Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 20 February 2010 (→Attack page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:15, 20 February 2010 by Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) (→Attack page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice


    BLP-Fact cat overlaps

    Having just reverted this BLP nightmare, I've noticed that IP and new editors often pitch up on talk pages to say that they don't know how to remove such nonsense and ask if they're allowed to, as here. IP and new editors therefore tend to be the ones to add a {{fact}} on libel and insults rather than removing them.

    That got me thinking: is there some way to produce a list, or a category, or a bot, or something that will show us articles that are in both Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Living people? Perhaps such a thing already exists and I don't know about it. It just seems an easy score for a bored-at-work ten minutes: run through 10 articles that are in both cats and remove the offending junk if required. Ideas? ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 13:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Biographies of living people containing unsourced statements lists some articles in both categories. WP:CATSCAN could probably produce a comprehensive list. Hut 8.5 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Aw, that's the fella I was looking for! Many thanks, Hut 8.5! :o) ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Magnus Manske's Category Intersection script is also quite good. I found it just yesterday, and I highly recommend it. NW (Talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's a good 'un as well, Nuke! 25,728 pages in that intersection. I think I may have to start Misplaced Pages:WikiProject BLP citations... unless one already exists somewhere? ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 07:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Some existing projects are User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons; Misplaced Pages:Mistagged BLP cleanup; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Fences&Windows 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    If anyone else wants it I run regular reports for projects that list all unrefed BLPs in their projects. tools:~betacommand/reports/unref_blp I can do this for anyone else who is interested. β 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Beta, this may not be possible (or worth the work required), but is it possible to find the following "intersection": where an article is in both Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Living people and a {{fact}} tag was placed by an IP or an unconfirmed user? I suspect this would be too great a drag on resources (server and you personally!) but if not... ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Anyone good at whois?

    12.149.30.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) resolves to "First Baptist Church of West" using the whois link on usertalk. There are lots of "First Baptist Church of West somewhere", and given the recent "jokes" from this IP about thousands being killed and the Holocaust, I think it might be helpful to know just which one this is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    It geolocates to Hollywood, Florida (method: I used that info link in your post). It's not in Kansas, if that's what you're thinking, but of course there are obnoxious people everywhere these days. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Could be First Baptist Church of West Hollywood (Florida). It also looks as though they're in the midst of swapping out websites and ISPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, they also seem to be changing/have changed their name to Hollywood Community Church. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Also they have a small school, Hollywood Christian Academy so I think it's likely a kid pranking away on their AT&T network link to the Internet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well found (thanks for the block by the way). Should the IP be tagged as a shared IPEDU or suchlike? DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    ...maybe from this very room. Don't know yet if this is truly a shared EDU IP, but it seems most likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've emailed the school using their "contact us" form to suggest they look into this. If it was run-of-the-mill "My teacher's a tosser" vandalism I wouldn't have bothered, but joking about the Holocaust sets my teeth on edge. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Kids sometimes do stuff like that, more or less cluelessly, to see what it stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    I know they do - the point is, if joking about stuff like that doesn't get them into trouble now, they'll do worse in the future. Better for them to get a proper bollocking over this than to get into real trouble later for something worse. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    So true, so true; after I reported this edit to local police (a few minutes after it was done), I got a response from the police saying that they were already quite familiar with the kids who had done it. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Page ban for Ikip from the BLP RFC

    Disclosure, I am hardly a disinterested party here.

    I filled an arbitration request on Okip (talk · contribs) due to his continued disruption at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and its talk page. He's already been warned by a number of uninvolved users and blocked once for edit waring. The full details of my complaint can be seen on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ikip.

    It is being suggested there that the community might deal with this, so I'm posting here to request that Okip be banned from the pages in question. There are plenty of well-behaved users who share his policy concerns and I'm sure they'll not fail to represent themselves. 200 odd users have contributed to this important RfC, so I'm sure the outcome can't be adversely affected by one less. His posts are off-topic and personalising - as even those who have supported his outlook agree.

    This ban would be as a result of behaviour not opinion - and he'd still be free to post ideas to the talk pages of likeminded users who can make sure the points are heard on the RFC if they are germane.

    If we can form a consensus here, I am willing to withdraw the arbitration request.

    I am not asking for a full discussion of his behaviour, that would be best at a userconduct RfC, I'm just asking for an admin consensus to protect the BLP RfC from further disruption.

    --Scott Mac (Doc) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    Is it just Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people that he'd be banned from? If not, could you list the pages that you propose he'd be banned from? I very much think that this would be a good idea, provided the page/topic ban is very limited. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • (nonadmin) I support in principle but I think the ban may be too broad. How about just a ban on posting complaints about other editors and possibly on complaining about the RfC itself, ArbCom, administrators, secret mailing lists, and other process matters in the family of RfCs. He would be free to state his actual opinion on what should be done about BLP, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    There are 240 participants in the RfC, I think he's a) had his fair share of participation by far b) do you really think his inability to comment there will inhibit the RfC from reaching whatever fair consensus it does? Users are allowed to edit to make things better, not as a right. Allowing him to continue there risks further disruption or gaming and is unlikely to make much better.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Your action could perceived as trying to get rid from the negotiation not only of (IO)kip but also all the editors he represents and share his view. That you much it's at stake. That is not just (IO)kip the simple editor. Whatever rationals and logicals arguments you can line up here can't get rid of that perception because it's utterly not rational.
    (nonadmin)(IO)kip must stop posting complaints about other editors relating to the BLP matter on the RfC or other process pages. This a negotiation and in a negotiation there is no niceties like choosing your interlocutors. A good negotiator defends for the best the interests of those its represents and negotiating with persons you don't trust or dislike is part of the job. (IO)kip failed badly in that area. --KrebMarkt 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This is forum shopping. A few hours ago Scott Mac filed an arbitration request in the attempt to bypass dispute resolution and get a topic ban on this editor. Responses have asked him to initiate Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ikip. Please withdraw the proposal and pursue dispute resolution. Durova 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Durova, not only did he make it clear that he had already filed a request for arbitration and was moving here instead, but he explained here why he believed filing an RfC would be unproductive. NW (Talk) 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • And several people responded that it would be inappropriate to sanction this editor without any attempt to work out the issue through normal means. It would not be a good thing to give the appearance of attempting to silence dissent. Durova 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I am uninterested in sanctioning the editor. This is about prevention NOT punishment. Indeed, I concede your point that an RfC might be the best way to address any behavioural issues. My immediate concern to to prevent further disruption to the BLP RfC, and a user conduct RfC is unable to do that in a timeous fashion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
            • The difference is where to draw the line between disruption and legitimate lines of inquiry. If an editor has the type of questions he has, where would they raise it? Durova 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
              • I've suggested repeatedly he open a user conduct RfC on the issues he has. My problem is not with them being raised. It is with repeated personal conduct complaints being made on a policy RfC. My problem is I am torn here. He is making unfounded insinuations about me, which I wish to challenge him to substantiate or retract. But if I respond to him on the policy RfC I simply encourage the derailment. If he'd agree to file user conduct RfCs and leave a policy discussion to be about policy we could all go home content.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, how about this? There are a couple of types of venue that could be applicable here: an RfC on the merits of Okip's questions (or if that seems to formal, how about a page for community discussion?) Or a user conduct RfC. In order to be totally evenhanded I'll offer to certify the latter on either Okip or Scott Mac, although here's hoping no conduct RfC is necessary. Durova 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
                  • As far as I'm concerned, if you get Ikip to agree to stop posting any discussion of editors to a policy RfC, I'll drop the whole thing. If he's got any accusations against me, then I'll be happy to respond to any user conduct RfC he wishes to file (although I don't think he'll do that - he'd rather use smears and innuendos). I'm not interested personally in "reforming" him, although I suspect other mightwant to filean RfC on him. My only interest is that the policy discussion can continue undisrupted. And, no, I'm not trying to silence the views of those who deny the BLP problem - I want the whole community to debate the systemic issues and not the personal stuff. Durova, if you can get Ikip to desist for disrupting the BLP RfC, you'll have my support. But consider that two arbs and several admins have already tried.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UT
                  • I am unclear as to how we can prevent the obvious disruption on the BLP RFC by opening another RFC. It certainly does not seem the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter at hand. Kevin (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
                    • Okip's his own man; I don't have a whole lot of influence over him. Been biting my teeth a bit regarding this thing and would certainly like to see it head in a more productive direction. Durova 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • RFCs tend to take a month, and often accomplish little or nothing, c.f. A Nobody's RfC (which I note was disrupted by Ikip!). I don't think we want to hold up progress on something as important as the BLP RfC for a month to deal with one user's disruption of it. It's not "forum shopping" to bring matters here for a quick resolution, it's expedient, and Scott is to be applauded for flexibility in seeking to resolve matters efficiently. I support a narrowly framed page/topic ban. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Diffs?. Can someone point out to unusually vituperous behavior or some such? The BLP RfC has seen a lot harsh statements from a lot of editors. Is Ikip/Okip outstanding in that respect? I do find him a little annoying because he tends to write long and sometimes repeated posts about the same issue. But he does not rise to a WP:DISRUPTION as far as I can tell. Perhaps some evidence would help clarify this request. Pcap ping 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • When so many people have behaved in dodgy ways around the BLP business, why single out Okip? By pushing to find out who apart from MZMcBride and the individual who seems now to be known as "K" were involved in the mailing list cabal that was involved in events prior to the rfc, he is not helping create a calm atmosphere, but the senior editors involved in the mass deletions did not act exactly act in a moderated way either. If we are rightly in my POV, not going to have a witchhunt to identify all members of the cabal, I don't think we should have one against people who complain about it either. I doubt that forcible silencing of Okip action is exactly going to reduce paranoid interpretations of what is going on anyway. Rather it will just convince some that the cabal is flexing its muscles.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No one is silencing anyone. The BLP RfC relates to a community discussion of policy. Ikip is repeatedly posting unfounded accusations there. I have invited him to file a userconduct RfC on the users he has issues with, and whatever evidence he has can be presented and discussed. That's all. He's welcome to raise issues about MZMcBride - although I'm not sure what remedies he's seeking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    Evidence

    (also by an involved party)

    All of these comments are from the past 3–4 days.
    Additionally, I have asked Okip to stop referring to a single comment I made as support for his position on the RFC (as I've told him multiple times, I disagree with him). However, even after multiple requests, he continued to quote me out of context (or sometimes just refer to me without quoting), at least 5 times, including 4 times on the same page.
    This is supposed to be an RFC about content and policy. Comments and speculation on the behavior and attitude of other users are not appropriate, especially when not accompanied by evidence. Okip has been asked several times by several users (including uninvolved arbitrators) to tone down his comments and either provide evidence or retract his claims. For the most part, Okip has refused to do so. In June 2009, Ikip was warned by ArbCom to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with. In this RFC he has done both. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Question': Where do these "utter contempt" for "community consensus" quotes, apparently attributed to Scott, come from? If true, they'd seem likely to cause drama, at least as much as Okip may have.-Milowent (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • See
        • It was a heat of the moment comment, retracted and apologised for, and my more considered opinion offered. But Ikip keeps quoting it (totally out of context) despite the fact I've nicely asked him to desist twice. It seems he'd rather use it for rhetorical effect than enter into a real debate. I suppose I've no one to blame but myself, but sad really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    Question by a really rather uninvolved "member of the community"

    Is there any reason why I should not block User:Okip indefinitely while they disrupt the BLP/RfC (I may have commented, in a, sort of, "Yeah, lets get this thing resolved on a least harm basis" - and if I haven't then I should) while they insist on placing their concerns (of which I have no opinion) regarding the genesis of this request there? Okip, as far as I can see, has been requested to raise their concerns at a venue where their persistent deprecation on the motives and actions of some of the movers in the BLP/RfC might be addressed. When I say, "block indefinitely", I mean for as long as they insist on keeping the discussion regarding their concerns about the RfC on those pages - as soon as they agree to open another process relating to their concerns then the block can be lifted, and in no way would this sanction limit their "right" to comment on the matter of the BLP concern. My suggestion simply separates their concerns regarding BLP issues, as raised in the RfC, generally, and their concerns regarding the genesis of the request. I am serious. As an uninvolved (as far as brane funkshums allow) commentator, I see a clear divide between the issues raised by the RfC, and those which concern Okip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Then someone will unblock and we'll have the 4th ArbCom case request surrounding BLPs in just a few weeks. Better not. The goal of this discussion should be to reduce dramaz and recriminations. Pcap ping 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There is certainly no problem with your asking him to drop the WP:STICK with the clear message that if he doesn't turn down the rhetoric about ten points then a block will follow. You are certainly uninvolved and have no obvious history that would make it inappropriate for you to act here. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Totally agree, it would be completly appropriate for you to give him those standards. Even though I would like to see him removed from the BLP discussion all together considering he rarely has anything constructive to add besides asking for the status quo to stay as the de facto standard; but at least a block from bringing up totally irrelevant information would help in some ways. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think an overall indefinite block would be overkill. Okip appears to be moderating. And apart from the personal conflict, he(?) is contributing encyclopedic work. (Disclosures: I'm not an admin. I am involved in the BLP RFC, on the side against systematic deletion. My only involvement in the personal issues is to ask on the RFC page that they either be taken elsewhere or a truce declared.)
      I am presently going with Guy's suggestion - and have written to Okip's talkpage accordingly. Also, commentary by non-admins is more than okay - it is to be encouraged. Sysop only viewpoints tend to be a bit samey, and input from others gives valuable perspective. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • when what he is saying is that the status quo would work if people would actually systematically work through the articles instead of talking about how to it, there's a great deal to what he says. As for other matters, attempts to block one's principal opponent in a debate inevitably tend to raise questions. It is usually better to put up with annoyance than to appear repressive. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think Okip is the "principal opponent" here, not as far as actually speaking to the issue goes. He is possibly the most voluble, and certainly the only one to continue to disparage his opponents in this manner. That behaviour's what has provoked this criticism, not his views on unsourced BLPs.   pablohablo. 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Very much in agreement with this view. Over at WP:AUS, we've gotten our number of unref'd articles down from 2100 to around 700 at the present point, just by ... well, referencing them. It was made possible by some friendly and helpful people that got the toolserver to spit out a list of our unref'd articles. It's not perfect - there's been several false positives, and undoubtedly a few omissions too. But if the people crowing around going "It's such a big issue!" were to work with the WikiProjects, especially the big ones, then the issue would get resolved by content-focussed people who don't give a stuff about who's shouting at who on the noticeboards, and this ridiculous drama could be avoided. Orderinchaos 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No reason exists for blocking Okip. Those attempting to silence him are those who disagree with him and who want to force a minority viewpoint on the community. It is thus nothing more than an effort to silence/censor an opposing viewpoint. If anything, Okip should be promoted to adminship given the knowledge and intelligence he has displayed. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      Oh, bullshit. Agreeing or disagreeing with each other is fine; it is when it gets belligerent and off-putting, as Ikip has clearly been, that it becomes a problem. Don't play the OMG CENSORSHIP card, please. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      "belligerent and off-putting" would be say calling hundreds of editors and admins "slackjawed retards" as you have done. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      perhaps you could concentrate on discussing edits on wikipedia rather then the editor off wikipedia. Spartaz 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      Perhaps everyone could concentrate on actually improving articles instead of starting obviously frivolous discussions about editors with whom we simply disgaree? Imagine how many articles on living people might actually get referenced if the same effort playing games on admin boards (or in threads on that off-wiki site linked to above) were put into finding and adding sources to the articles in the first place... Sincerley, --A Nobody 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      That indeed is my hope. Unfortunately, someone seemed to be posting multiple discussions, smears, misquotes and attacks on me (and others) to a policy discussion. All I wanted was for that to stop. I don't want Ikip banned blocked silence or whatever. Indeed if he wants to discuss user conduct, I've suggested he opens a user conduct RfC. He's welcome to disagree with people in the policy discussion, but he needs to stop personalising it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      Yes, imagine if everyone spent so much time working on improving articles. Except they haven't, and that's why there's an RfC. People are pretty consistent in that they're not gonna do squat until they have to, which concept is supported in spades by all the BLPs that have been improved since the beginning of the RfC, not to mention Okip even starting some sort of BLP improvement contest (which is a lovely idea that I wish more people knew about and would participate in). That said, Okip's view does not represent a majority viewpoint as clearly evidenced at the RFC itself and he has clearly tried to derail the RFC with political mud slinging. I support LessHeard's decision to carefully warn Okip. If he wants to be a part of the future then I'm sure he's as welcome as any of us but the innuendos and ad hominem attacks need to stop. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      Far more people create, edit, and come here to read the BLPs being deleted than comment in these sorts of discussions. The actual majority opinion of our editors and readership is that we should cover these things, but far more editors and readers than not are not interested in joining such threads as this one. Those trying to make others do something really should just do it themselves. The same time it takes tossing up an AfD and associated templates trying to get someone else to do something could and should just as easily be spent finding and adding some sources. Trying to motivate other volunteers is ultimately counterproductive and just creates extra work and eats up extra file space. I would only request help from others if I cannot do it myself. When I come upon an article with typos in it, I do not slap a needs proofreading tag on it, I fix whatever grammar error I can instead. Friendly talk page notices encouraging someone to proofread or add sources seems reasonable, but just spending time starting an AfD and going back and forth in that Afd without instead finding sources (something that is not hard in the age of Google News and Academic Search Complete) makes no real sense. And as I have said elsewhere, the idea that having an AfD in which random accounts dismiss a real person as "non-notable" or some other insult is somehow okay versus an article just baffles me. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      You are missing the point entirely. I accept that Okip's view on unsourced BLPs is a fairly widely held viewpoint. The problem is that rather than discuss using reasoned arguments and on-topic discussions, Okip has decided to argue by throwing around innuendo and allegations of misconduct in an effort to discredit his opponents and invalidate weeks of discussions, commenting on users rather than their opinion. This section is a good example of the problem. I hadn't made any substantial comments (if any at all) on the RFC since phase I ended. I replied to some of Okip's points, and noted that he seemed to be focusing overly much on the past actions of users to the extent that his comments were bordering on personal attacks. So how does he respond? By attempting to discredit me. I've also been accused of being a member of a secret mailing list and defending breaching experiments. All because I disagreed with a couple of comments that Okip made. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      it is perhaps an open question who is trying to invalidate the current consensus rather than refine it and actualize it. In the history of this and other policy arguments, argument, HAS CURRENT CONSENSUS has a great tendency to mean THAT'S THE WAY I WANT IT. During the course of implementing a general proposal, it has sometimes been the case that the people who supported the idea as a general proposal have not agreed on how to implement it. It has even sometimes been the case that during the discussions on implementation, it has been realized that the proposal needs to be very extensively modified. Okip has I think played a constructive role in discussing this, and discussing them with a fair degree of flexibility and openness to suggestion. Even those who brought the arb com and suggest an RfC like some of what he has been proposing. I do not want to enter into the question of the behavior of various parties, but it does not seem unreasonable to me that there is a good deal from various sides that could be called into question. I think this especially when I see the defenders of drastic actions defend them as , well, the overall result was positive, which I take as an implied recognition that many people think that their methods may not have been all that straight-forward. The practical question is whether we allow this discussion over the earlier actions to be the focus of attention. I recognize in myself the feeling that resents those actions sufficiently that I might want very much to discuss them. But in my calmer moments I do see that it is perhaps not the best way of making progress. I think that Okip does see that also, at least for now. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      Behavior is the only thing at issue here. His views themselves are not disruptive; only the way he's advocating them. Mr.Z-man 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      I think he now realises this. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      He shouldn't be blocked. This is nonsense YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      The actual majority opinion of our editors and readership is that we should cover these things, but far more editors and readers than not are not interested in joining such threads as this one. BS. That sounds like the complaining of someone who supported a politician who lost an election: "most people really support my viewpoint, it's just that none of them ever say so." You're just making things up out of thin air, please stop. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      Based on what? He's retracted only a token fraction of the allegations he's made without evidence and has apparently decided not to apologize. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    AfD vs Speedy?

    If an article is currently under review at AfD, is it speediable? Doesn't that subvert the community process? I can see (and have seen) admins taking action *at* an AfD to delete an article that is obviously speediable, but can someone involved in the AfD debate simply slap a CSD tag on the article? Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    If it meets the speedy deletion criteria, it can be speedied. Obviously, if people disagree on whether or not it should be kept, then it should go through the whole process. However, there is no need to wait the entire week just because it was brought to AfD instead of C:CSD. We are not a bureaucracy. NW (Talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Why not? If someone researching the article in order to comment in the AfD finds, for example, that the article is a cut-and-paste copyvio, tagging it for speedy deletion on that ground (and noting in the AfD that it's been so tagged) seems entirely appropriate. Deor (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    In cases where there is harm in keeping the article on wikipedia for even a short period (attack pages, copyvio etc.), certainly. In other cases, having to do with notability, context, advert. etc, it is usually better to let the AFD run through (esp. if there is any good faith opposition to the deletion) , although early WP:SNOW closure may be justified in really obvious cases. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it happens quite often where the comments on the AfD identify that the article is speediable - no point wasting time when the result is obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Can someone fix an incorrect move?

    Resolved – deemed by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\

    I don't know if it's possible anymore but this move was done wrong back in 2006 . Can someone merge the histories or is it too late? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hi, I'm a sock, please block me

    Resolved – Plaxicoed, thanks for the lulz.

    Durova 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). and . He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual. He then banned me twice for correcting those errors.--Storyadded101 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    For clarity's sake, this editor appears to be a sock of banned editor Reachspace101 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Blocked for admitted socking, Plaxico... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Quick tangent -- WP:Plaxico was deleted for BLP and I reposted a fixed version: WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Equazcion 03:39, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I propose a BLP-friendly and easy to remember shortcut: WP:PETARD. Pcap ping 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Mmph!  Confirmed the following accounts as socks of the one editor;
    One proxy blocked - Alison 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Oh, it's just JarlaxleArtemis.  Confirmed. Also, the following accounts;

    - Alison 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    (No need to smear an editor in the section title any longer, changed to reflect reality a bit more...) Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem.

    We have been lucky that we didn't have a second Seigenthaler incident. For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer." Fram (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    ...and the article was...?
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    The revisions have been deleted; publicising the name of the article helps nobody. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    You can easily check it in my editing history (my log of deletions will help as well), but for BLP privacy sake, I'ld rather not put the name here. Yes, I realise that that makes this a bit awkward... Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Look... If you're going to bring something to a noticeboard, it needs to be useful in some way. Informative - there's a problem we didn't know about, etc. Alerting - do something about this. Those sorts of things.
    Posting the equivalent of "Elvis is still dead" is not useful. Yes, we know there are problem BLPs out there. We weren't given any useful information here - no article to check the edit history on, to see if editors are still around who contributed to this mess, to cross-check other articles they were involved in. No information to better inform future decisions on either operational response or policy decisions.
    I would accept "other admins / arbs / whoever have already done those other reviews, all taken care of". But in that case... why put any mention on AN at all?
    Putting something here is asking for attention. Don't do that if you don't want attention...
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's a wake up call, a notice that despite the claims of some people in e.g. the BLP RfC or other pages, there are a number of very serious, long term BLP violations on (unsourced) BLP pages which could harm those people seriously (the article in question has been spread over many, many WP copies, with the result that any English language search for his name gives rather bad publicity), and could harm Misplaced Pages seriously as well (our reputation didn't really get a boost from the Seigenthaler incident). Furthermore, anyone can very easily find which article this is about, so people can check whether I handled this delicate situation correctly and whether any further action (oversight, rounding up of every involved editor, ...) is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'd like to reinterate (once and only once more) that this is a curious approach to and goal in posting something to a noticeboard, and that it was not perhaps entirely useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    And the discussion caused by your objection to it is even less useful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    *sigh* - the edits have been undeleted now and suppressed per policy. You can see who made the edits but not the edits themselves, thankfully. That article was an utter disgrace - Alison 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well done everybody, and it is a bit of a worry that this survived for so long. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no doubt that that vandalized BLP was not an isolated instance, but its not about having a few sources cited. The reason we don't have a second Seigenthaler incident is because the press won't cover every wikivandal case. Its not exciting to be "second" in the news about such things, aside from an occasional "wikipedia reported XX was dead for 10 minutes today". To the extent the general public knows anything about wikipedia, they know that anyone can edit it, and thus sometimes its wrong. But the root of the problem is not whether an article has a few sources or not--its about vandals who wish to deface a page. One day when I checked out what Misplaced Pages Review was, I became aware of a trio of articles repeatedly vandalized by a troll for over 2 years, where he asserted (with different usernames or IPs every few months) that one person was not a person at all but a pseudonym of the other. This started happening in mid-2007, and was last vandalized earlier this month. The articles are Chris Gore, My Big Fat Independent Movie, and Philip Zlotorynski (the last of which currently redirects to the movie article as a protective move). These articles were not unsourced BLPs -- they had some sources cited, and the blatant vandalism was slipped in, and overlooked despite other editors stopping by from time to time (like one editor suggesting that the two BLPS be merged if they were the same person, oblivious to the fake claim). Sample diffs for Zlotorynski:, , , , , . Since I am watching the articles now, and have berated the loser vandal, I suspect the problem will be controlled (but now that admins will read this, feel free to ban him). So, while unsourced BLPs are the bogeyman of the day, I have had trouble finding any link between BLPs that are sourced and whether they become a vandalism target. The vast majority of BLPs, sourced or otherwise, are uncontentious. Though, if BLPs could not be edited by IP editors or unconfirmed users, this case may have not happened.--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that 'xyz was a former President of Sicily' is now considered just as much of a BLP violation as 'xyz was a flashy mobster'. Yet all you have done here is replace one unreffed BLP with another. So, per BLP, somebody delete the professor's article, and then someone can replace it with a sourced article about the mobster of this name, who actually lived in the 19th Century. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No, its still a BLP violation, but negative material that is provably false is much greater of a violation. Mr.Z-man 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The sort of vandalism claimed here is not he dangerous kind, for such edits will be very quickly spotted. The people advocating strong action on unsourced BLPs have been generally highlighting the danger of the less watched and unnoticed articles, where vandalism can stay for a very long while. I'm not sure either is as much of a problem as the potential for damage to people in what are ostensibly non BLP articles. There are a great many many problems, and the attitude that all usourced statements are harmful prevents a focus on the true problem areas. Given our basic principles of editing this is hardly surprising. Given them, I'd say we had a rather low lever of vandalism, and I think a number of outsiders have commented that we are among the best sites in attention to removing them. The reason we have a very low level is because of the great number of editors, and the true solution to the problem is to encourage new people to become active, which is not done by deleting articles. (In the meanwhile, the existing ones will need to work a little more carefully and perhaps a little harder.) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer. - is that what you mean by being spotted quickly? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Well unless people actually check the sources to see if they're true or unwarped, it won't help, as many entrenched users use fake sources etc. And people are reluctant to make a stand against entrenched editors, especially when a lot of the pov pushers are part of an ethnic/religious bloc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    • I am not going to defend BLP violations, but are we sure it is vandalism?
    I cannot see the deleted edits. However, the Italian corresponding article is weakly sourced but enough to confirm that the guy has indeed a criminal record as being involved with Mafia, even if dissimilar in the details from the one cited above, and he has indeed been involved in that at the age of 53. See here for example if you can read Italian -the source is one of the main Italian newspapers; I am happy to provide a translation if needed. (The thing is complicated by the subject having the same surname of a notable Italian mobster -with whom he is involved in the events leading to the arrest, making the whole thing a bit convoluted). --Cyclopia 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Also, see . Again, the details do not fit with what Fram says it was in the article, but the situation is much less clear-cut than it seems. Again, happy to provide translation if needed. --Cyclopia 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Cyclopia is right. The guy was "presidente della Regione siciliana", and was also arrested as a mobster; he was also addressed as "professore", which doesn't necessarily mean he was a university prof. Did you think their mafia has no political connections?! Surely references are good, but there seems to be no contradiction here between the two statuses. Reminds me of a recent similar case in Romania, but I forgot the name of the guy. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, they are not the same person - the problem is there are two separate Giuseppe Provenzano's. One is a 19th century Sicilian mobster (see

    FUCKWIKIPEDOS.FU

    Someone using 208.96.34.202 is adding http://FUCKWIKIPEDOS.FU to search engine optimization sites, including Jayde.com, Entireweb, and ScrubTheWeb, using my email address as a reference. I don't think there's much that can be done about it on Wiki, so this is just a notice to alert other admins who might also be targeted.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    There is something that can be done about it on Wike - blacklisting the word "fuckwikipedos". Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Danielle campbell

    Could somebody please move Danielle campbell to Danielle Campbell? I got a message that the proper capitalization is protected from creation. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    It looks like Danielle Campbell was create-protected after Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Danielle_Campbell found she was not notable and the page was repeatedly recreated despite this. Are you certain the (unreferenced) Danielle campbell meets the requirements for recreation in such a case? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    She stars in a new Disney movie, that gives her some notability. Note that I've never heard of her till I encountered this article in Recent changes. Woogee (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Um, OK, it's been deleted twice now : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=Danielle+campbell and re-created. Woogee (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    And now recreated as Danielle Campbell (Actress). Woogee (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've given Woogee some advice on how to overcome the problem. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Update - correct editor identified as Megh10 (talk · contribs). Offer to unblock made subject to agreement by editor to edit constructively. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Community ban proposal for Jack "Red Hood" Napier

    Posting this proposal under a sock name because the original account may be the user's real name. Last year Drew R. Smith was caught deliberately falsifying a reference source and was nearly community sitebanned afterward for that and serial copyright violation. The closing administrator gave a final warning:

    While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually there were other undisclosed copyright violations at that time and afterward he made more copyright violations. Recently he also falsified sourcing again and checkuser has confirmed a sleeper sock as well as a likely result on a vandalism-only account. Those vandalism edits included adding obscene images to other people's user pages (caution--explicit content in link).

    Evidence

    Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith
     Confirmed - the following accounts as being the same editor;
     Likely
    Additional sock confirmed by previous checkuser
    Another admitted sock
    Undisclosed copyright violations prior to final warning in lieu of siteban
    Subsequent copyvio uploads
    Source falsifications
    • 2009: File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg deleted as blatant hoax after this admission: Drew R. Smith had used an image editor to alter the text of a reference source, then yellowed the background to make the image look like a scan from an old book.
    • 17 February 2010: creates article at Misplaced Pages. The entire text is a cut and paste from a Citizendium article that was written in 2009. Violates Citizendium's CC-by-sa 3.0 license by failing to give any attribution to Citizendium or the article's authors, plus falsifies sourcing throughout the article. Sample for comparison: Misplaced Pages paragraph, identical uncited Citizendium paragraph, irrelevant reference added to Misplaced Pages paragraph does not substantiate the paragraph.
    Other problems (copied from User talk:Moonriddengirl)
    • Heart Full of Black (song): (1 edits, 1 major, +663) (+663) Green tickY, problem, in that he incorporated a non-free image without a FUR. I don't think a FUR can be made to use the album cover to illustrate a single, so removed. Otherwise, article is unsourced & does not seem to be copied. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Paintball: (1 edits, 1 major, +552) (+552) ? Not a copyvio, but a peculiar use of its sources to support the statement "Fields may choose to use field paint only to offset insurance costs." One of the three sources focuses on insurance costs and liability, but the other two list insurance costs as just one of a long series of reasons. --Moonriddengirl 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    Summary

    After his hoax admission and apology last year I attempted to coach him in digital image restoration with the hope of integrating him into the community on a good footing. He did not follow through enough to make any substantial progress. His final responses to attempts at outreach within the last day and a half have been defiant.

    Many thanks to Alison, Jack Merridew, and Moonriddengirl for their assistance.

    Per the above, I propose a community siteban. Durova 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion

    • Oppose I noticed User:Durova's subjective 'defiant' comment in the summary and read User_talk:Durova#Being_reasonable, a section that was started by Jack "Red Hood" Napier. If that's going to be the quality of a summary then I have consider doubts of the quality of the investigation and the evidence but forward appears considerably distorted and quite one sided. I don't have the time to investigate but I feel at least opposing here will give others an opportunity for others to take a deeper look and review there supports with less herd of sheep type responses. SunCreator (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That conversation was not actually started by Jack Napier; the thread header is a sarcastic response to an invitation at his user talk. Compare:
    • You may wish to comment here. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith. If you'd also like to discuss this with me at my user talk, please do. I'm willing to be reasonable if you are. Durova412 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes Durova, I am willing to be reasonable, but it seems a bit late for that as you and Jack have already publicly outted me, and any contributions I make will be looked at with my past actions in mind. I made this account to get away from all of that. Thanks for nothing. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I was hoping he would admit to the copyvios and help with cleanup. If he had cooperated I would have sought a structured editing restriction if an experienced volunteer agreed to oversee his edits. Instead he replied "Thanks for nothing". That is not the reply of an editor who intends to adjust to site standards, and improper licensing is not an issue where we can be flexible: it's the law. Durova 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out the response to an invitation. I hadn't found that although it doesn't alter my view of the use of defiant in the summary.
    Please be aware of the saying Sarcasm on the internet is like winking on the phone. You may give that some consideration. Over years of internet communications I've found that treating anything as sarcasm is likely to lead to a breakdown in communications. Perhaps this sarcasm perception lead to the 'defiant' claim? SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, a real and genuine example of the Chewbacca defense. Bleating marvelous! LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(Resp to SunCreator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
      Yes. Quite funny that he/she compares the support responses to a "herd of sheep", when he/she apparently cannot bother to do any sort of research before coming to conclusions. If the glove doesn't fit... Tan | 39 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      In fairness to SunCreator, a few hours after this siteban proposal started someone redirected the Jack Napier user talk page to the Drew R. Smith user talk without porting its contents. So part of the leadup discussion became hard to find and that might have confused SunCreator. Durova 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      I suggest at least I'm being honest when saying "I don't have the time to investigate". The editor in question here may of done all sorts of sh!t but I'm not convinced by a selective one-sided argument, especially in light of the closing suammry. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      They found their way to this page, and decided that they need not review the very many links by disparate editors to be found here... - but then, why allow evidence to get in the way of an argument (however good faith in being arrived at). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      No argument there. Durova 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      On the contary, it is the evidence of the summary that brings the investigation into question. I think my orginal post was quite clear. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      You think I am confusing the jury by questioning the evidence? Your misplaced put down is not constructive. (Response to LessHeard vanU) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      I think you are misinterpreting "Thanks for nothing". I don't see that as unconstructive. I read this edit as a willingness to make a newstart. (response to Durova) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      If he hadn't resumed his old problems, perhaps. Have a read at the preceding discussion at his user talk: not so much a break with the past as an attempt to avoid accountability for prior mistakes. Afterward when I showed him the problem with File:Pompom.jpg and invited him to provide a license reference that didn't state it was under full copyright, twice he changed the subject and finally told me I was wasting my time. Durova 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Could you supply the (three?) diffs for that please. SunCreator (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    You stated above that you've read the thread at my user talk page. If that was a true statement then you've already seen all of those discussion points. Durova 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Strong support It's amazing reading all of this. Show them the door is definitely needed. Blocking any socks and reverting should be done immediately. Really sad to see this come about, --CrohnieGal 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support ban Enough is enough. GlassCobra 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support ban) We should not be coddling users who treat warnings as sidewalk-chalk scrawls, especially where they're being unrepentant with violating copyrights. Get him out of here. —Jeremy 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Hello. I am Drew Peacock, Esquire. I am posting a reply as to me only. I am posting my reply in the subsection below titled "Please block the remaining sock." I am trying to write it all there. However, I can't go post there without saying that I am none of these people, I do not know any of them, I am not in anyway connected with any of them or any of their accounts. Thank for your time and consideration in reading these words and the other words under the next subheading.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please block the remaining sock

    According to Jack Merridew above, Napier is still socking with an unblocked sock account . Can someone check and block? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    An administrator should probably contact Jack to confirm the email evidence. Durova 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'll block if the evidence is presented to me. Tan | 39 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew_Peacock,_Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's not ironclad. I'm saying I believe it and that time will tell. I left Alison a note and maybe she'll comment. I'll sock-tag the new account if anyone nudges me and I'll forward the email to any admin that would like. Tan, it won't fit in the wiki-email-box... Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Wouldn't User:Drew Peacock, Esquire have shown up in the checkuser that was run? AniMate 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe it's best not to block this one. It appears to come from a different state than Napier. Admins and trusted editors who are curious for details are welcome to email me; best to be discreet with this one. Durova 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    There's always the possibility that Droopy is Grawp, a known friend of Hugh Jarse and Eileen Dover ;) (nb: I had help on these;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Now there's a possibility; can't rule that out by geography. Would be a different discussion, though. Durova 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am accused me of being a sock puppet for this person/these people.
    I am not Drew R. Smith, Jack "Red Hood" Napier, MakemydayOW, Larry Sanger's revenge, Ender The Xenocide, or Tbsdy lives. I am not connected to any of them in any way. I have never used any of these names or accounts.
    As best as I can determine, I face this accusation because (1) I sent an email to Jack Merridew in reply to his Welcome-To-Misplaced Pages Post on my talk page, and (2) as Ryan Postlethwaite says, my alleged connection to these other people is “basically, it's the way... (the email is) formatted.” (For easy reference, Mr. Postlethwaite’s post reads as follows: "I’ve been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew Peacock, Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu.")
    If there are reasons other than these two, and if you tell me them, I will do the best I can to respond.
    I had never heard of Jack Merridew before reading his post on my talk page (His post read: "Welcome! {picture of plate of cookies} Some cookies to welcome you! Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Drew Peacock, Esquire! I am Jack Merridew and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: - - - Introduction The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to edit a page Help pages How to write a great article I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! - - - Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jack Merridew."), posted at 1:58 a.m. today, Friday, February 19, 2010. I was online at the time. (I will be referring to dates and times based on Pacific Time (PT). Misplaced Pages identifies this time as “America/Los Angeles” time in the user “my preferences” page.) I thought that I would respond with a thank you note. I first tried to post a note on his talk page today, Friday, February 19, 2010, a few minutes later, but couldn’t because I could see no “edit this page” tab. I guessed that he had modified his page, eliminating that tab.
    Because I could not post him a thank you note, I instead sent him a thank you note through Misplaced Pages’s email system. That note read as follows:
    "Thanks for the cookies and the welcome. They were both great.
    I went first to your discussion page thinking I would leave a brief thank you there, but when I got there, I was worried for a while that I had messed something up on your page (ARRRGH!), or in my settings at Wiki (uggh!), because my “edit this page” tab was gone. I had just been adjusting some settings and then went back to read more about adjustments and then tried some adjustments again, so it made sense that I did something wrong.
    Now that I figured out that your page is modified somehow so it can’t be edited, I’ve had a good laugh at the unintended joke you’ve pulled, and another at myself for the overly anxious concern I was feeling that some guy takes the time to bid me welcome, and in exchange I mess up his tabs on talk page. Whew, am I now relieved.
    All The best,
    Drew
    (I am the author of this note. It contains words written solely by me. As the author of the note, I am the one who has the right to give permission to post a copy of it. Not to be silly, and believing that I have implied permission to post a note I composed anyway, be assured that I have given myself permission in this instance. I say this because I have read the caution on the “Misplaced Pages:Email” page about posting a copy of an email. I understand the words “without permission” to mean “without the permission of the author.” I believe that I have complied with that caution. I also see that I should have concern that because Misplaced Pages pages can be edited, my posting of the email could be changed and, if I follow it correctly, people would read the changed version and be mislead as to what I said. I don't see how that is different from anything else that is posted at Misplaced Pages. In any event, I think that I must take that risk because I want you to know exactly what I wrote in the email)
    I don’t know what aspect of formatting I did that caused Mr. Merridew to conclude that I am any of these people. I typed my note up in a word processing program and then cut and pasted it into an email for sending though Misplaced Pages. I type much of what I post, including this these words that will be my post on this page, in a word processing program so that I don’t hit enter or something else causing me to accidently send a half finished note or half finished comment/contribution to Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. I don’t know what effect that has on formatting as to the thank-you-email when it arrived to Mr. Merridew, but I mention this fact so that if preparing the email in a separate word processing program plays any part in the formatting, I have brought this to your attention. If there is a specific question about formatting, or anything else you have, I will do my best to answer.
    Again, I am not these people. I do not know them. I have nothing to do with any of these accounts.
    Today I discovered another post on my talk page (it said "fyi, I was just talking about an account named Drew. Regards, Jack Merridew") posted at 2:49 a.m. today, February 19, 2010. The word “talking” was a hyperlink to this page. I guess it is better to know what is going on as concerns requests to block or ban me, but let me say it is extremely distressing. EXTREMELY DISTRESSING. I am not any of the people. I do not know any of them and I have no connection with any of them of their accounts.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Revised and fixed because I did not know when I posted it originally that footnotes aren't allowed on this page. I had used the button that was above the editing box when I was putting my reply here, and didn't know that although it set my footnotes up and showed a numbered reference for my footnotes, footnotes would not display at the bottom of the page.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I would like to request some help please. I used a few footnotes in my reply/comment that is immediately above this request. If anyone coud tell me what I have to do to get my footnotes to display, it would be greatly appreciated. I hope that is what the problem is, because I did spend a lot of time working on what I wanted to say and I would hate to have lost the footnotes. I do have the text of them in draft form before I cut and pasted them from my word processing program, but I made some corrections/changes to them after pasting here from the word processing program, so I would like very much to find out how to display them. I used the button above the editing box to set up the footnotes, so I don't know why they don't display. Thank you.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 08:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I refactored your post. We don't use foot notes on our admin boards, only in articles where there is a reference section and template. AniMate 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you. I will go through it and maybe put what were the footnotes in parenthesis and in italics or something. Thank you again.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 08:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I went through my original post to this section and revised it to change what formerly were the footnotes into italics and parenthesis in the body of the post. I dropped one out and moved one because it made sense to do so now that the footnotes were in the post itself. My thanks again to AniMate for recovering my footnotes.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire 09:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    Community Bans - Why discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard

    Hello, Why are community bans discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard? Shouldn't they be discussed on a common Community noticeboard?

    I do understand that I anyone can post on the Administrators' noticeboard - but shouldn't it really be for: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest" and not for community ban discussion?

    Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    We tried. Durova 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    As a practical note I think board has higher visibility than other current options.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) See Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy/Archive 4#What is the correct venue for a community or topic ban proposal?. –xeno 18:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Self-requested blocks

    After several recent discussions on this subject, I have decided to codify the conditions under which I am personally willing to issue a block at a user's own request, and to create a category for admins willing to make such blocks. Category is at Category:Administrators willing to consider to requests for self blocking, requirements are listed at User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. I'm thinking this is probably not a big deal, but I've been wrong before so I'm posting here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    One too many to's? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Or he's "Willing to consider two requests" :) --Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    One too many. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oh crap. Hold on, I'll move it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Apparently you can't move a category, unless I'm missing something. Deleted and re-created @ Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Will you accept requests from fellow admins? =) –xeno 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    The wording of WP:SELFBLOCK allows for latitude. While I prefer that users use the self-blocking script, your requirements are reasonable. And responding to User:Xeno's question, it seems pointless to block admins since we can apparently unblock ourselves.-- Flyguy649 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Contrary to Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Unblocking, though. –xeno 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    I must admit that had not even crossed my mind. I think I'm gonna go with no. My criteria are predicated on the idea that there is no appeal, an admin could easily get around that if they wished. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    As could any user by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org ... –xeno 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Presumably, the blocking reason would link to the request on Beeblebrox's talk page, and the reviewing admin (not wanting WikiDrama) would either turn down the request, or at least contact the blocking admin first. -- Flyguy649 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    I believe the administrative overheard involved in dealing with self-requested blocks is a main reason they are typically frowned upon. Prohibiting an unblock request via the list should also be a bullet point. –xeno 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    While I agree with the sentiment here, I disagree that adding a layer of bureaucracy is the best way to deal with it - although I certainly am not going to argue against it. I have always been willing to block users upon self-request; I think adding a category, listing personal requirements, etc is over-regulation. Bottom line - I'm willing to block anyone upon request, but I'm not going to sign up for this. Tan | 39 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    I only made the category because a lot of admins reject such requests by default, and I didn't want users to waste their time asking the wrong guy. And I'm absolutely not trying to hold anyone but myself to the criteria I've outlined, I only did that in the interest of not having my own time wasted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox, I see that you've linked your requirements prominently on your talk page. Would it make sense to tag the requirements page instead of your user page, so that users could go directly from the category? Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    BLP RFC motion to close.

    There's a motion to close at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Proposal to Close This RfC, with a conclusion of sorts, it might be useful if people commented.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    Backlog at TFD

    There is a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD, with some pretty uncontroversial unclosed discussions, e.g., here. Any help closing these would be much appreciated. I am happy perform any necessary cleanup, but I can't close them do to being the nom or !voting. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    Attack page

    I was notified tonight about a page put up that clearly is designed as an attack page about me here. I posted to the page to either file it, prove it or delete it and in response it was expanded to include personal commentary on my political views as reflected by userboxes on my userpage and interpretation of what they mean as well as commentary on my level of maturity. Whatever your opinion of me and my recent block, Lar clearly said that no connection existed between me and SkagRiverKing and the WP:SPI clearly stated here that KermitClown and MisterSoup were unrelated to anyone else named on the page. Meanwhile, this page also disparages other editors in good standing such as Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1. Under WP:UP#NOT #10 and WP:CSD#G10, this page needs to be deleted. I would tag it myself, but that would open me up to retaliation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    Category: