Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 13 February 2010

• 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

Good faith (towards Peter Damian)

I'd like to see the community extend some good faith to Peter Damian. I know he's done some socking since his ban, but all of it has been constructive and related to article work (even if some of it's been pointy). I don't see anything to be gained by punitive punishments or expectations of complete submission. As long as an editor is willing to contribute constructively, it seems to me that leniency and extensions of good faith are the best way to garner less animus and more good will. If someone is willing to abide by our rules upon their return, I don't see any reason to keep them in exile. If they make trouble it's easy enough to show them back out the door. Let's be magnanimous for once. Any takers? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, support, give him a break. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He was banned for violating an arbitration ruling... So is he going to abide by it on his return? –xeno 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

People often respond well to a little good will and trust. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He was given a fair amount of both, and still refused to abide by his restrictions. Allowing him back is (yet again) saying "This is your really really final chance, for realsies, we mean it this time." Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got a link to those restrictions he broke? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

- next time, look at the block log. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is much better off without him. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As he was banned by community discussion at ANI, I think that is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Given that he socked as recently as yesterday I wouldn't expect that to go very well. The argument that he had no choice and had to sock is contradicted by the many users who have been blocked or banned and were allowed back because they managed to demonstrate that they had the self control to refrain from socking for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As recently as today: John Watkins LLD (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion: Peter Damian). Jarkeld (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be helping himself much, a six month block with good behavior is pretty much good enough to get most people back editing, he appears to have socked his way out of that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is he can edit as he pleases as long as he stays anonymous. It's a defacto reality of whispered truth that editors can return as long as they do so quitely and remain anonymous. If they identify themselves they have to blocked. It's Misplaced Pages's version of Kabuki theater.

If it's a sock of his, which seems likely, it seemed to be working constructively on article improvements. Differentiating between clean socks and dirty ones would be useful. Like so many acronyms we often throw around terminology without distinction or meaning.

I think it's unfortunate that we push talented academics into the shadows because they got frustrated and into trouble. The whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow to me when we so consistently fail to extend it, even when it costs us nothing. It is almost effortless to reblock if problems reemerge, so it makes us out to be petty and vindictive in cases like this that we demand punishing terms, ritualistic humiliations, and exile before allowing a return. I'd much rather be part of a forgiving and welcoming community that leads by example. I don't think we should be a church in attempting to recruit supplicants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith was extended, many times... Tan | 39 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's one more time? I think it's been a while since the last go round. And think of the gloating you can enjoy pointing out my mistake if I'm proved wrong. And if by chance Damian should return as a productive contributor, think of the new chapter of light and redemption we can open. A new dawn. A Misplaced Pages Renaissance of Enlightenment and reasoned consideration for our fellow hominids in which good faith and olive branches are extended and good favor bestowed upon us in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much of a gloater, but I am confused - you said, "the whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow when we so consistently fail to extend it", meaning that Peter Damian is getting the shaft because we fail to AGF. But now we need to do it over and over? Where is the line? Is there one? Tan | 39 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the virulently offensive types of users, I would think we should always be willing to at least listen, sure. But is there a request for an unblock by Damian himself? I'd rather see something in his own words rather than some sort of request-by-proxy appeal. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've lowered his block to allow him to send email. At this point that's as far as I'm willing to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting a response to Tarc's question before allowing talk page access: are his words so ungood we can't risk them being posted to his talk page? (If he is really seeking to be unblocked; if this is just an out-of-the blue suggestion by CoM then I suppose it can remain blocked) –xeno 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with PD is that he is so clever -- he is perfectly capable of doing a long series of perfectly good edits just for the sake of setting up a drama, and when the drama plays out it goes on for ages and sucks in dozens of editors. Even Jimbo has been sucked repeatedly into PD's dramas. We've been through it often enough. If he were the usual bonehead the cost of giving him another chance would be limited, but he isn't. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ecxinfinity) I agree he is clever which is why it would be good to have him back contributing to articles. The service in exile meme seems a strange tradition and an arbitrary tribal ritual to me. Let's show some respect to the man and see if we can't get some in return. I've restored illuminationism (from being a redirect), and if that's the type of contribution he's interested in making, I think it would be good to have him back among us. If the test run fails and there is disruption, it won't be hard or costly to shut down the experiment. I disagree with the idea that it will be enormously drama filled to end it if it spins out of control. It's a one button operation and I'm more than willing to receive my share of I told you so's if I'm suffering from delusions of grandeur. But it seems wimpy that there are none among us willing to give good faith a try when it's such a commonly preached refrain. And I don't think it's really been tried before, not since the previous episodes which as I recall were quite a few months ago? I don't recall him being allowed to return to open editing as a respected member of the community any time in the recent pass. The first step would simply be to initiate a discussion: Hey there young man, how are things going? Are you interested in editing here? We've had some problems in the past, if you returned would it be fore the right reasons? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we've essentially done this before, right? So if this doesn't work, what will stop you (or another editor) from saying we should do it again? No one cares about telling you "I told you so"; hopefully we're all out of sixth grade. We (read: I) care about wasting yet more time on a proven incorrigible editor. Tan | 39 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess nothing. Nothing will ever stop good faith editors from suggesting that someone with a history of very solid article contributions, but other issues that got them banned, be extended some respect and good faith in the form of an opportunity to at least discuss a return to community membership. What is there to lose? I'm not going to be writing any aritcles on Medieval philosophy, but I think it's a subject that's worth including if we can find someone who's willing to work on that subject. They may have some good ideas about other aspects of Misplaced Pages that can be improved on as well. Who knows? The stongest argument against trying to be gracious and welcoming is Looie496's well articulated position that we'll just get burned again. If we follow through, he may be right. But I still think it's worth the endeavor of trying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I could see working is an unblock, with a restriction in place to only allow Peter Damian to edit article or talk pages. His previous misdemeanors stemmed from Misplaced Pages/User talk space contributions and I think he could edit constructively in article space. Anyway - that's just my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense at first glance to me; what do you think of that, CoM? Tan | 39 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless that is a programmatic restriction (as in he is technically incapable of editing anything other than mainspace and article talk), we all know he will simply not abide by it. Why are we doing this? It's a waste of time. → ROUX ₪ 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I told myself I wouldn't get into the "one final chance" argument, but I actually think this would work. If he edits another namespace - well, he gets a swift block without further discussion. His terms would be that he's only allowed to edit article and article talk pages - if he breaks them, it would be obvious so no drama would be caused by a swift reblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You have far more faith than I, Gunga Din. It is a virtual certainty--one I would wager on, and I am not a gambling man--that wehn (not if) PD breaks the restriction and is blocked, someone will stir drama on ANI saying "Oh it was just a minor infraction." We all know he will push the envelope specifically to make that happen; an innocuous projectspace edit here, a template edit there. It will be the death of a restriction by a thousand cuts, and once he has inured people to his minor infractions, he'll go right back to the usual drama-mongering. As has been pointed out above, PD plays the long game and thinks nothing of taking time to start his shenanigans.

While I understand where you're coming from, you are unusually misguided in this case. (And yes, I am unavoidably reminded of my own support of Betacommand in his "no really, this is final for real" days before someone put a serious leash on him.) Which, yes, one could argue is precedent for this sort of last chance. Unfortunately, the situations are different. Betacommand took a "my way or the highway, and damn the torpedoes" approach; Peter Damian is explicitly out to disrupt things around here. As such, he requires different handling. More to the point, given all the disruption, I do not feel--even if Satan skates to work and he abides by his restrictions--that he can be trusted in articlespace. → ROUX ₪ 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Can someone reach out to him or unlock his talk page so we can see what he has to say? Maybe he's not interested. Who knows. But I wanted to read about immediacy (philosophy) and it's a redlink :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I have no horse in this race, so I initiated a topic over there to see if the party in question is interested. Only a slight bit of Tarc Snark(tm) was used in the process. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of the history, but I think one of the problems in the past was his making edits here to promote discussion and controversy there. So putting it up for discussion in that forum doesn't seem desirable to me as far as encouraging good faith on Misplaced Pages involvement that is free from ulterior motives. But never mind. What's done is done.

I've expressed my opinions as far as blocks go, and they apply to this situation as well as others. Maybe I'm just being dim. Cheers all. Thanks for listening and I'll try to leave it up to others going forward so I don't become overly involved are start to sound too much like a skipping record. For what it's worth Peter and I were in disagreement as far as our previous onwiki editing interactions go. But he's clearly capable of contributing good content. Whether he's interested in doing that or prefer to try and shake things up going forward I have no idea. I haven't had an opportunity to ask him, and I try to do as little e-mailing as possible about on-wiki stuff, apart from occasional chit-chat, for transparency sake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I support unblocking him. He has always made excellent contributions—he just got into some feud way back when. The encyclopedia should come first. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent PD socks I am aware of:

• User:John Watkins LLD: edited 17 December 2009 - 9 February 2010
• User:Short lived account: edited 7 February 2010 - 8 February 2010
• User:The Rationalist: edited 16 February 2008 - 28 January 2010
• IP 86.184.211.76: edited 7 February 2010
• User:A history of the modern world: edited 20 November 2009 - 30 January 2010

So at least three different accounts at the same time, and probably a whole host of sleepers and active socks besides (perhaps someone should run a checkuser to get as many of those as possible, so that we get a complete view of his recent editing here, and not just the image he wants to show us?). He could have quietly edited for six months with one account, showing that he was perfectly capable of being a long-term contributor without running into trouble. Instead, he chose to avoid his ban by mass-socking. Keep banned, and let him use the ArbCom unban requests if he wants to be unbanned. Fram (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot one: User:Editor with a background in philosophy, edited 21 January 2010 - 27 January 2010. Fram (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there any problematic activity from these accounts, or were they blocked for ban-evasion only? Tarc (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, please don't even think about suggesting ban evasion isn't a good reason the block the accounts - I support an unblock, but please don't go down that route. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh, calm down...of course I think it is a good reason. What I was getting at is if the same behavior that led to the main account's block has been seen again in the socks. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• A general observation: the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. → ROUX ₪ 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's really not, look it up. Tan | 39 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your smartassery has trumped mine. I doff my cap to you, sir. → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea making a comment like that when you've just come off a block for incivility? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to fail to see the intent of the comment? It was a compliment. AGF, FFS. → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux and I's current spat aside, Ryan, we generally see eye-to-eye. I took no offense at his comment; on the contrary, it was well-played. Tan | 39 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to see Peter unblocked. He does good work, and the current situation is that it's being deleted because he's banned. There's a philosophy article he wrote recently, Illuminationism, which was deleted by Fram, who also redirected the title to a different topic. I asked Fram to consider undeleting, but she said I'd have to take responsibility for the contents. That's an awkward thing to ask, because the sources aren't online so it would involve quite a lot of work to check them, though I see it has now been reproduced by Child of Midnight. I'd support an unblock for him to work only on articles and article talk, plus no interaction with editors he's had problems with in the past. If things work out—after, say, a year of editing with no problems—he can ask to be allowed to post in other areas too. SlimVirgin 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And how can we have any confidence at all that he would abide by those restrictions? He is banned and restricted from socking, yet he's doing that. He was banned for failing to abide by restrictions. How many times must he be caught with his hand in the cookie jar before we grow a collective brain and move the cookie jar out of reach? → ROUX ₪ 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with ChildofMidnight, Slimvirgin et al that it would be a good idea to unblock Peter Damian: when sets his mind to it, he can be an excellent editor. Just my two centimes worth :) Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not redirect it to a different topic, I reverted it back to the situation it was before PD came in: someone else had created the redirect to that topic, not me. As for the "awkward thing to ask", namely that you take responsability for the edits, this is not awkward at all, but comes straight from our WP:BAN policy page: "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." It is in general useful, when discussing things like unbanning a prolific sockpuppeteer, to actually check the relevant policies, instead of making unwarranted sweeps at another editor. Fram (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not realised Peter Damian had been rebanned. I think he should be unblocked and personally do not think it necessary to impose any restrictions on his editing. If his contributions are disruptive, that can be addressed then by neutral parties. The more I reflect on his contribution to the project, the more I think he was treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. If he's still interested in contributing, I think we should welcome him. WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've no reason to trust a Sock Master. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have said they'd like to see Peter Damian unblocked. So would many of us, myself included. The problem in the larger picture is that we ask people to refrain from socking. How can we expect banned users to take that message seriously if socking can prompt a discussion that ends their ban the next day? Peter has plenty of talents that he's welcome to put to use right now at other WMF sites. If he does so for three months without socking here, I'll initiate an unban discussion for him myself (see WP:SO for details). That's a fair offer. Durova 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Durvova, this did not happen to Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had multiple socks, so why should Peter Damian be subjected to this kind of probation? That seems quite arbitrary. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly more than one year ago Peter Damian was granted an unban on the heels of a socking episode; the result did not turn out well. Misplaced Pages:Standard offer usually works; am not aware of that Mutawandi example and would have made the same offer there. Durova 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I see it rather differently. I am not very concerned by people evading bans to produce good quality consent. If someone shows that they have evaded a ban and that their contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think this is in itself a good reason to consider unbanning them. It rather suggests that either (a) there was something wrong with the ban in the first place or (b) that the user has changed. I concede that this approach incentivises evading bans but, provided the contributions to the project made are good, it doesn't seem so bad... WJBscribe (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a difference of wikiphilosophy, then. This website does not have a good track record at dealing with editors who contribute worthwhile content in article space while being disruptive elsewhere. The question is whether an individual willing to abide by the same standards the rest of us observe. Does content work amount to an exemption from behavioral policies? We've allowed case-by-case discussions on that point to consume inordinate amounts of volunteer energy. Refraining from socking is a minimal demonstration of respect for policy. Those who wait for several months are more likely to make a successful return. Durova 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone in contact with Damian? It seems like it would be helpful to hear from the man himself as to whether he'd like to return and, if he does, what his editing interests would be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've just gotten an email from Peter asking for talk page access. Seeing as consensus is not close to unanimous one way or another, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to let him speak directly via his talk page while this discussion is ongoing, any relevant comments should be copied over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only just caught this thread, but would support Peter being unblocked. His overall content contributions outweigh other issues. --Snowded 08:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 8 accounts have already been found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian, and it seems very probable that more are to come. Note that some of these were created long before the current ban, indicating that he was a sockpuppeteer back then as well. Note also that User:I love SUV's was blocked late December 2009 for 48 hours for ‎ Personal attacks or harassment. Another sock, User:Think of the children, was blocked for five days for disruption. So that makes that of the currently known socks, at least two have been independently blocked without any relation to being a PD sock, one for personal attacks and one for disruption. Unbanning such a user is really beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his socks tried twice to whitewash the Think of the children fallacious argument, and then used that same argument on Jimbo. That was 10 days ago.

I once argued for PD's unbanning, and shortly after unbanning he decided to retake his long-time argument with FT2, and got re-blocked for it. PD needs to show that he is really interested in improving the encyclopedia, and that he won't go out of his way in trying to destroy his perceived enemies inside wikipedia. He contributes good content not for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of getting himself blocked after he reveals his identity. He does this to support his point about good editors being blocked for political reasons. As far as I know he will just do the same thing again: 1) contribute an amount of good content, 2) make a POINTy argument that he knows that will get him blocked, 3) brag in Misplaced Pages Review about how his point was proven once again. PD has to show that he is willing to break this dynamic and limit himself to article work.

By the way, as far as I know, his pledge to do all in his power to destroy[REDACTED] is still standing..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here is Peter's reply, copied from his talk page:

Thank you for unblocking the talk page. I notice that a number of perfectly innocent accounts have been uncovered, and some content has been deleted. Damnatio memoriae. All I can say is how upset I am about this. I can't believe that the people who did this care anything about building a comprehensive and reliable reference source. Deleting these articles is worse than common vandalism.

The attacks on the WP:AN are just too horrible. I have nothing more to say. The cruelty of human nature is limitless.

• As you can see, it does not contain a request to be unbanned, so I suppose that means we're done here. He also posted a list of articles that he feels were unfairly targeted for deletion, but I didn't see any reason to re-post that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that we're deleting articles that Peter is creating when there's nothing wrong with them, and in fact they look quite good. These three have apparently now been deleted: The_Pheasantry, Jenny_Kee and Linda_Jackson_(designer). Is it policy that articles created by socks be deleted? SlimVirgin 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The usual "...created by a banned user..." would seem not to apply in the case where a user in longtime good standing, with extensive good content contribution, is judged to have later gone astray in a non-article related manner. No matter what policy and precedent say here, I think that IAR should override and the articles should be reinstated across the board, unless a particular article has a specifically identifyable problem. I haven't had time to more than briefly scan them, but I haven't found any problems so far. Please stop deleting and put 'em back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The relevant policy, to answer SlimVirgin, is WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Edits made by banned editors, including articles created, don't need to be deleted, and the policy specifically states that "obviously helpful edits" are an exception. So I agree with GHW, except I don't think we need to IAR because the rules specifically allow for this. -- Atama頭 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with some of the bio ones and am checking and adding references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried to just be a sort of mediator so far in this because I didn't have any previous involvement with this user, but my patience for his games is now rapidly wearing thin. I have gotten some more emails in which he asks me to restore articles that he created with sock accounts, while at the same time stating that he has no desire to return to editing Misplaced Pages. Does anyone else see a rather large contradiction inherent in that statement? If he really had no interest he wouldn't be creating sock accounts left and right and asking for all this stuff to be restored. In any event, since he has stated that he does not want to be let back in the unbanning discussion is moot. In the interest of moving forward, I propose that those users already evaluating his recent contribs proceed, but that any future socks be dealt with in the usual manner and have all contribs reverted or deleted on sight in order to discourage further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've this to offer, which I placed on my own talk-page following a brief but productive interaction with Peter about his linking of the term Latin West. Our discussion was ended by the subsequent abrupt disappearance of his alternative talk-page (or "sock", if that's preferred).

I responded with suggestions for disambiguation or de-linking - if the context of the term wasn't clear, it should at least not confuse the reader. An admin closed the user-page soon after; it had been opened to evade a permanent block. I was surprised to find all this editor's contributions and others' responses on his talk-page erased, as if in damnatio memoriae; I thought we evaluated contributions on their own merits. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've read here has changed my mind. It's reasonable to delete worthless articles, which these aren't. I think Peter's claim to not want editing rights disingenuous, but not underhand; the guy probably wants to edit, desperately. If there have been problems in the past, I hope he acknowledges them and negotiates a return but that'll only happen if he's allowed a voice. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronald Mckay/Allen Mills

Any suggestions on how to deal with pages such as this one? It's the subpage of a perma-blocked sock.

It also raises issues about abandoned subpages/userspace drafts in general. Do they just hang around forever? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have a regular article, so the question is whether it's salvageable as an article. If so, you could move it and tag the then-almost-empty subpage for deletion. If not, you could tag the subpage for deletion. An admin can tell you for sure, but my guess is that they do stay forever unless someone takes the initiative to handle them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't do any of those things. IP editors are not able to move pages or create them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But any IP is free to create an account at any time. And you know that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And when it becomes mandatory, I'll consider it. Until then, I'm looking for answers not criticisms. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. So stay away from where you don't belong. *shrugs* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody actually answered the IP's question, and I'm curious about it also. Is it correct to say that a page like that, left untended, will stick around indefinitely? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No Bugs, it won't. If you stare at it long enough it will vanish right before your very eyes. That's what happens to unsourced BLP's in sockpuppets user pages. something lame from CBW 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you have known about it if it hadn't been brought to your attention? Also, it doesn't exactly vanish - it undergoes a red shift. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Seb, that's an entirely inappropriate response, and especially so from somebody whose actuall logged-in account is pretty illegible. Woogee (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And still no answer to the general question of how to deal with old user subpages. Anybody with knowledge of the issue care to respond? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have an account then send them to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. If you don't have an account then you will need to get someone to finish the nomination as it requires that a page be created. Of course it's also possible that any given user subpage could be tagged using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. And to Bugs, no I didn't know it was there until I saw this. something lame from CBW 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a relatively easy way to identify such pages? I suspect that there are tens of thousands lurking around with no easy way to find them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some users who are regulars at WP:MFD that specialize on ferreting out this sort of stuff. You might ask them what methods they use, I'm a bit curious myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who has blocked most of the socks of this account, I must confess, I often let these subpages remain, because the new socks would always come back to edit them (among other articles). It was a fast way to identify them and block them. If you're interested in deleting other subpages, just go through the contributions and subpages of the other socks of this account. I haven't blocked the latest sock incarnation as they "appear" to be attempting to make useful contributions. If another admin cares to block, feel free. I'm beginning to tire of following these socks around. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the old leave-some-bait-for-the-sock game. Played that one a few times myself, it does wear thin after a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is honeypot. I've always like that term, I imagine some espionage agents trying to capture Winnie-the-Pooh. -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In Alaskan parlance a honeypot is a bucket that persons who don't have indoor plumbing use as a toilet on cold nights to avoid a trip to the outhouse, taking it out and emptying it in the morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem of vandalism

I have just undone this vandalism on the article about the Polish city Opole done by some IP from US. The problem is that it went unnoticed for a full 40 minutes (and had i not had to stay up during night for some work today it would have probably gone undetected even longer). IMO it completely destroys the credibility of[REDACTED] to have stuff like "poppopopopopopopopopopopopopopopp fuck" inserted in an article for so long. It's high time the armada of admins we have on[REDACTED] comes up with some new ideas how to prevent this type of vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One would have thought the Abuse Filter would have caught that. Alas. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is rely on the RC patrollers and Hugglers to catch this sort of thing. Alternatively, ban anonymous editing. It is a pity that the latter solution won't even be entertained; too many people don't get that the 'anyone can edit' model isn't scaleable. There's more driveby vandalism than there are people to deal with it, period. → ROUX ₪ 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Much more dangerous to the accuracy and reputation of Misplaced Pages is the vandal lowers the accuracy by incorrectly changing a birthdate by a year, or adding a bogus middle initial or nickname, or adds a spouse or child, or add a fake inaccessible print reference documenting some spurious fact. These are very hard (sometimes impossible) to check, and blanket reversion of such edits is objected to by some when many other statements in the article in question are also difficult to verify. Edison (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that insidious vandalism is more of a problem than blatant, but how is changing the birthday of a person much more dangerous than altering the year of an event? With the town, there are many more people to get insulted. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The speed at which an article gets corrected is proportional to how many are watching it and, by implication, its level of notability. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, quite bluntly, a fuckload of edits go through here in just a period of a couple of minutes. It's not impossible for vandalism to get past simply because it streams through the recent changes list so fast. HalfShadow 06:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a metric fuckload or an imperial fuckload? Seriously, for any but the top hundred or so watched articles, 40 minutes is a very short time for vandalism to stick around. I would say that half an hour or so is pretty average for vandalism on most articles on my watch list. That is, if I don't get to reverting it, some one else does in something around a half an hour. 40 minutes would not be unusual. On some lightly watched articles, it can sit around for days. Occasionally I'll use the random article feature, and generally once or twice every few dozen articles you'll find some silly vandalism from days or weeks before that no one noticed. I seriously wouldn't sweat 40 minutes. --Jayron32 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of these trolls/vandals make a change just to see if they can engage someone in a minor edit war. After 40 minutes, it's likely they will have moved on, or passed out, or something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ok another, much worse example, since lately there is much fuss about BLPs, take for example the article about the MotoGp rider Daniel Pedrosa. A little more than a week ago some clown deleted a whole bunch of text and added the following message HE IS GOOD BUT I HATE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 . For those who aren't into motorcycle racing: Daniel Pedrosa is a 3 times World Champion and currently one of 3 or 4 best riders in the world. Shockingly before the vandalism was reverted 5 hours and 21 minutes passed. There are 2 things to consider 1) Basically the vandal could have inserted any garbage or even libelous crap and it would have stayed un-reverted that long. 2) I can't even imagine how long it would take to revert a vandalism on the page of a less famous rider, maybe even days. In my opinion the[REDACTED] anti-vandalism measures are a failure, relying on people having articles on watch lists just isn't good enough.  Dr. Loosmark  09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MotionTime to close this thread?:

• Vandalism happens.
• That is because anyone can edit.
• The community is aware of what open access means, but willing to pay the prize given the net benefit.
• Most vandal edits get caught fast, some slip through.

Unless Loosmark makes clear what he wants to achieve here and how, this thread is pointless. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Skapperod, if you aren't interested in this thread, nobody forces you to read it.  Dr. Loosmark  10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Motion to close"??? What is that exactly, haven't seen something like that before on these pages (I think you're confusing this with Arbitration Enforcement or something)? Why? And what does "close" mean in this context? If you think this is unimportant, let it just sit there and dither away on its own like a good many threads. But other editors, especially those paying attention to the recently brought up issues of sourcing and vandalism problems may find this relevant. The point of Loosmark's post was to alert. If the alert is unwarranted, then... it will be ignored. If there's something there, then why jump in with this "motion to close!". Weird.radek (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed "motion to close" --> "time to close this thread?". Time to close this now. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, this is one of the reasons flagged revisions (and/or semi-protection of all BLPs) are supported by a lot of people. It would prevent a lot of such vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the valid point Fram makes: Skapperod and Radeksz, please don't hijack this thread with your personal feuds. Loosmark: apart from what Fram mentions, we can't technically do much beyond what we are already doing, and everybody is aware of the issue, so I don't think this thread serves much of a purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"everybody is aware of the issue". I am not sure that's true, I for one for example, would have never imagined that an article about a high profile rider like Daniel Pedrosa can stay vandalized for more than 5 hours. Like Fram, I too support the flagged revision, but as we all know implementing big changes like that is soooo difficult because given wikipedia's size there will always be huge number of editors defending the status quo for whatever reason. In the mean time we should think of something to at least alleviate the problem. Once I have seen a bot which reverts vandalism, perhaps it can be enhanced to be more effective. Also for example from examining the history of the Daniel Pedrosa article , it can be seen that 1 day before the vandalism that i described above the same IP made another vandalism. I propose giving a quick article ban to IPs as soon they make a vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread probably belongs at the village pump or at WT:Vandalism. The issues are not new, but for what it's worth, I agree that we should be far less timid in our use of the systemic tools we do have against vandals (blocks not warnings; at least semi-protection of BLPs and similar magnets). In fact I think it would be an interesting experiment (though it won't happen) to give all confirmed editors the ability to semiprotect pages.--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand of the technological aspects of blocks and bans, It's really pretty much impossible to block out all the vandals, or even the vast majority, without blocking out a large number of good-faith contributors as well. Any one person could get most of his town blocked if he understood how to change his IP and was willing to drive up to the libraries and schools to get them blocked too. It's not that we allow vandalism because we're "being nice" to them, it's because we don't really have a choice if we want to remain Misplaced Pages. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is almost a service to the community. As much as we want Misplaced Pages to be a reliable encyclopedia we are still far from this goal, and this kind of vandalism makes it clear to even the most naive reader that any Misplaced Pages article need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Should we still do something about obvious vandalism? Probably yes, but it is also the least of our worries. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I deal with apparent test edits is I always look up the IP address to see who is editing - If it is a non-internet company, a school, a university, or another shared IP I mark it. Also I always leave a message asking the person to test in the sandbox. By making it clear to people that other people are watching and are scrutinizing their moves, they'll be more likely to test in the sandbox. If someone wants to play edit war after being warned not to, that person will likely be blocked, and he or she will move on. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bomb-making instructions on the internet

New article, up at DYK, which is where it caught my attention. I'm asking this as an exercise in caution, knowing I would kick myself if something happened and I didn't say anything.

In the article is a quote by Sherman Austin: Take any plastic film canister and fill 3/4 of the cannister with _____. Fill the rest with Draino and put the lid on it. Take this mixture to a cop car and drop it in the gas tank. Run like hell. In about ten minutes the car will explode like in the movie.

The quote is sourced to an online link. When I clicked the link it showed up as forbidden. When I copied and pasted the Fill the rest with..., into a Google Search, the formula showed up on the first Google hit, not blanked out.

Further down in the article is a cited statement reading, In 1995, Dianne Feinstein produced a bill to the United States Congress making it illegal to distribute bomb-making information, punishable by a $250,000 fine and 20 years' imprisonment. Two years later, the body voted 94-0 in favour of implementing it.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to express other than a distinct feeling of unease about this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I pinged Mike Godwin on his talk page and sent an email. Tan | 39 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of interest, I amusingly already poked him on his talk page when I first created the article, because he's listed among the references. Sherurcij 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(as creator of the article) Without resorting to the immediate Virgin Killer issue, the bill does not eliminate the need for Mens Rea in any crime; criminal intent is still a necessary part of the action. A demolition company will not be prosecuted for showing its employees how to destroy a building with large explosions, for example. As an encyclopaedia, it is clear that Misplaced Pages (and I) have no intent for the information to be used in a criminal fashion - we are providing the quote as a snapshop of the kind of information that has been deemed "illegal" and successfully prosecuted. Sherurcij 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That might very well be, Sherurcij, and it's an excellent article. I just agree with Moni3 that it might be prudent to get official Wikimedia legal eyes on it. Tan | 39 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'm not offended...I just hope everybody who stops by spends two minutes to add another detail/source. It's a good article, but it has the potential to be a great article with enough eyes and hands on it. I was actually surprised it didn't already exist. Sherurcij 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, in my research of the salient law (Feinstein Amendment SP419), there is no issue here - intent is a key part of this law. "Thus, the Feinstein Amendment only precludes the distribution of material intentionally directed toward a 'a federal offense or other criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce'." Tan | 39 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a brief email discussion with Mike Godwin. I don't wish to quote him here, but there doesn't seem to be an issue with this article. He did recommend that we link to the statute itself; Sherurcij, I will leave that to you to place as you see fit. Tan | 39 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In Spain, my local library had a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook. The central pages had instructions on how to manufacture a Molotov cocktail. It was perfectly legal. I'm not sure if it's still there. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While not acting with my admin hat on, I've removed this from the article and explained my reasoning on its talk page (in short, I think that it had been arbitrarily placed in the article with no clear attempt to link it into the prose). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User:Rachmaninoffrus requesting deletion of their talk user page

As a new admin, I would value advice on this!

Rachmaninoffrus was indef blocked on 08 Aug 2009 as a sockpuppet of Pianoplonkers.

At 14:06 today, they asked for their talk page to be deleted (see here). I left a message saying that I would do it, then realised about the block/sockpuppetry, so left a sockpuppet blocknotice instead, and left a message on the talk page explaining this. When they said they still wanted the user page deleted, I offered to redirect it to the talk page (so the block notice would still be visible).

They do not like this, and said here surley it is my right to have it deleted as it is a userpage.

My take on this is that it is not their right, as they lost such a right when they received their indef block for sockpuppetry.

Any advice on this issue would be most welcome!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(not an admin) My understanding is that the right to have your tracks erased on WP is absolute, not conditional on complying with community standards. As such, he has the right to have his account deleted, renamed, or the talk page wiped - even if he is banned. Especially in this case, as it seems it may be his RL surname - unintentionally leading to WP:OUTING. Sherurcij 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The right to vanish usually requires that you were in good standing. First of all: You have no right to have anything deleted. All contributions to Misplaced Pages are released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA and as such are not yours to demand removal anymore. As such, all deletions are subject to community consensus and our relevant policy, WP:CSD, has a criterion for user pages: U1 - but U1 explicitly excludes user talk pages for good reasons. While a number of admins (including myself) have in the past deleted user talk pages upon request as an WP:RTV-warranted exception to the rule, it should require that the requesting user was in good standing (the wording was changed though and requests should go through WP:MFD). A sock of a banned user has no right to have a page deleted and it serves us better if it is not deleted since the sockpuppet tag informs all other users why this user was blocked. Regards SoWhy 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped the section title - it is not the talk page, but the user page that they want deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw this discussion. The user talkpage had {{adminhelp}} on it again, so I looked over the prior discussion and the userpage. There wasn't anything of import in the userpage history, so I went ahead and deleted it, but restored the last rev with the block template. Sorry if I stepped on any toes! —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD - I saw that you had done that, and think that's a good solution. I'll bear that in mind should this kind of situation arises again. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like User:Pianoplonkers is no longer blocked and is indeed a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. I see no reason not to honor his request.--CastAStone/ 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help in identifying and unblocking former Google Web Accelerator proxies

This might be old news, but I noticed that Google Web Accelerator has been discontinued, and many sources have shown that the proxies have been taken down. See and . Can some admins help me search for and unblock these IPs? I am not enough to unblock these IPs by myself. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see this for why the issue has become urgent. We do not want to block innocent users. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I don't get it. Why does Google's announcement that they're working on a fibre-in-the-home rollout plan make unblocking old proxy IP addresses an urgent issue? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They might reuse the old proxy IPs for their users. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the 27,019 pages in CAT:OP, many of them dynamic and stale. Anyway you'd want to check , , and Category:Google Web Accelerator proxies, though not all of them will be GWA. -- zzuuzz 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning: I noticed that some of the proxies are still proxies that are used by Google's mobile transcoder at http://www.google.com/gwt/n . Please be careful. I have therefore stopped unblocking, except for removing the rangeblocks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate that they might reuse GWA IP addresses with this new program, but I still don't see the need for urgency. Having read the official blog post, it's clear that this project is just in the planning stages. From the end of that post: "We'll collect responses until March 26, and will announce our target communities later this year." I think the best thing to do at the moment would be to wait and see how the rollout progresses. Right now seems a bit early to start scrambling. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The war on orphaned free images: am I being dim(mer than usual)?

I had a run-in with our esteemed colleague Fastily over the nomination of orphaned, free images at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion a couple of days back. Now someone else appears to be doing it. Am I being dim(mer than usual), or am I right in thinking that deleting orphaned free images which might possibly be useful on Commons would be the Wrong Thing? For example: pictures of king posts like File:King post truss variation.jpg, File:King tie rod.jpg, File:King post singapore.jpg. If, as is entirely possible, the point missed me by miles, please don't hold back. Yours in puzzlement, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, that would seem very strange to me. We should treasure our free content and make sure it lives for ever. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't save any space or gain much at all by deleting, so yes, I agree that is a peculiar choice of how to spend their time. –xeno 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked the person if there is some deeper reason to delete them. If not, we can just tag them {{tocommons}} and/or move them using commonshelper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I was going through watermarked images to see if they were fixable. In these cases, the images were watermarked and not in use, and so it seemed easier to just nominate them for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is that nothing may be as simple as it seems. In the above cases, the images were removed from King post in good faith, citing WP:WATERMARK, which is a guideline and not a policy. They had been added there by the uploader who had given some sort of release on the image pages. However, I have also seen some editors remove images from articles as "unencyclopedic", without complaint, and then they are open to be deleted as orphaned, even if free. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The deleting admin should always do some sort of due diligence to make sure they are validly orphaned, and if free, tag them for moving to Commons. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And there's the rub isn't it - how are they going to find out if they were orphaned out of process? –xeno 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, therein lies the rub. When one is going through maintenance categories, there's no way to tell from the file description page or the file history where it was once linked. For all I know, the file could have never been used. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think you're dim. I ended up there the last couple of days because of something that hit my watchlist and I'm particularly unimpressed what is going on there. A lot of things being nominated for deletion or "possible" deletion that seem to result from thoughtlessness or lazyness. Both appropriate images and otherwise. We've got one user who is nominating tons of stuff they should because they apparently don't understand the rules, another editor who mass nominated tons of in use images because they thought dealing with the uploader was difficult (even though they seem to think the images are probably appropriate), other editors mass nominating things that should be sent to commons, editors nominating things for clean-up, or simply because they just don't know what to do with something.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the editors has uploaded dozens of low-res photos with watermarks on them. There is no OTRS ticket for any copyright release. The images have no camera info, only info from Photoshop. These images are not acceptable for Commons, and they should be speedied unless the uploader can give proof that they are their photos. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Application for BAG membership

I have accepted MBisanz's nomination of myself for membership of the Bot Approvals Group, and invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Josh Parris 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

Did Shakespeare write the plays attributed to him? A troublesome article is now up for peer review. There are two disputants on the article who have edit-warred in the past and have been warned for personal attack. Since this is not a boring subject, I am hopeful that experienced editors might contribute to the peer review. Having outside input could calm things down, and lessen the need for admin watchfulness. The edit war is now in abeyance, and the article itself is open for improvement if your changes have consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Pickbothmanlol

He might be blocked, but I don't think that gives him the message. He has just started to use the I.P of a high school to his advantage. This is getting out of control. It might seem pointless to propose a ban on an already blocked user but for the sake of enforcing, we need him to get the message. The Green Lombax (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser on aisle 5!!!! –MuZemike 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You called? Ok - confirmed the following;

• The Green Lombax (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Big Red Lobster (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Also upgrading one schoolblock to hardblock. No collateral damage - Alison 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Alison. Marked as resolved. -- zzuuzz 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments , especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him , leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person , although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please attend to this asap, please. It had been archived by the bot. User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge are definitely block evasions. See Sarastro1's talk edits. --86.134.60.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You should use the WP:SPI pages in future. The admins there are more adept at reviewing the claims, and the "file" on the sockmaster is maintained. I have, nevertheless, actioned this request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

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

• As User:MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned;

• MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama;

• MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Gooddday

Gooddday (talk · contribs) appears to be GoodDay (talk · contribs)'s stalker. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a long-term banned editor, impersonating him for the lulz. Indefblocked. What's weird is that my own (cellular) IP address showed up in his /16 IP range. Wow - Alison 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and semi-protected GoodDay's userpage - Alison 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mick & Alison. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello all...assistance requested at Wikiquote!!!

Hello Misplaced Pages.Over at Wikiquote we have a severe problem going on regarding Kalki and BD2412. The evidence is pointing that they are Sockpuppets of each other. See This. We request input of Misplaced Pages users familliar with Kalki and BD2412 at the discussion here. I'm also writing to let you know preemptively in case there are any issues at Misplaced Pages in the future. Cheers! Stayinganonfornow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note this account has been blocked as being a sock of a cross-wiki vandal who is harassing Kalki on Wikiquote. Tiptoety 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that. There are other socks, now also blocked - Alison 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which account? I assume you're referring to User:Stayinganonfornow, but it isn't immediately obvious from context. --Zarel (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one - Alison 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, he was harassing me too. What am I, chopped liver? bd2412 T 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'fraid so! :) - Alison 03:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion

There is currently a major backlog at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion. Unfortunately, I can't close most of them, since I am the nominator or a participator. Can someone please close them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of War Crimes

Can 1 admin please block user Uncle Dick who has now blatantly violated the 3RR by reverting a 4th time to his preferred edit. Please also note that this is a disruptive user who is wiping my warnings to him and other users and reinstating his to mine on my talk and it is totallt unfair because he has been the No.1 opponent provoking me in my onw disputes. He is not qualified to stand neutral when he is constantly reverting my edits. Well a rule has been broken and as I see things, users normally get banned on this note. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See sockpuppet investigation. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe breaking the 3RR spells instanrt ban. Sockpuppeting is purely circumstantial and less important. I have obided by Misplaced Pages rules and Uncle Dick has not. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick has been putting a good deal of time and effort into combatting obstructive editing by Z Victor Alpha/Neutral Solution 100/Warcrimesexpert, who are clearly all the same user. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Uncle Dick is constantly edit warring on my own talk page and in doing so - removing a comment made by a totally separate independent user, so he is shooting himself twice in the same foot a) edit warring and b) removing other people's remarks. Furthermore, he is signing himself as JamesBWatson so it is obvious that this is one and the same user and the sockpuppet can't remember how he was last logged in. Ban the lot of them please. I mean the best evidence is how these users pop up all at the same time to help each other. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) The "totally separate independent user" is a sockpuppet of Z Victor Alpha, as a consideration of their editing histories shows. (2) As far as I am aware Uncle Dick has never "signed himself as JamesBWatson". If he has I should be interested to see the relevant diff. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ZVA blocked for 12 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks in their edit summaries, also pending outcome of SPI. Feel free to change as necessary. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request

User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Request_for_posting_a_review_on_Administrators.27_Noticeboard Gerard 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for these two diffs; . On a personal note, I find CoMs commentaries to be extremely unhelpful and certainly not inline with a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages. He seems to feel the need to comment on every single controversial issue on the project. If something's kicking off, you can be sure to find CoM somewhere close by offering his advice. I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll (and with first edits like this and this, I'd bet my last penny that this isn't his first account). That being said, I wouldn't have blocked him for those two diffs - I don't find them to be particularly uncivil - I probably wouldn't warn for them. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the need for this "protective" block (for what other sort is there?), the need for it to be so severe, so sudden and without warning, or for the unblock request to be so vehemently denied. ChildofMidnight was uncivil and deserved a warning, maybe a sanction if they kept it up afterwards, but not this. I wouldn't disagree with any of Ryan Postlethwaite's comments either, but a block like this is unwarranted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Overturn. While the tone was less than measured, there is no way to interpret CoM's comments as "personal". Rather, they are specific criticisms of an administrator's use of the administrative tools. Misplaced Pages should not censor critics of those who have tools that are supposed to be "no big deal" and are not supposed to be unilateral policy makers. _matic 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - My god, again? ChildofMidnight has a penchant for attacking admins and ArbCom members in a over-inflated plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people fashion. If this is to be lifted I'd like to see some sort of prohibition of this lashing out in the future. If there is a dispute with an administrator with allegations of abuses, then it should be brought to a public forum for discussion. If we start to see repeated filings that turn out to be frivolous, then that can be dealt with as appropriate. I will remind all here that we went through an RfC on ChildofMidnight recently where this sort of behavior was discussed. The end result? CoM attacked the closing admin. I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock. I disagree with CoM far more than I ever agree with him. But this hair-trigger blocking surrounding anti-AGW editors is just beyond the pale. It has stop, or soon enough arbcom will need to become involved. This was a pathetically ill-considered block, and should be overturned right away. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Seems rather than a block, some sort of long term restriction on the types of disruptive behavior Ryan Postlethwaite describes above may be in order. The two diffs provided as triggering events for the block by themselves were simply examples of long term behavioral problems. See the recent Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight RFC closed last month and his response to the closing note. ChildofMidnight's response to the current block has been to attack the blocking admin rather than focusing on his own behavior immediately after saying he would "... apologize and refactor if it will shorten my block". Whether or not the current block is upheld, the disruptive behavior and personal attacks need to stop - and I see little evidence that will happen without some sort of community sanction or ban. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Tabula rasa, the comments in question are pretty trivial. But CoM has a very long history on AN/I, with ArbCom, and on RFC, and has at each instance chosen to interpret the results as not his fault. This is a problem, and given the problem the block is not out of order. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, see Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#ChildofMidnight for a recently filed topic ban request and the evidence contained therein. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here seems to be that most of us have issues with CoM, but not the particular edits that led to this block. Since it seems this is finally reaching the level of ArbCom, I am going to unblock him so he can speak in his own defense and let them deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The block should have been directed through the General Sanctions for community input. The editor should be free now to respond there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've fine with lifting the block, but something really needs to be done here to address the general situation. We also need to separate the ongoing problems with global warming articles (about which I know little, but where there seem to be behavioral issues galore) from ChildofMidnight's behavior in particular, which has been a problem all over the place. I agree with Vsmith's point above that we need to deal with this given the strong consensus that there was a problem at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight, C of M's complete dismissal of that effort at dispute resolution, and the continued problematic behavior. Beyond the two diffs cited as reason to block, see also the following recent comments by C of M where we see phrases like: "Get the fuck over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd"; "I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me,"; "childish jerks," etc. Or see how C of M responded to a perfectly polite note from another editor here (that conversation is very telling). The problem here is that if you look at just one or two diffs one might say, "that's not so bad," but this has been going on for a year or so, and there seem to have been a bunch of problematic comments just in the past couple of days. We need a long-term strategy for getting ChildofMidnight to stop with these constant ad hominems and incivilities and stick to the business of helping the project of which he is quite capable. Discussing the general problem of the global warming articles should probably happen elsewhere. Unfortunately I have no good ideas as to what to do about C of M. Banning from noticeboards (as has been suggested before) won't do much given that a lot of the worst comments happen in user or article talk space. Fresh eyes on this problem would probably be good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that kicking off this thread with the comment that one editor was a "drama loving troll" was a pretty terrible way to start the discussion. Let's try to avoid labeling others and just deal with the issues at hand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply and explanation regarding civility, hounding and admin abuse, what this is all about

Thank you all for having the decency to recognize that bad blocks should be reversed. It took a while, it's cluttered up my block log with more abuse, but at least I can edit again, which in theory is what we're all here for.

I would just like to reply briefly with a few points:

• Ryan Postelwthaite's statement that "I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll" is ironic on many levels given the bogus nature of the block I just endured.
• As to the nature of my "involvement" when there are controversies he should look at my proactive comments before spouting off with hateful bullshit.

  This thread might be worth reading and reflecting on for admins big and small:. The admin enforcements that followed it have gone a long way to feeding new disruptions, incivility and disgruntlement.

• And here's another OUTRAGEOUS comment by me that if it had been heeded would have prevented a whole lot of drama and wasted time.
• But I don't expect RPG to be blocked for his uncivil personal attack. Blocks are for the meer peon editors so they can be bullied according to the whims of abusive admins who can then invoke their "lengthy block logs" as they engage in further abuse down the road.
• And if anyone wants to know what this conflict is really about, it's about an editor who has a clear COI involvement in the climate change subject area and who operates an advocacy attack site off-wiki against his ideological using this encyclopedia to push a POV.

If you don't believe me go read our global warming article and then read the encyclopedia Brittanica's article. Go read the entries on Dictionary.com (including the one from a science dictionary at the bottom).

What you'll find is that we've narrowly redefined the whole subject of global warming to give the impression that it has only ever existed in the 20th century. Yes, despite the fact that understanding the concepts behind anthropogenic warming and greenhouse gas effects needs to be understood in historical context, including how they differ and are similar to past warming events, a group of editors and their admin allies has completely thrown out the science.

In a push to make an argument they've abandoned common sense in favor of misleading and distorted article contents and titles, like Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. That's the convoluted description we use for events related to unfavorable disclosures of collusion, insular exclusion of opposing viewpoints, and illegal violations of the freedom of information act by a group of climate scientists in England that has resulted in an independent inquiry, people stepping down, apologies, and further investigations into grossly innaccurate information, unscientific reporting, bogus data, and new independent bodies being established that aren't tied to the wrongdoers.

Yes, these editors and their admin friends including BozMo, who when he's not making improper blocks is defending an editor calling others "old fruits", and 2over0, who's passed out a half dozen blocks and bans but not a single one on the most disruptive uncivil and antagonistic editors in that subject space, are working to chase off anyone who disagrees with them.

So don't let the trolls fool you with their smears. The rot goes pretty deep on this one ladies and gentlemen. But if we stick together we can root it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what this block is about. It's about abuse, intimidation, censorship, and bias. I will not remain silent about it, and it's incumbent on every member of this community to stand up to the bullying and intimidating abuse that is corroding the editing environment at this encyclopedia, and destroying any semblance of collegial collaboration free. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards