work. Resolute 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle, these barnstars are fine. I've awarded threeMalaysian barnstars of national merit: one to a quiet wikignome and the other two to editos who got Malaysian articles to FA or GA status. It's a way of recognising good work within a national wikiproject. But, they can of course be abused. Per NickD, if an editor is found to be giving barnstars to editors as a reward for pushing a nationalist POV the community, or if discretionary sanctions apply, administrators, can impose sanctions for battleground behaviour accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry, but the notion that these barnstars "compromise in the principles of Misplaced Pages through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased" is nothing more than editor bashing. What The Gnome's statement contends is that one's heritage does not promote a desire to share and inform the world regarding that heritage based on reliable sources fairly and accurately represented and to bring awareness of that heritage to a wider audience. Rather, The Gnome tars and feathers as intrinsically disruptive to Misplaced Pages anyone with an identifiable national background. I suggest The Gnome work on promoting reliable content regardless of the venue instead of attacking editors en masse based on a label. This sort of insulting pontificating only polarizes the community and results in uninformed editors believing that their ignorance equals lack of bias, as if it were some sort of inoculation against by-definition biased editorial positions espoused by carriers of the nationalist plague. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is my suggestion "editor bashing"? I raise the possibility of a certain act of "harmless fun" in Misplaced Pages degenerating into an incentive and a mindframe for biased, non-objective contributions. I have no specific editor in mind, nor any specific nationality. This is not about editors ("en masse"!) doing some ...horrible things on purpose but about the threats inherent in accolade and success. The rest of your post seems equally misguided ("insulting pontification") and full of ad hominems, so I cannot comment on it. I was hoping for an exchange of experiences of other editors and some informed opinions. Hopefully, we'll get some of that.-The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's editor bashing as your comment in no way discriminates "nationalist" bad from "nationalist" good. Misplaced Pages has already degenerated, barnstars are not a symptom, not an instigator, not a reward, not a problem. A barnstar is an "Atta Boy!" with a picture attached. Unless you are going to ban the passing of all on-Wiki congratulations between "nationalist" editors, there's no point in banning barnstars. The issue is not that I'm engaging ad hominems, it's that you don't even realize your position regarding "nationalist" editors is itself an ad hominem. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is about the misuse and the excesses of nationalist viewpoints, already causing significant problems in wiki editing, the least of which is time wasting. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages about "nationalist editing", so, therefore, trying to protect the integrity of the site from it (by definition, a non-neutral kind of editing) is entirely legitimate. And, incidentally, this better not become a political discussion ("nationalist" good vs "nationalist" bad); the distinction between "good" and "bad" nationalisms is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and it's a point clearly about nationalist viewpoints going overboard here. (Call 'em "bad nationalisms" if you want.) It's gone beyong the "atta boy!" phase a long time ago. The barnstars, in themselves, are not the problem; but they do seem to amplify it. Let's turn down the volume a bit, I say.-The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Short version, discuss the edit not the editor. You do know that principle, no? Just because you're not naming anyone specific doesn't make your contentions any less offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome has a point, albeit a philosophical one that applies to all barnstars, which isn't really that far from PЄTЄRS J V's position. Creating boy scout badges means some scouts will aspire to get them all, and arguing they are not symbols of merit doesn't prevent them from being sported as such. If they have to exist at all, they should be for general merit relating to encyclopedic achievements devoid of all other characteristics. Facts are facts, right? Good copy is good copy no matter who writes it, right? A barnstar for contributions that suck but fill a perceived gap somewhere is just mutual masturbation.

That said, if barnstars really don't mean anything, why do they exist at all? That question is entirely relevant to the recent invite to comment on statistics about contributors and how to make newcomers feel more welcome (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/March_2011_Update).

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What The Gnome decries is known purveyors of nationalist clap-trap trading barnstars with their cohorts. Quite frankly, I'm prepared to live with that. The (random) choice of Albania is telling, as twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe is still held hostage to a general ignorance of its history. Bringing that history and culture to light is a noble purpose; casting aspersions based on labels one has indiscriminately hung on editors only serves the ignorance which those very same editors are seeking to dispel. I'm happy to receive any barnstar for any good work I've done. The Gnome's going around suggesting more ways we can rain on each others' parade doesn't do anything to make Misplaced Pages a friendlier place to contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, what about a HISTORY (or MODERN HISTORY; or POST-EASTERN BLOC HISTORY) barnstar? It would be awarded ("Atta boy!") to anyone who's judged by a fellow wikipedian to have contributed to that topic, irrespective of the specific topic's geography.-The Gnome (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As for making Misplaced Pages a friendlier place, that's not possible now that WP is at the top of every search engine. For every editor seeking to bring reputable balanced content to WP in an area of contention you have two trying to persuade us the Earth is flat. That is why Misplaced Pages is steadily losing editors. Unless you have a very thick skin and make the conscious choice to put up with the escalating level of crap, you leave. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On a personal level I couldn't agree more about flat-earthers and charlatans in droves trying to re-write history, adding utter nonsense and wasting everyone's time. I have been involved for some days now in an effort to ensure that certain aspects of Soviet history published on WP are reviewed to ensure accuracy, neutrality and an absence of the kind of revisionism that used to make unpalatable facts and people disappear from official records in the Soviet Bloc. But I don't see how doing so under the banner of any particular nation would assist; in fact, it might act as an automatic signal to distrust the motivations of the bearer. The efforts to improve WP must be neutral about nationality, and about personal loyalties or affiliations.

It is true, too, that it would be entirely rational to walk away from time-wasting disputes fuelled by irrational zealots who count on the fact that some good-natured but wrong-headed admin will try to seek 'consensus', which is really to be understood as a term for killing truth in order to pander to personal agenda: there is no committee version of truth, which is never ever subject to a convenient consensus. But defining and defending truth is never a national concern for the same reasons. It must transcend all personal allegiances to stand on rationality and facts alone. I think this is what The Gnome was getting at.

National emblems displayed with pride have their place, but not as adjuncts to discussions about language and sources worthy of an encyclopedia. Similarly, not all the barnstars in the world guarantee that their bearer has or will always produce worthy contributions, or that those contributions should not be subject to careful scrutiny, or that a many-decorated contributor's comments are always more worthy than those of others with no barnstars at all; truth, facts and rationality are not subject to any kind of seniority, rank, title or majority vote. That is why I am against barnstars of any kind.

Having said all of that, I recognise that I am expressing a personal opinion fully contestable in open debate, and subject to the same rationality I try to champion. That rationality tells me that if people want barnstars, they will have them. My best effort, then, can only be to make my case, as I hope I have, and to keep making it when it is challenged on grounds that do not persuade me. For what it may be worth, and without meaning to patronise, I recognise in you, PЄTЄRS J V, the kind of passion necessary to overcome the petty or sinister subversion of facts and rationality we have already touched on. But that will not happen if we walk away in disgust. Regardless of the outcome of this or any other debate, I hope to encounter many more engaged and interested people like you and The Gnome because I think no matter how much we may disagree or agree on any issue, by debate we learn from each other how to become more able not only as contributors to Misplaced Pages, but as versatile thinkers in our lives in general.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that barnstars are abused is not a reason to ban them. I've seen barnstars abused, but amusingly, not wikiproject one, but regular ones (like giving a barnstar to another user for disruptive behavior...). Also, calling project barnstars nationalist is hardly nice. We have country-themed noticeboards, wikiprojectts and awards. I cannot speak for all of them, but the ones I am familiar with are quite helpful for this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the objectives behind banning those barnstars will not practically be accomplished upon banning those barnstars, I would think it's a pointless exercise. That is, some could argue that some WikiProjects promote cliquishness and tribalism and that they promote divisiveness; given that, merely eliminating the barnstars will not accomplish anything useful because such contributors would still find ways to congratulate one another, praise one another's contributions, or to show their "pride" in some other manner which doesn't require the use of barnstars. And the converse can also be said about some WikiProjects; that they promote appropriate collaboration (in which event, the same could be said about barnstars when used appropriately/effectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This request to ban nation-related barnstars reminds me, in a way, of the userbox wars of early 2006. Okay, a lot of things recently have reminded me of the userbox wars -- but I had to put that out there before I make my point. Which is the problem is not with the barnstar -- or the userbox -- itself, but in how it is used. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which strengthened both Misplaced Pages & knowledge about a given nationality, that is a good thing. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which weakens Misplaced Pages while promoting some nationalistic agenda, then it is a bad thing & the barnstar should be revoked & the person awarding it sanctioned. But that's just my opinion as someone who has contributed to Misplaced Pages for many years. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really see it as a problem. While nationalist barnstars are given out to both NPOV and POV editors, it does not take long to realize which is which, and in the case of the later, it can be a useful warning that this marked editor promotes nation X's agenda, beware. Passionless -Talk 21:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty much any flavour of barnstar can be abused, not just "nationalist". This is a moot proposal, and debate should be closed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is very obviously false. Not "any barnstar" can be abused. Moreover, abuse (wrong, malicious use) of other barnstars at worst causes friction between sender and received. But nationalist barnstars indicate far more widespread and significant anomalies in Misplaced Pages. -The Gnome (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not "any", but certainly more than just the "nationalist" ones. I have seen examples of individuals (who shall remain nameless) who deal out barnstars for "reliable sources" and similarly innocuous-sounding things for pushing certain POVs. Indeed, I believe that the banning of "nationalist" barnstars would just open up the door for the abuse of otherwise innocuous ones.

"Nationalist" barnstars are as about as well-established as political userboxes. They serve some divisive purposes which are unappealing to those Wikipedians who refuse to deal with the fact that the encyclopaedia will inevitably end up becoming a forum for national/historical/policitcal/otherise-unspecified ideological battles. Banning them will pose an unnecessary headache. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. These decorations serve primarily to create an even more welcoming atmosphere for nationalist cliques. This by far outweighs the benefit of easier identification of those cliques per Passionless (though I agree that such badges on userpages, sometimes combined with NPOV and similar userboxes, are a pretty good indication that something is wrong with that user as well as the one who decorated him.) The award templates should be redirected to show something like the box below:

		National Merit Award Notice
		Editor <Insert name here> has identified your edits to be of "national merit" and tried to award you a respective virtual medal. Those medals are typically designed like military decorations and are usually awarded by editors pursuing some nationalist agenda to editors they perceive to be "on the right side" in their virtual battles. Now there are two chances: If you find yourself glorifying duely presenting true facts about that nation's greatness and heros and messing up correcting articles whitewashing that nation's enemies and traitors, go away. Neither the majority of people you think of as your compatriots nor the majority of the wikipedia community will endorse your edits. If you have not yet come across an admin enforcing the respective arbitration or community restrictions against you, that has more to do with the admins than with you. If you reject the idea that your edits have any "national merit," you might chose to either ignore this notice or leave a respective message on Talk:<Insert name here>.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd have to oppose any ban on country-based barnstars. There are lots of country-specific articles that need attention, and the barnstars are a way to recognise good work. The majority of the world's countries don't attract nationalistic POV-warring, and those that do should not be allowed to spoil it for the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and the Misplaced Pages:Barnstars 2.0/Barnstar of National Merit versions are much nicer than the old ones - I awarded one recently for good work improving Cambodia-related articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pragmatic oppose. Long-term nationalist pov-pushers are a big problem (and seem to account for a significant percentage of disputes). Encouraging that is the last thing we need, and I tend to think of barnstars the way Napoleon would... but in this case a nationalist barnstar is a highly-visible badge of loyalty to a nationalist cause. If editors with strong nationalist sympathies chose to wear such badges, it could be helpful when you wade into some Eastern-European dispute and you know which angle each editor is coming from... bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"A nationalist barnstar is a highly-visible badge of loyalty to a nationalist cause" :precisely! The insidious harm from promoting/rewarding biased viewpoints far outweighs the benefit of "quickly identifying" biased editors. We should be able to do that without the "help" of barnstars. (In fact, barnstars are not always a reliable guide. Not all nationalist-barnstar wearers are biased!)-The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment National barnstars provide an important way to recognize contributions to our regional and national WikiProjects. Perhaps it would be useful, however, to change the names of these barnstars from, for example the Albanian Barnstar of National Merit to the Albania Barnstar. That help standardize the barnstars across regional lines (currently we have the "United Nations Barnstar of National Merit", which makes very little sense) and gives the awards less of a nationalistic flavor. --Danger (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, a barnstar rewarding work on an article/a series of articles related to a specific country. For example, Barnstar for Continuous Diligence on Zophonia. And without national symbols. Check your loyalties at the door.-The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is what barnstars are for. To reward work. There's no need to specify in the title of the star, since that is described in the message left by the giver. Without some sort of symbol, the barnstar is just a generic barnstar and there's no point in having it at all. Danger (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I see no reason not to include the national symbol, anyway - if, for example, someone works on improving (by Misplaced Pages standards, not nationalist standards) lots of biographies of members of the Knesset (the parlament of Israel), I see no reason why an award with an Israelli flag would be inappropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big problem is as barnstars are all worthless, it's not like you can trade in 5 for rollback, or 50 for adminship. Also, it's not just national barnstars that are abused, I have seen editors give out a variety of barnstars to admins who take their side in a ruling. I think it is better that editors give each other nationalist barnstars as it marks the POV of the sender and receiver. If they gave each other normal barnstars for pushing nationalism those would blend in, and there would no longer be a warning that this marked editor might edit with a POV. Passionless -Talk 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology bannings

People may want to look over this. Briefly, there has been a big astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article, detailed here, resulting in a whole bunch of single-purpose accounts arriving to edit-war, some of them new, some of them not. These are Aquirata (talk · contribs), Petersburg (talk · contribs), Costmary (talk · contribs), Erekint (talk · contribs), Apagogeron (talk · contribs), and Gary PH (talk · contribs) (this particular account participated in the last edit-war before this one, which I picked up on after seeing this ANI report).

I am banning all the accounts linked above from Astrology, its talkpage, and any pages that relate to Astrology, broadly construed, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter which may also prove ultimately incompatible with continued editing of the article. Moreschi (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why Robertcurrey isn't included in that list? If you read the blog post (mentioned below), it makes comments to an "RC" who participates in the blog postings....just saying, since without proof it's him, it's just his behavior here we can use. He happens to be one of the pushiest of all of the ones you mention above, although Aquirata is the nastiest. So, why isn't RC included? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• All now notified and logged. Moreschi (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, could you please explain on what grounds you took this action against me? I am a long-standing neutral editor with a spotless record, interested in a wide range of subjects. Petersburg (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in a wide range of subjects then please do edit in those other areas. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the concern is that for the last 3-4 years you have a couple of dozen sporadic edits, then in the last week you have equally many, all focussed on this astrology issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which Misplaced Pages policy, guideline or rule will indicate that an editor needs to be banned for taking an interest in one topic? Petersburg (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. You claim to be a "long-standing neutral editor ...", but the reality is that you were almost totally inactive on the project until you showed up to join a cavalcade of SPAs many of whom were probably enticed to come here from those offsite blog posts. It makes sense that you would be treated as one of them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And you misunderstand my point. No, it doesn't make sense from a neutral perspective. No, it doesn't make sense in light of Misplaced Pages policies, rules and guidelines. No, it doesn't make sense given my history of posts and edits. Why is it you who is answering my posts, by the way? Petersburg (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Our consensus-based wiki process usually gets pretty good result, but it can of course be gamed. A large influx of editors who all have the same background could easily shift power in inappropriate directions, if we allowed this to happen. This is especially a problem with editors who have certain types of minority backgrounds. For more information on our general way of dealing with such situations see WP:MEAT. In addition, the whole pseudoscience area is contentious, and due to a number of past Arbcom rulings, additional rules ("discretionary sanctions") are in place for that area. You are not going to shift the article in the long run, anyway. The purpose of the bans is to get to the end result without the otherwise inevitable massive disruption. Hans Adler 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and explanation, Hans Adler, but you're not addressing my points and not answering my questions either. Moreschi, who took the thus far unexplained and ungrounded drastic action of a ban, has chosen to remain silent to this point. Petersburg (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those named in this action, can I ask if there is any recourse for appeal or arbitration? Please take the trouble to read my posts to see that I have not pushed a POV - in fact that appears to be the real problem (to those who want to see the sceptical innacuracies go unattended). I am not interested in the pseudoscience issues and have constantly striven to move the discussion beyond that. The suggestion that I am part of an organised plan is offensive - I have no idea who most of those other users are and no one has influenced my posting behaviour in any way. I thought it demonstrated Petersburg's neutrality when s/he supported the call for arbitration, since it is crystal clear that s/he is not pushing an astrology agenda. It seems that anyone who does not obviously use the page as a debunking exercise to undermine the subject rather than explain it is now under censorship or suspicion. I know of Robertcurrey but have not been involved in any of his discussions - its amusing that he has to be watched too. Is it his knowledge of the topic of the page which gives cause for concern? This is shameful for Misplaced Pages - it appears that anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic and can see the innacuracies that need attention is going to be censored now, for fear that the consensus of opinion that has been reached through discussion is allowed to impact on the content of the page.

No doubt now you will get a stream of applause from those who didn't want to discuss it anyway - even though it was the administrator's recommendation to negotiate consensus, following my earlier request that the disruptive actions of a skeptical editor be monitored for intentional vandalism of approved content correction (see first editing break after "ironically not the stars"). There has been an agenda here to avoid discussion or neutrality, and to refuse the call for arbitration from those who would hopefully not be biased against appropriate content Costmary (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. Brilliant. The circus has been going on for long enough. Hans Adler 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Costmary - if you fail to get the consensus of uninvolved sysops here to overturn my decision, the final court of appeal, so to speak, is WP:RFAR. Moreschi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to be the obnoxious bureaucrat here, but I do want to point out that a number of these editors had not even edited since I informed them of the pseudoscience arbitration. As such, I'm not sure how valid implementing any sanction is... NW (Talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See , which is where this is all coming from (linking to google cache because the original blogposts and replies have since been deleted). These people know the system, and the arbitration case, very well, and are quite carefully trying to game it in a suspiciously successful manner (I wonder what a checkuser would turn up, incidentally). Plus, the pseudoscience arbitration case is actually linked to, in big bold letters, in the header of Talk:Astrology. I don't think a pointless round of formal warnings will get us anywhere. Moreschi (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. NW (Talk) 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The page history makes for interesting viewing as well...all the accounts revert in sequence, nobody breaks 3RR...hmmm. There might actually be closer coordination going on here than meets the eye, but I suppose we'll never know, beyond what the cache of the blog tells us. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for that information on the appeal process Moreschi. Since your ban immediately followed NW warning that he would ban me if I continued my comments - can either of you indicate where I have supposedly pushed a pro-astrology view? The intention behind my contribution has been to correct inaccuracy and misrepresentaive distortion by offering typically encyclopedic information supported by up-to-date, respected, academic secondary sources. I have argued that the page should be neutral and seek to define the subject appropriately *and also* include appropriate discussion on the valid criticisms - and I have personally offered references to support the use of the statement that astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience, even though I believe the exaggerated promotion of that point in the lede is bound to cause continued dissent. I have also asked others who object to the skeptical stance to compromise in order to help the move towards consensus develop. So at what point do you consider my efforts to have been part of an "astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article"? What suggestion have I made that has not been a sensible one, clearly motivated by ther desire to improve the quality of the article?Costmary (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I think people can judge this for themselves. As a minor gripe - apart from the obvious - "Eastern nations"? Really? All of them? Are you sure you don't mean Hindu astrology? Because Medieval Islamic astrology tells quite a different story. That particular edit was - at least in part - low quality, anti-consensual, and disruptive. It also quite heavily pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have stomped into action without checking the history of the discussion, or being involved in it. The example edit you gave (“I think people can judge this for themselves”) was the result of a long consultation process which had definitely gained general consensus that it offered improved text – much of this discussion has now been hidden from view by WLU’s personal decision to categorise all that discussion as “a waste of time”. Even now, remaining editors are calling for most of those suggestions to be retained (though not without some alterations which destroy the accuracy of the quotations). See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Astrology#Can_we_save_some_of_the_pro-astrology_contributions.3F

As for your “minor gripe” (which could have been accommodated in the discussion if you had involved yourself in it before banning most of the active participants) - that was not my suggestion but was subjected to lengthy debate. For my view see my opening remark under the now hidden “Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.4” where I express the opinion that it should be included “because this makes an important point about astrology’s global standing too. But again, this should be done without making too much out of it, or trying to present that as a dominant viewpoint either; or leaving the impression that this answers or removes the need for scientific criticism.” (04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly asked for constructive criticism and proposed alternatives, and the only editor to rubbish the whole proposal (and all the previous discussion) was WLU (who then hid all the previous discussion). I don’t see how it is low quality being a matter of globally reported fact – scientific journals have included coverage of this in neutral terms, and if anyone had queried the quality of the text or references I could have cited these and would have followed consensus. However, there was no constructive criticism of that point proposed.

As for the supposed removal of “mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede” – check my (now hidden) post today of 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Astrology#Proposal where I explained the non-controversial element of the edit that I then made, whilst stating:

At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences. Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific".

How is “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences (citation)” “token weaselling”? The page does not need two separate discussions of the pseudoscience issue within the lede, and the discussion was dealing with this when you censored it.

Unfortunately the page on Medieval Islamic astrology contains many significant flaws. The suggestion that “Muslim astrologers defined a new form of astrology called electional astrology” makes the page look ridiculous – electional astrology is demonstrably an important branch of practice in the ancient Babylonian and Hellenistic period (cross ref with the history sources on the ‘electional astrology' page). It is equally ridiculous to suggest that “The Muslims also developed a system called Arabic parts by which the difference between the ascendant and each planet of the zodiac was calculated. This new position then became a 'part' of some kind”. It is firmly established that the so-called ‘Arabic Parts’ are a misnomer, being an important, integral part of Hellenistic astrology practice. The example of how the part is interpreted is also incorrect and does not reflect historical practice. Alos, most of those listed as “refuting” astrology were actually famous astrological practitioners who published renown instructional textbooks on the subject, and there is a confusing mess of information at the end where the view of modern Muslim scholars are not differentiated clearly from those of historical philosophers.

The whole of the astrology section is in need of improvement and better quality up-to-date references, but how is that going to happen when anyone with real understanding of the subject is banned for suspicion of having an agenda to push a pro-astrology POV? Costmary (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess Misplaced Pages's coverage of astrology is just gonna suck for a while. Ah, well. Good bans, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur, good decision. I have zero faith that accounts recruited and coordinated off-site via a pro-astrology blog are here because they wish to see neutral, unbiased content on Misplaced Pages. The protestations of those accounts that have responded above are unconvincing. EyeSerene 09:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned, earlier, that we had a long string of reverts but none of the astrology SPAs ever went over 3RR; but that in itself isn't very good evidence of offsite coordination over and above the blog. Assuming good faith, it could just be that editors all respected 3RR, even whilst leaning on some other policies. bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• @ various - people, the court of appeal is thataway. My reasons are perfectly clear; meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted. If you don't like it, take it up with the arbitrators, since the only uninvolved editors to comment here have raised no concerns. Over and out. Moreschi (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, Could you please give me a single specific reason why you banned me from the Astrology page? As a so-called "uninvolved" administrator, you could have no direct knowledge of the background unless you had taken the time to pour through pages and pages of Talk and Edit history. Since it seems to me that you are having trouble finding the time to answer my simple question, I somehow doubt that you would have done that. The above generalization clearly doesn't apply to me, and I believe you will have to demonstrate the basis for your unwarranted action. This is not something that can be taken lightly. Groundless banning is abuse of administrative power, which is an issue you will have to deal with eventually. Petersburg (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, I believe you will see that I am a fairly patient editor. I have asked you repeatedly for a specific reason for your action against me here on the noticeboard and on your talk page. This you didn't give before or even after the ban. I have highlighted the fact that keeping silent following an unwarranted and drastic action such as this one does not appear to be in line with your administrative privileges. Your behaviour belies any explanation. Why was I so important to you one day that you actually took the time for disciplinary action, and then for several days following you are not even responding to my queries? Do you realize that replying to someone you "hit" without reason is not only courteous but also characteristic of a good administrator? Do you even care about your image on Misplaced Pages? Well, I think you should because your interactions with other editors will be tainted by bad impressions. As an administrator, you should also be aware that you are a role model for other editors, especially those aspiring to be administrators. While I am not one who is quick to judge, you certainly doesn't seem to be setting a good example here. All I am asking for is a simple explanation of your action. If the ban cannot be explained (and suspicion is developing to that effect) then it should be reverted. Petersburg (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bobbrayner - what is 3RR please? Moreschi, can you clarify the reason for my banning? I think I should be aware of this when instigating an appeal. I have stated that I am not a part of an organised plan to revise the pseudoscience issue - and anyone can see that I have not been significantly involved in those discussions, on the main page or the talk pages. Earlier you implied that you considered my last edit to be "low quality" and suggested that it "pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind". I have shown that is not the case and that the discussion page proves that - is this the basis of your ban? It looks like you have decided to ban everyone who showed an agreement to the principle of making changes to the page, and I was banned for being vocal in the call to amend the poor-quality lead. It is ironic that you have now involved yourself in the discussion and have essentially shown agreement to most of the points that I spent so much time and energy demonstrating were in need of revision. Please be specific about your reason for banning me - because there are many more factual inaccuracies in the astrology section that my knowledge of the subject would allow me to highlight, and it seems a very bizarre situation that my knowledge of the subject is not welcomed in the editing process, but apparently seen as a reason to censor me. That is how I understand this now, so if there is another reason, please correct me Costmary (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I know perfectly well that you will not find whatever further evidence I might care to give here as satisfactory. We can either have this discussion at arbitration, or not at all. You will either appeal the bannings or you won't. In the meantime, I might point out that the people who reverted you did not do so out of malice, or out of any desire to keep the unsatisfactory lede as it was (as we can now see on the talk), but simply because your changes made it worse. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t feel obliged to offer your evidence here (we both know that there isn’t any evidence that you can demonstrate here) but just give me the courtesy of knowing why I am banned, so that I can know what I am specifically accused of and what argument I need to defend myself against. Is it because you believe I had an hidden agenda to disrupt the page (as you seem to imply above)? Is it because you thought my edits were ‘low quality’ (as you seem to implly later on)? Is it because you failed to realise (having not read the relevant discussion point) that the edit I made on the day you banned me was only to introduce the non-controversial points of the new ledge, which had found general consensus, with the expectation that all editors could then contribute towards the best wording of the more controversial ‘pseudoscience’ reference? Or was it something else?

I am only asking for a simple but clear explanation of your reason for banning me. There are so many wikipedia policies – isn’t there a policy requirement for an administrator to explain clearly to an editor the reason why a ban has been instigated? All I have on my talk page is a message by you saying “Please see (this link) . Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)". Thanks. Costmary (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was given above by him: "My reasons are perfectly clear; meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is hardly clear when a whole bunch of editors have been simultaneoulsy banned for a collection of reasons. Thank you, but I would like to have clarity from the administrator who took the action against me, because unfortunately you can only speculate as I can. Moreschi, are you accusing me of one of those things or all of them? Or have you banned me for another reason (such as judging my edits to be low quality)?. Please be clear and not vague, so that I can understand the reason for the ban.

Also Moreschi, wouldn't you say you have a conflict of interest in your role as administrator here, since you started contributing to the astrology discussion page immediately after banning a substantial number of contributing editors to that page, who didn't appear to share your point of view ? Costmary (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, As you all know, I have a blog that offers views on astrological theory and perspectives. As you also know, I have removed the offending pages (pages that some people find offending or conspiratorial). I am not an astrologer but I find the subject fascinating, partly because of the irrational criticism against it. To me, that is what makes it so fascinating. It certainly stirs a lot of feelings and I would like to know the causes of that better.

As a longtime amateur student of astrology, I am concerned that many of the misrepresentations of astrology and the vehemence against it that one can find online and in the media are traceable to the Misplaced Pages article on astrology. Often pieces from the article are copied verbatim. Astrologers are not well represented among WP editor demographics and this has resulted in a systemic bias against it. Astrology courses are not taught in Western universities and professors do not normally have any contact with serious astrologers. The biased POV in Misplaced Pages is attributable to the many science leaders who also fall into this category. In order to avoid an unpleasant sense of cognitive dissonance when asked about astrology, they tend to make anti-astrology declarations based solely on the weight of their own personal authority. This is a rational fallacy. I believe this habit does more damage than good and I believe Carl Sagan also said much the same thing.

The few scientists who have actually taken the trouble to understand astrology and have taken the time to examine the methods that have been used to experimentally test astrology have a very different story to tell and this very interesting and revealing story is not getting across. What Misplaced Pages needs is a way to counter this systemic bias. I'll quote from the last bullet of the WikiProject Systemic Bias page:

Change the demographic of Misplaced Pages. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Misplaced Pages to edit. If you are at high school or university, contact a professor in minority, women's, or critical studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Misplaced Pages. Contact minority or immigrant organizations in your area to see if they would be interested in encouraging their members to contribute.

Well, my friends and acquaintances are online. I apologize, but I am a relative newcomer and I didn't know that WP does not allow an editor's activities to appear in a personal blog. Through my efforts, I managed to encourage one friend who is interested in astrology, like me not an astrologer, though reluctant, to help represent astrology and help "change the demographics of Misplaced Pages." That is how I myself became involved, through someone else. I guess to some types that sounds conspiratorial? The question is, how do you deal with systemic bias as an individual, or even as a small group that wants to change things for the better based on their expert knowledge of a subject?

I think that meatpuppet is offensive and inflammatory and I wish that all editors would please refrain from its use. If you read the edits to the Astrology page, you can see that I did not participate in any edit warring. To edit war, I believe you need to edit or revert the article itself. I confined all of my thoughts the the Talk page only, where I felt my input was needed, though I admit I wasn't too hopeful, as you can read in my blog. I am truly sorry for the intense focus on psuedoscience and the edit war. I could see the war coming but could not stop it. I was willing to compromise with the rewording suggested by other editors, especially when I could see that the editors involved were going outside their normal comfort boundaries to bring things together. Just when things approached a compromise, something snapped and a lot of anti-astrology editors descended.

I really wanted to edit other parts of the article and related articles. But pseudoscience is a very loaded word, many people become offended either by its use or non-use. From reading other Talk pages I see that there has been some discussion on using Paul Thagard's criteria for pseudoscience, but his criteria are no better than any of the others, by Popper, Kuhn, etc. Any astrologer who attends conferences would have no problem thinking of many exceptions. Thagard's criteria could even be humorous in a lofty ivory tower sort of way, except that the pseudoscience POV pushers want something to pin on astrologers and are deadly serious. It's not funny at all. Astrologers tend to be very liberal, open minded, inquisitive, sensitive, and inventive and this clashes with certain Wikipedians, who it seems have completely opposite qualities. There are just different sorts of geeks in the world and some of them don't like each other.

There is a well known problem of demarcation with regard to pseudoscience and the only thing the more recent philosophers of science seem to be in agreement on is that it is a pejorative word. This article will always have a major problem as long as this word stays and is rigidly and forcefully applied. People with an interest in astrology will not want to contribute to such a biased article, or if they do, even with the best of intentions, well, you saw what just happened. It will continue to happen.

The Astrology article could be a very rich source of information on history, culture, relationships, politics, war, economics, and describe the multitudes of studies, discourses, and techniques that astrologers share and use. As it is, the article is a cesspool of inaccuracy and ignorance with a hateful quality. It is very offensive and intended to be so. Apagogeron (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the mass bannings - an answer to Moreschi

Moreschi I would not suggest that you have been seriously involved in the post-banning discussions, but you have shown an involvement, and that shouldn’t have been the case, since you’ve now lost the right to present yourself as an uninvolved administrator.

But finally – thank you – you have specified your cause of complaint against me. Although actually, by saying that this collective offering is only about a 10th of what you could write, you are not being specific at all, but vague again, pulling together a collection of individually-groundless criticisms to propose an argument that we are all ‘in’ on some kind of mass conspiracy that has led to a concerted campaign to edit-war.

Well you are wrong, but I have found that people tend to see what they choose to see here, so I guess your version will remain the official one. I’ll state my case for the record, as I have no doubt that an appeal to arbitration will be comparative in its judicial discrimination to your standards.

I openly admit to asking Wendy Stacey to comment in her official capacity as Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, since those "reams of text" that you say "don’t lead anywhere" in the talkpage, were not designed to lead nowhere, and it’s actually shameful that they did. This was the result of some editors preferring to censor discussion rather than engage in it. I had offered clear arguments against a ridiculous point that needed to be removed from the lede, which maintained that astrologers "‘read’ the stars but don’t actually make use of them" or some such. The point is so ridiculous that there is no defense for it except the contorted, out-of-context inversion of the references I supplied after being requested to do so by an editor whose obstruction has definitely negatively affected the quality of the page content. Even in his admission that he lacked the necessary knowledge, this author demanded to define astrological practice in a way that would not be recognised by any astrologer. Not knowing that anyone could consider it to be a breach of policy I asked Wendy Stacey to comment, to bring that point to an end after the numerous references I offered were all ignored. The matter should have ended at that, since the debate concerned contemporary practice and she spoke as a representative of a professional body of astrologers - but it didn’t!

What I now realise is that it wasn’t for me to provide references to disprove the obstroculous editor’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated point – it should not have existed in the first place since it wasn’t reliable knowledge attributed to a credible source. There should have been no ‘edit war’ there, and if there was, then take to task the editor who insisted on making that discussion as long and as drawn out as it was, simply to make sure that his factually incorrect point of ‘irony’ got expression.

You have indicated 6 instances of suspected policy breach on my part – this point probably underlies most of them. You are wrong. Look at that page with your eyes open to what was really going on there: bigotry, bias, clinging to corrupt content in order to push a non-neutral POV. Being a new user I asked for administrator assistance at that point, and was told to “thrash it out through discussion”. That is what I tried to do and this is what generated what you now describe as a ‘time wasting’ discussion. In the process I asked for mediation – the obstroculous editor refused. I asked for 3rd party assistance – someone came in and said that he couldn’t get involved because more than two editors had contributed (but only one was being obstinate). Upon recommendation I raised an alert to ask for more editorial contribution from other Misplaced Pages editors – that’s why we got an influx of interested parties with widely differing POVs, and that’s why the astrology page (which anyone can see is full of flaws and badly put-together text, being the summary of territorial in-fighting of past editors) became so controversial again and full of new activity.

Your assumption of bad faith on the part of everyone who expressed a certain POV is like a witch-hunt based on unfounded allegations and negative speculations. Here we go with eagle-eye. I have no idea who eagle-eye is, but already smell the unpleasant aroma of someone being about to be censored for daring to express an opinion on the discussion page (!). Why don’t you include a notice “new discussion that we haven’t already had and agreed upon ourselves is not welcome here”? Why don’t you do a little tinkering with the wording of the 2nd principle of the Misplaced Pages ‘5 pillars’ policy so that it actually reads as it is being interpreted on the Astrology discussion page:

“We strive for articles that advocate a single point of view. Sometimes we need to pretend that we are representing multiple points of view, but by presenting other points of view inaccurately and out of context, we can then present our pseudoskeptic point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

You have failed to make allowance for how I have shifted in my position to try to gain consensus, beyond what I personally believe. You have pointed to edits I made on the first day I joined as an editor, when I didn’t know the policies and made mistakes I later recognised and apologised for. You pointed to mined examples of edit changes that are disconnected to the discussion where my reasoning was justified. You have proposed that I have a non-neutral POV, when I do not. Your only assumption for this reduces everything I have contributed (as everything ultimately is reduced on that page) to an issue over the pseudo-science reference in the lede, and my argument that this was relevant but not such a dominant factor that it needed such stark notice and contrived highlight, so that it was mentioned twice in the lede, whilst the historical, cultural and philosophical significance of astrology, and the proper definition of what it is essentially is, was being wilfully ignored (except in dismissive terms that underlined the obstroculous editor’s need to express an imagined irony).

In short Moreschi, you have contributed to the reason why Misplaced Pages struggles to be taken seriously as a credible (or 'academically-approved') reference of information, which I hope one day will be corrected.

I am going to leave a few suggestions for administrators below, in the full knowledge that they are likely to be met with the familiar chorus of guffaws and one-line insults that come from those who have learned how to quote policy procedures in such a way that the policy-intention can be evaded. Sorry if my comments lack the undertone of politeness and good faith requested, but I am frustrated, angry, and sad, that all my genuine and well intentioned efforts have been reduced to this. Costmary (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What a joke!

You self-appointed, misguided, pseudo-skeptic, pseudo-scientific "editors" and "administrators", so called, ganging up on and bullying subject matter experts whose only desire is to improve the quality of the article! It was interesting to see how the game developed when you realized you were losing a battle you had been fighting for years. You will of course deny that the sudden appearance of twice the number of debunkers such as yourselves involved on the page prior to your call for help was orchestrated. You will also deny that you have an agenda, which is to keep pushing a particular point of view that you call "scientific". Well, you probably don't even know what the word "science" means, let alone understand the intricate issues on subjects you are "editing". For that matter, you have no idea what a true skeptic is because that is what you are calling yourselves so proudly while it is obvious for all involved that your closed mind testifies to the contrary. You notify users of the three-revert rule and then innocently ponder about these users suspiciously adhering to it. You have the balls to quote the five pillars when it is yourselves who should be locked up for treason. You are questioning the edit practices of reasonable users while yourselves are reverting any change on the article within a minute and dumbing down the page without using talk. You keep rehashing old arguments mindlessly and then hide discussions that are leading toward consensus for reasons of "irrelevance". When users start talking about going to arbitration, you suddenly ban them. When consensus starts developing on adopting a sentence from a policy word for word, you start a temper tantrum and throw in all the misinterpretations you can come up with. How wonderful is your sandbox where your mommies will support your bullying behaviour to keep you in control and to ensure that you end up with all the toys! All I can say, farewell kids, enjoy your populous solitude and the hellhole you built for yourselves. Send me a note when you find the light at the end of the tunnel. Aquirata (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No joke at all

As a non-admin, ordinary editor, I fully support Moreschi and colleagues for intervening. Do you ban protesters here all really think that rational observers couldn't see your strategies for hijacking the astrology article and tying up all rational debate in tautological, syllogistic, never-ending re-statements of nonsense? What do you think you achieve by spreading your irrational bile here?

Right now your acolyte(s) is/are demanding that no changes are made to the article until you are all unbanned. Why would that be? Why not just engage in reasoned discussion about changes that meet the pre-requisites of the project and increase the quality of the article? Why not reach sensible resolutions to all the contentious issues? Could it be that the previous tag-team obstruction suddenly no longer has the critical mass necessary to sidetrack, obfuscate or derail the Misplaced Pages purpose?

Criticize away at the admins all you like. To me it looks like any detached assessment would vindicate their reasons and actions.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Peter, read Apagoreron’s statement above. There was no collusion here. Honestly I have no idea who most of the other’s I am associated with are, or anything about their backgrounds or identities. The only discussion I have had with them has been in public, on the Talk page. It is the controversy that has brought editors to the page, and an administrator's recommendation that I publish a request for editorial input to break the impasse (on points like Kwami’s silly star denial; which I am pleased to see you objecting to too). I am really pleased to see that new editors such as yourself are still entering the page to pick up and attend to this mess, but people have to stop suspecting every new contributor of having a subversive agenda. Anyone that is banned should have a clear understanding of the reason for the ban; there should also be warnings; and administrators who ban a significant number of contributors, should not then try to steer the discussion down their preferred path (COI). Aquirata's post is inflammatory and I whinced at it myself; but that shouldn't detract from the fact that this banning action needs to be critically assessed.
• Aside from that, before I remove myself from this whole discussion, I do want to say that I have seen your recent discussions and pretty much agree with every point you have made. I hope you keep a strong involvement in that page because it needs your input. I certainly don’t want the page to remain closed, I want to see the recommendations you are making implemented, and I think it is great that you have the experience and strength of mind needed to help that very difficult page find improvement and consensus. I do believe that the restrictions on the others should be immediately ended, but I don’t want to return to that page myself – certainly not in the short term whilst I feel such a sense of outrage at what has been done here. But please hang in there yourself, whilst you can, and keep pushing for those improvements.Costmary (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I think there's a bit of plain old socking going on here. Some of these redlink accounts have very similar ways of speaking... just an observation. Perhaps a checkuser is in order? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly. EagleEye (talk · contribs) would appear to be another member of the circus who is cutting it very close to the wire. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why keep making these sinister insinuados? Just do a checkuser or whatever it is you suggest is 'possibly' necessary. Amazing to me that you hesitate to check a few facts, whilst not hesitating for a moment to chuck out half the contributors to a page discussionCostmary (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Discussion now continuing at my talkpage...Moreschi (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A call to fair-minded administrators – don’t be blind to what is going on around the astrology page and similar pages

If anyone wants to know the reason why I joined Misplaced Pages when I did, and the reason why I absolutely refute the accusation that I have colluded or pushed a non-neutral POV, please see the responses I have made to correspondence and criticism left on my talk page. I’m leaving Misplaced Pages today in the expectation that the arbitration process will be non-neutral to me. Here, for what they are worth, are the constructive criticisms that result from my experience:

I was unfortunate to join up through attempting to edit the content of a particularly bad page (possibly one of the worst), not realising that the discussion history of that page was loaded with internal politics and hostile assumption of bad faith.

Please ask yourself, how is it possible that the astrology pages are as bad as they are, and as full as they are of incorrect, misleading information? Consider the very long history of incredibly intense attention that the main astrology page has had. To have that much attention, and yet remain as bad as that … well, there would have to be an active will amongst those who ‘hold control’ to make sure that the content is not accurate, not written with a sense of neutral detachment, and not supported by good quality citations.

I have seen some very disingenious attempts to maintain this, and to ensure that anyone who does not declare their ‘neutrality’ by expressing disgust and ridicule of the topic is subject to vilification of their motives, both overtly and covertly. Note for example, the subtle underlining of my supposed non-neutral POV, by the editor who created a section on the discussion page called “Can we save some of the pro-astrology contributions?” This editor attributes most of those suggestions to me, although I think less than half of them were mine. Not being allowed access to the discussion page I cannot personally remove the negative assumption of bias, by clarifying that none of these were ‘pro-astrology’ suggestions – if they were then they would lack Misplaced Pages’s necessary neutrality, so why would he or anyone else then recommend they be retained? If any administrator would, I would be pleased to have the bias in that statement corrected.

The collective bannings were unfair and representative of the real problem – most of the long standing contributing editors to that page don’t actually have much interest or understanding of astrology and don’t actually want to enter into discussion on anything beyond the pseudoscience issue.

Please take notice of how the pseudoscience discussion continues to rage on and on, and compare this to the fact that barely anyone has actively contributed to the discussion of a page edit as dramatic as the one that Peterstrempel is currently proposing?

This is a revision of massive significance to the page, and yet the only attention it has received so far has been from one other editor (who has been ‘marked’ by a need to be “watched”, since his admitted knowledge of and interest in the subject has generated a COI concern). If all of those who have been banned for showing a real interest in the subject were still participating, then there would certainly be more participation and polishing of the content. So note how most of the remaing editors who claim to care so much about the page, are practically indifferent to every non-pseudoscience related proposal, even if it means that most of the page content is stripped away to nothing (I don't think this is a bad idea, because I think Peter's intention is correctly attached to his correct understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, but I would certainly have had things to say about such dramatic edits, and suggestions and citations to offer on various points if I had not been prevented from doing so). Apart from Peter and RobertCurrey, there is just a short, non-committal remark from one editor, which is not placed on the actual workpage; and based on my experience with this editor, I have concern about this particular comment for the following reason.

I tried to encourage discussion on new content suggestions, and asked others to propose alternatives or solutions that might find consensus (as I was told to do); those comments got no serious attention either (except from the users who were then banned for supposedly pushing a POV by engaging in such discussions). The only attention came from most editors when I tried to ‘be bold’ and publish comments that the (now disputed) consensus agreed to. I therefore have concerns that the published non-commital remark “Yes, there is some good info there, but …” will later be used as an indication that the proposed edits never got consensus, because only the proposer and an editor with a suspected COI even bothered to discuss it. This is what happened to me – I invested a lot of time and energy into making a properly supported case for text edits, which were later hidden or used to make accusations of ‘time-wasting’, along with suggestions that I sought to push a POV too strongly.

Surely discussion pages and work pages are designed to explore collective knowledge, competing theories and alternative points of view, so that the ultimately published page content can be reliable and address all valid points? Some points are necessarily rejected in the process, but if there is no engagement in the solution-finding process then a consensus can’t be reached, and then there is no weight of authority behind the proposed changes, and the shabby content stays the same as it is, some editors (I suspect) preferring to have the page locked down with controversy to maintain the unsatisfactory content, rather than being required to put in the necessary negotiation, discussion and citation work that would allow the page to become improved.

Please don’t be blind to what is happening there. It should take a lot before an editor is banned from participating in discussion, and editors should be allowed to express their points of view freely, without accusation that by stating it they are pushing it, as if everyone else needs protection from being hypnotized into submission. Since there are ruthless cuts being made all over the astrology page right now, make sure that you also look at the history of past contributors who have contributed negatively by pursuing a pseudo-skeptic agenda which has skewered the focus of the page. If one administrator can ban a whole bunch of editors who have some shared-opinions, then please don’t be innattentive in your scrutiny of the long established editors, who must surely hold some responsibility for the shabby state the page is in.

Please consider locking down the perpetually on-going pseudo-science discussions, as irrelevant and disruptive, and force the contributors to give any attention that they want to give to the actual content of what the page is to say, rather than the endless policy disputes about the way to go about giving attention to the content of the page. It’s all so ridiculous that I am now glad to be out of this – but someone should step in and place at least temporary suspensions on those who have been involved in previous participation, except for a small number of editors whose neutrality is obvious. Most of them, like me, have had their chance and failed. So give the page a chance of a fresh start by supporting the fresh initiatives that Peter Stremple is recommending, and keep your eye on it for a while - making sure that proper neutrality is observed there. Thanks.Costmary (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study

Hello all!

We bring together the forces of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and Sciences Po Paris to conduct a large-scale research project on the microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on LimeSurvey which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Misplaced Pages contributors.

For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition or contact Steven Walling). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure.
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Misplaced Pages!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely:

1. Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
2. Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
   

At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a Wikimania conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Misplaced Pages have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr).

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Many thanks,

The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. SalimJah (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SalimJah, I'm from the Misplaced Pages Bot Approvals Group. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is WP:BRFA. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as User:MessageDeliveryBot, to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the bot policy. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of this page. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - Kingpin (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kingpin13 and Nick-D for your precious input and advices!

We are currently in the process of technically validating a bot that will have two specific purposes: (a) posting our invitation to participate in the talk page of several thousands of Misplaced Pages registered users (according to the number of Misplaced Pages participants that we will be able to fund) and (b) retrieving automatically participants' agreement to participate (we intend to ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate on their talk page as an answer to our invitation before they actually participate). I hope that this solves the privacy problem mentioned by Nick-D. Then, the text of the invitation will be almost the same as in our research description page on meta (i.e. a brief description of the goal of the study and how to participate in it). This research project is a large scale one that aims at understanding the dynamics of online interactions and behavior. So we intend to send our invitations to participate to all kinds of Misplaced Pages contributors, not restricting ourselves to one particular profile or group.

About the issue of having our bot or account blocked while we are in the process of sending the invitations, I thought of asking Steven Walling to leave a note on my talk page in order to "whitelist" me and link to our research project page on meta. Would this prevent efficiently the risk of being blocked while sending the invitations? Do we still have to go through the whole bot validation process if we do that? I must confess that we would like to move fast and open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible.

Thanks again for your helpful guidance! SalimJah (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The text at m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior is around 3700 bytes (after deleting the misguided <br /> html). My guess (I am not an admin) is that anyone delivering that page to thousands of users would be blocked (or is there some benefit to the encyclopedia that I have overlooked?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you consider the evocation of thousands of orange banners a benefit. No talkpage spam, please. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

I second that, I'm sure interested people and pretty much everybody reads this board anyway, amongespecially admins. At most, if one really wants to reach thousand of admins, a feature in the Signpost (if its editor think it's a good idea) might be a less intrusive way of reaching out to a wider audience without spamming templates to everybody. Snowolf 06:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, thanks for sharing your concerns with us. Our research project aims at making a significant contribution to the field of human interaction systems design in order to inform the design and organization of online social spaces (if you like, please visit the webpage dedicated to this research project). We expect that current and future Wikimedia community projects could benefit a lot from the insight of such research, which is precisely why we will make it available under and open access licence and intend to share it at a Wikimania conference. Another benefit to the community is that all Misplaced Pages participants are given the opportunity to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation (each participant can earn as much as $50 upon completion of the survey).

From our side, we consider it important to get Misplaced Pages users to answer our survey, as the Misplaced Pages project has grown to achieve a prominent status on the internet. For validity concerns, we do not want to invite only admins to participate. We would like to be able to invite all types of Misplaced Pages contributors equally, ranging from the admin to the contributor who has just registered his Misplaced Pages account. So one reason why we finally opted for the talk page option is that this is the most widely shared discussion medium across all types of Misplaced Pages contributors and the only one available for recently registered users. We totally understand that this may appear intrusive to some. We are trying to figure out the best way to make our recruitment process valid and return our results to the community while not disrupting its editing process. Posting an invitation to participate in a research project on the user talk pages has already been done before. In response to this trend (and maybe because some researchers may sometimes not invest a sufficient amount of time trying to understand and abide by community guidelines and principles in their recruitment processes), the Wikimedia Research Committee and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group are currently trying to come up with a formal procedure and define best practices for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects. While this is still work in progress, we totally committed ourselves to respecting them all and are happy to do so. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well unless someone has a way that can achieve the same result as asking lots of editors directly (watchlist notice wouldn't), I think we (/BRFA) should approve either a new bot or an existing bot to deliver this one-off request. Rd232 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Wikindia24x7

Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs) is a long-time problem user who has engaged in sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and systematic hoaxes. He has had several blocks but strangely was allowed back every time until now. After more of his hoax activity came to light recently through the detective work of Bobrayner (talk · contribs), I have increased his current three-month block (imposed by SpacemanSpiff in February) to an indef one, and I now propose to make this a formal community ban.

Wikindia24x7 has been active under this account since July 2009, and under several other accounts earlier. Among the problem activities we know of so far are:

• several confirmed sock accounts active since June 2008 (Anas999 (talk · contribs)) and May 2009 (VikasJain (talk · contribs)) and for block evasion during Wikindia's first long block in January 2010, discovered and blocked in February 2010.
• A further sock, Rizwan123 (talk · contribs), created recently to evade the current three-month block
• Extended hoax activity promoting the town of Khurai and the city of Indore, India, with fake attractions, for instance:
  • File:Khurai Mahakali Temple.jpg: using a copyvio photograph of a temple in Delhi, photoshopping it to change the colours of the towers, and then claiming it was a temple in Khurai.
  • File:City Centre Indore .jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Bangalore, claimed to be a building in Indore
  • File:Khurai Civil Court.jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Lahore, claimed to be a building in Khurai
• Creation of multiple articles on non-notable train connections and railroads in India, some of them probably also hoaxes (promoting normal train connections as if they were special named intercity services)
  • using crudely photoshopped images of train signage to fit his hoax train connections (several items currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 March 20)
• Creation of hoax articles on non-notable private airfields, presented as if they were actual airports, with fake ICAO codes (currently discussed at User talk:Bobrayner)
• Multiple other copyvio images (e.g. File:City Bus Indore.jpg from )

All these activities were conducted persistently over several years, with several accounts, and despite multiple blocks and warnings.

Let's close the lid on this one and throw away the key. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hoaxes and copyvios? Not to mention the crappy Photoshop work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ouch. Yeah, a ban is definitely warranted given the evidence presented here. With how long these problems have persisted, there's little to no hope for reform. --Dylan620 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still investigating (there's a long checklist) but further problems include:

• Duplicate articles on train services (typically there would be an article on the "A-B Express", and a separate article with copypasted text called the "B-A Express").
• Large number of unsourced / minimally sourced articles of very variable notability, often with hastily copypasted content (the fastest way for me to find them is by searching for an odd sentence with a typo which is repeated in most of them).
• After being warned about creating many unreferenced articles, it seems they started creating articles with any old URL, presumably hoping that it would pass a cursory inspection (which obviously worked for a while). A Youtube channel, or www.indore.com, is little use for verifying the details of a train service. A minority of articles had good sourcing.
• Apart from the copyvio images mentioned above, at least one instance of combined copyvio & deliberate deception in article text; note how this resembles this, except with the numbers changed...
• Looking at article histories, I think there might be one or two socks more out there, in addition to the ones found by Fut.Perf.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, I created Category:Train services in India; it now contains about half the affected articles.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason I didn't impose an indefinite block earlier is because it was easier for me to clean up when the accounts were known. The particular user's contribs have been flagged at WT:INB more than a couple of times but unfortunately it hasn't attracted any attention. Now that there're probably more eyes looking at this set, it might be a good idea to ban and get rid of these contributions forever. —SpacemanSpiff 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support When you have so many images of fake places put for deletion and have failed to defend yourself on numerous violations, that's when you know you're no longer of any use to the project. If the editor in question is from Indore, that's also another case of COI IMHO. Get him out of here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Need admin intervention for a virtually baseless RfC

The discussion is here. I have provided sources, out of which at least one repeatedly calls them "pop-rock" (quote: "pure pop-rock entertainment"), and the other user keeps beating around the bush with sources that either mention "pop/rock", which he claims to be something entirely different, or do not mention it at all; he does not have a single source that specifically claims that they are not pop rock. He also uses self analysis of their lyrics to assert that they "despise" pop-rock. There is an obvious WP:COI here, and the RfC is much too long to begin with. Any admin involvement will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "obvious WP:COI" here. Are you saying the other editor is actually in Bon Jovi? Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying he is clearly a fan, a fact which obscures his supposed neutrality. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a fan doesn't really constitute a COI by Misplaced Pages's terms. If they're pushing a non-neutral point of view, or proposing original research that can be dealt with. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...which is exactly the case, please read the aforementioned thread. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

US EPA employees' union spam

The United States Environmental Protection Agency page has been spammed with the link to its union's website (nteu280.org) for over a year now. Originally it was a registered user who has been banned for sockpuppetry (User:Hereherer) and since then it has been added by several anon editors. The link meets WP:ELNO criteria #13 (indirectly related) and fails to meet standard notability criteria. (User Hereherer made a WP page for the union but it was deleted due to non-notability.) The long-standing consensus on the talk page is that it is not appropriate. The most recent IP address (112.140.185.250) to add said link is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Wikidrips and User:Freedom5000. These users and various associated IP addresses have made many disruptive and non-NPOV edits to the EPA page and related pages (see Water fluoridation controversy among others).

I'm posting here to request administrator input. If this link is allowable (my opinion and consensus opinion is that it's definitely not) I apologize for wasting your time. Otherwise, I'm requesting that something be done to protect pages such as the US EPA, water fluoridation, etc. Is there a way to keep this link from being added to any WP article, or do we just ban the anon IPs that keep adding it? I have found it spammed on several pages, never appropriate. Bdc101 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be added to the spam filter. See: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear if there are "several" IPs (looking at edit history for the most recent "2", it seemed to be the same individual). One of the involved editors has claimed it's already blacklisted. TEDickey (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

nteu280.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Yep, it's already blacklisted. The spam blacklist doesn't work against this type of linking, so you will need to use the abuse filter. MER-C 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a notice at Misplaced Pages:Edit_filter/Requested#nteu280.org. Thanks for your input. I'm still learning how to go about this process.

MER-C, can you elaborate on why its presence on the blacklist does not keep it from being added again? - Bdc101 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The spam blacklist only works on live links. MER-C 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the proper next step? Page protection? Bdc101 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the abuse filter, other options include PC (when enabled), long IP blocks, long term (semi)protection and rangeblocks. But let's try the options with the least collateral damage first. MER-C 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal Request for Lifting of Interaction Ban

Good evening Wiki administrators. I apologize I don't know the format for this, but here goes. About a year ago, I was placed on an interaction ban with User:Mk5384. The reasons why are very complex and it would fill a talk page to repeat the entire story. Anyway, MK was later banned from the site for threats, uncivil harassment, and extreme personal attacks. In the weeks that followed, this user took to private e-mail, contacting the admins who had banned him, threatening them as well, including at least one suspected (but never proven) death threat.

I recently discovered this affair buried away on one of my archive pages and saw that this interaction ban was technically still "on the books". One of the stipulations was that I could ask for a review if I felt it was warranted. I ask for such a review and further ask that this ban be lifted. MK is never coming back to the site and I've had no problems with anyone else since then. Indeed, at the time, I didn't really see myself as a problem. I think the Interaction Ban was something a result of frustrated administrators who saw me as part of the problem rather than the solution.

I further hope that this is the correct place for this and it wont be seen as a violation of the ban itself to ask for a review of the ban. Again, unsure of the format. Thank you and good night. -OberRanks (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here it is, by the way, for review. Took me a bit, but I found it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#Civility restriction and interaction ban -OberRanks (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because an interaction ban with a banned editor is practically without effect, we should be able to lift it on procedural grounds without having to examine (I haven't) whether it was or remains necessary. On the other hand, why do you want it lifted? All it does is to prohibit you from commenting about the banned user, which may not be a bad idea, since any comments by you about him might give rise to ban violations and more drama.  Sandstein  13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about leaving it alone, but didn't want to possible mention this user casually or without thinking months or even years from now and wind up having my account blocked for six months or something like that. The one time I was blocked for "violating the ban" was when I asked a question about this user on an ANI thread - on my honor very innocently, but an admin (who had been deeply involved in the original ban proposal) immediately blocked my account and left a pretty angry warning message. Its situations like that I would hope to avoid to avoid in the future. But, then again, if no harm would come to keeping it in place I guess we could do that to keep all happy. Whatever the admins decide is fine - that's why I brought up here. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is that we could change the ban to a restriction. This would allow you ask questions in good faith without fear of a block, but would not allow you to disparage, harass or otherwise hound Mk5834, which would remain a blockable offence. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is basically the same situation as Baseball Bugs' interaction ban with Child of Midnight, which was loosened so that Bugs could comment on SPI reports and other administrative matters concerning CoM. That would seem like a good model for this, and I would support such a change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

BMK notified me of this discussion, and I agree that this seems like a good approach. The only reason I can think of to comment on a banned user is for possible input to an SPI or other administrative procedure. I think I've had maybe 2 occasions in the last year or so when that's been necessary. And I will add that the interaction ban worked out well for me. There comes a point where you can't say anything new or different to or about another editor. Except maybe in this narrow circumstance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic perhaps, but is there a central list of interaction bans analogous to the siteban list? 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT (though it is not necessarily comprehensive). –xeno 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I know I've seen that page before, but had forgotten its title. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's say the ban is lifted, but of course any comments that are disruptive (and certain comments about that user could be inherently so) would, as usual, be prohibited by WP:DIS, WP:NPA, etc. Prodego 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no plans or intention to bring up or discuss that user in any way - my main concern here was possibly making a comment about this user in some discussion, for whatever reason, months or years down the road and having this still be binding and get blocked in the process. As amazing as it sounds, I had actually forgotten about this ban, and this user, until coming across it on an archived talk page. I thank the admins for whatever decision they arrive at, and be assured it is the farthest thing from my mind to cause any disruption of any kind. Best to all. -OberRanks (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RM closure requested

The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states has gone stale. A heavily involved editor attempted to close debate, but I undid this, as it was a violation of WP:RM/CI. However, I do believe that this discussion has run its course. As such, I kindly request that an admin put this debate properly to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And while I am here, I would also like to request that an admin merge the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys, as these histories have become rather messed up as a result of overzealous cut-and-paste moves. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And while you are doing this I also request undoing a salted controversial move of Template:Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar, and warn Martintg not to do this again. I believe that he was already warned not to salt controversial moves and deserve a harsher sanction, but I am too busy to search through history of his talk page. (Igny (talk))

I thought it was a requirement to categorise redirects per WP:RCAT. If I misread that guideline then please explain the guideline to me in plain english so I don't err again. Also please clean up this categorisation too if neccesary. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem closed

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Community ban request: User:Δδ (91.155.234.89)

Related threads: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682#User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'

Read the thread linked above, which describes the behavior of this user in a nutshell. In the few days since then, 91.155.234.89 has had his block upped to a month (for threats to evade block and personal attacks comparing users to Neo-Nazis on its talk page), had his talk page both semi'd and revoked, and five times evaded his block with these socks, in the following order:

• Δδ (talk · contribs) (Hence the name of the thread)
• BackInDisguise (talk · contribs)
• RelevantQuestions (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssassination (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssault (talk · contribs)

Since it seems overwhelmingly obvious this user isn't going to go away short of the nuclear option, I am suggesting we community-ban this user. None of the edits he's made under his socks have been constructive, and Relevant's, Assassination's, and Assault's edits have all been attacks on users who I believe opposed them in the underlying content dispute prior to the block on the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. We may also want to mail the CUs to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock on the underlying IPs (don't know if it's possible?)>. 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. He often repeats his responses when making an unblock request. I'm not convinced of possible reform. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This user is seriously disturbed. The socks keep on coming (Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 91.155.234.89 contains the ones I know of), so a rangeblock would be most welcome. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – The user is abusing open proxies, so obviously rangeblocks are not possible. –MuZemike 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There seem to be strong grounds to suspect that the user may be Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde herself. Since the problem seems to have started with the article, and her notability is somewhat questionable, I wonder whether deleting it might solve the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked?

Is Leraconteur blocked? I cannot find evidence. Please write the evidence here and at The user's talk page. ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 13:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The account is not directly blocked. But it appears though that he/she is editing through a blocked open proxy (hardblocked) to get through the Great Firewall of China. Elockid 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving them an IP block exemption would allow them to edit, but I'm not sure if we do that for very new users. Hut 8.5 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We could try for a month and if it works and he's good for wikipedia, we could keep it. ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave the user an IP block exemption so he can edit. –MuZemike 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on video game articles

There has been a recent and coordinated vandalism attacks on several video game related articles from various IPs, recent examples being Dead Space (video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). Anyone know anything about this? 4chan attack? Rehevkor ✉ 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There appeared to be a 4chan attacks a couple of weeks ago on the same topic. Do you mind posting the affected articles? Elockid 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's /v/. -- zzuuzz 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more examples, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Mass Effect 2, Half-Life 2, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Half-Life (video game). Most appear to be protected currently. Rehevkor ✉ 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Made a couple of protections. The ones that haven't been edited today I'm watchlisting. Elockid 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Elockid. Rehevkor ✉ 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now

Again, please put an end to this RfC here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing speedy tag by the author

User:Rmzadeh repeatedly removes speedy tag from an article which has been created by himself.--PSOILFHJFHFDF (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SFD backlog

While there is a backlog at SfD, there is also a backlog in the holding cell. Could an admin please delete/process these empty cats/unused sorters?

• Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion#To delete

And could an admin familiar with the French Republican Calendar merge these templates and pages? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards