Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aua (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 15 July 2008 (→Sock: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

Archives

15 Nov 2005 – 28 Feb 2006 01 Mar 2006 – 30 Jun 2006 01 Jul 2006 – 30 Sep 2006 01 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006 01 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007 01 Apr 2007 – 30 Jun 2007 01 Jul 2007 – 30 Sep 2007 01 Oct 2007 – 31 Dec 2007 01 Jan 2008 – 31 Mar 2008 01 Apr 2008 – 30 Jun 2008 01 Jul 2008 – ...

Redlink bot

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Potential bot to revert some additions of redlinks to some sections of selected articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cookie 81927 still at it

Hi! I've reverted this idiot's talk page a few times now; he just doesn't get the hint. Could I impose on you to protect the talk page? I've suggested over at AIV that a checkuser be run on this monkey and his range blocked for a few days. Have a great weekend! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind: Bongwarrior got it. Thanks for the initial block.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentingabuse

Rlevse

I emailed you about the account I started with which to edit accountably at Documentingabuse. (Please note I am editing from my usual ISP which provides dynamic IP addresses).

You have kindly removed the erroneous tag regarding some other ad hoc user BUT the indefinite ban remains.

I would like this removed please and the account unbanned.

Had the circumstances been clear, above board and faultless, I could accept discussion about the name.

However, the circumstances were clearly not. The excuse made were exaggeratedly false and unsupportable. Numerous individuals were acting merely to equally disincentivize my editing on that subjects.

The nature of the opposition is quite clear. I cannot afford to make or use another account for the likehood more spurious allegations. (I respect the intelligence of other Wikipedians over name use and will clearly identify my raison etre on my user page).

Thank you for your reasonableness and understanding in advance. --60.42.244.160 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the email and the response by MBisanz above. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rleves, I strongly believe that the account should keep blocked for the anon's past wrongdoings and the harassment against me. The anon falsely accused me of making two accounts (well, I just changed my user name via WP:CHU).. I don't know why I'm bothered by the malicious abuses by the anon. If he/she wants to edit Misplaced Pages, he should regard Wiki rules, and take his/her own responsiblity for what he/she did. The anon's grudge and retaliation on my reporting his breaches on Wiki rules are so annoying. Even if the anon is in no relation with Canadian sockpuppeter, the anon indeed made his own socks and abused it as evading his block sanctions. The records do not change him new person. Why does he/she blame me for his own misconducts? Quite weird way of thinking and self-justification. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Rlevse, a user has violated WP:NPA by claiming that an article is in violation of NPOV because I edited the article and claims that the article is becoming a propaganda blog. This is a very serious allegation and hinders my ability to contribute to the article. Your comment is needed at WP:SLR. The article is in question is Tamil Eelam and it is believed to be one of the main aspiration of the current civil war in sri lanka and as such is a part of SLDR (thought this article was not tagged because it was overlooked). Watchdogb (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's now been over 24 hours and there has not been a single evidence given to support these allegations against me. Can you please take some steps so that I can be left to contribute rather than be attacked ? Please and Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ElboMisery1993 -- another sock?

I think I've found yet another sock of User:ElboMisery1993. Since you dealt with the last two for me, you might wanna check this. This user is real persistent, no? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen far worse. I recall the fascination with table formatting too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think we should do about this user? I can't think of anything else than this continuous game of whack-a-sock. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You could file an RFCU next time and hope they ferret out others, get more than one at a time. If you know the IPs, a range block may be an option. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you log the Olawe block...

at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? Thanks. - Merzbow (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Facepalm on me indeed, I should have left you a note on your talk page when I re-opened the thread. It's nothing personal, I just don't feel comfortable with the claim that the community came to this conclusion, being associated with the ban. I've started another thread at WP:ANI#Giovanni33 part 2. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't deteriorate into a virtual lynching, that's fine with me. Jehochman 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is fine. Ned, understand and thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi, I just read your message at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 asking for diffs that show that LinkToddMcLovinMontana should be blocked. As far as I know there is nothing in that users contributions that would lead to a block, although I will go and check through them all now. Apologies if I did the wrong thing by bringing it up at WP:SSP, but after reading the sock puppetry policy, I took that to mean that the very fact that the account is a sockpuppet account (if that turns out to be true) of another, indef blocked account, means that this new account should be blocked. Given that the other 3 accounts have been indef blocked, isn't this one (if it is a sockpuppet) being used to circumvent a block (and therefore policy?) And if LinkToddMcLovinMontana is not blocked, is there not a way of reaching consensus on whether or not it's a sockpuppet? Do we only care about sockpuppets if each separate account breaches policy? Sorry if I'm being clueless, I'm not too experienced with WP:SSP, as you can probably tell! --BelovedFreak 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking for more evidence that shows he's a sock of this person. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any more than what I mentioned. Sorry if I shouldn't have reported it.--BelovedFreak 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now from Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 that the diff you added would have been helpful. Thanks for your help. --BelovedFreak 11:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Concerning your question on diffs, the puppet now recreated a page with another name that the puppeteer created, and created another similar hoax page. Thank you for your attention. MythSearcher 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me some usernames and evidence please. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is already blocked by another admin, but I will still give you the details for future references since this puppeteer seems to totally ignore policies and kept coming back with new puppets. Since the pages are deleted, you can refer to the logs or try a google cache page with those names, and here is the original hoax version of the still existing page of the really existing game page used by hoaxer to disguise his hoax. Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers (Shooter Version), Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version and Galaxy Angel Final are all essentially the same article with only the name changed. The puppeteer is User:Galaxyangelnew, who started the hoax in the Galaxy Angel wikia and got deleted there. It then came to create the same page under the existing game named Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers, and since I have played the game before, I have totally revamped it to a version which tells of the real game instead of the hoax, with references. The puppeteer then created a new page with the shooter version name after it, still with no sources to back up claims made in the article like IGN's scoring and votes, which could be simply found to be false with a search in IGN's webpage. The puppeteer went as far as to add in the hoax into other related pages of the series, until I have reported the hoax and simply showed it to be one with the official page showing no signs of such a game. The first account got blocked in 11 June, and comes back to hoax with this list of puppets. MythSearcher 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've just abused the wiki email system and sent you one that has nothing to do with WP! Check when you have a spare couple of mins. Take care sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 "ban"

You may have noticed that the ban discussion on Giovanni33 has, predictably, proved controversial, as it didn't last very long. To be honest, I was a bit surprised that it ended when it did, though it certainly looked to be going towards ban. So that this doesn't become an issue again in a year (which it will, quite probably via a Giovanni sock): what would you consider doing about the problem? Shoudl the discussion be reopened and allowed to go a few days? Or should there be another discussion? The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd let it go for now. After a year he can request the community unban him. The arb ban has a limit, the community ban doesn't, so it'd stay in affect after the 1 year unless the community agrees to lift it. This is how I see it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Rlevse, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, Rlevse, for showing interest in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate everyone's confidence in me. I apologise for the last-minute notice, but I would like to wait a couple months yet to go for adminship. By that time, I'll have even more experience in admin areas, and will have more knowledge of process and policy (not to mention the support-to-fail ratio at RfA is pretty bad currently, but that would be a non-issue if I had some more skill). I thank all whom have trusted me enough to nominate and co-nominate me for adminship; if you are willing to wait a little longer for my RfA I would be most grateful. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/ 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Brag sheet"

The minor achievements:

• Vandal-fighting
• New page patrolling
• Welcoming users
• New users patrolling
• XfD !voting

Slightly bigger things:

• Copyediting
• GA nom
• WikiGnomeism
• Adoption

Not much, I know. Most RfA-regulars expect to see five FAs and 47 barnstars; I have neither, but I believe I would be a useful asset to Misplaced Pages because I have sufficient experience in admin-friendly tasks, and the like. I plan on starting small at first (UAA, AIV, etc.) , and eventually getting involved in more tasks.

How's this? --Mizu onna sango15/ 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mizu onna sango15

I think you forgot to put your signature at the end of the nominating statement for the above RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Crash-and-burn

Yep. Crashed and burnt. Granted, there were more supports than opposes, but it's always a good sign that it's time to withdraw when someone says "clearly needs more experience". :P I'm not disappointed, on the other hand; I really do need to work on my CSD and UAA edits, and I'll be sure that that's improved next time I go for adminship. Cheers, and thanks for the nom! :-) --Mizu onna sango15/ 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughs

If only our checkusers were this easy to convince MBisanz 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't AL2TB Artisol2345's sockpuppets?

Both of them have 2 diff IPs. Artisol2345 have left Wiki since October 26, 2007; and after that he close his account and lock them out, and no longer opening that account? Are you sure both of them is sockpuppets? They might be same roomate but two distinctive person. It would be better to semi-protect or portect his talkpage. This will avoid IPs or users to use his talkpage as a WP:CHAT. Isn't YORKABES Artisol2345's sockpuppet. Yorkabes even put is his ssiter's ccount on her talkpage.--Freewayguy 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again

Hi Rlevse, just wanted to ask your advice. You recently dealt with Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 and blocked the sockpuppet. I believe another one has appeared, User:JonasBrother1, based on similar edits, similar userpages (especially the 1st edit) and his link to his Myspace page: "CarrieToddMcLovinMontana", which was also linked to by User:TheStuffWillDriveYouNuts and User:TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny. I'm sorry to bring this up here, but I wasn't sure whether to file another SSP report, or take it to WP:AIV, or what. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is he blocked now? For future reference, should I take obvious ones like this to WP:AIV? Or WP:AN/I? --BelovedFreak 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes he's blocked. See the tag on his user page. You may want to report the next one to RFCU so the CUs and find his IP(s) and block the underlying one(s). — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, will do. (Sorry for being dense - had thought I'd checked his blocklog before & was empty - obviously not!). Cheers for your help. --BelovedFreak 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MQS

Rlevse, quick question: what specifically convinced you that L.L.King and MQS were the same person? I'm not questioning your decision (you are an admin in good standing and have the right to do as you did), but I'd like to understand why a little better. — BQZip01 —  18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A combination of things, similar behavior and edits, MQS starts right after LLKING was blocked, and the real kicker -- he says he's making a clean start. A clean start from what? A bad past obviously. If he weren't LLKING and was a new person, he'd be a new user and not need a clean start. MQS also knows too much from the beginning to have been a brand new user. Given he seems to have a clean record since appearing as MQS, the CUs didn't find anything obviously blockable, and there was some support for applying the "clean start rule", I decided to give him this one once, but he'd better toe the line and be a productive editor. Hope this answers your questions. Let me know if not. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for closing this case. I hope things will go a little more smoothly from here on out and anyway I appreciate your time and consideration in the matter. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your point, but he was saying that he wanted a clean start from user:mqschmidt, an account blocked for incivility creating nonsense pages, and not linked with L.L.King through sockpuppetry. — BQZip01 —  19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the last time, Mqschmidt was not blocked for incivility, he was blocked for "creating nonsense pages," I don't know (but can guess) where this myth came from that he was blocked for being incivil, but in reality it was because he was engaging in exactly the same behavior he took up under L.L.King. He's already acknowledged the closure of the case on his talk page and said he'd try harder to "follow the precepts of Wiki policy." You don't have a case here anymore. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• CC, I know your opinion already. I was asking for Rlevse's. — BQZip01 —  20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected with regards to the manner in which user:mqschmidt was blocked and updated the user page accordingly, but my original query still stands. — BQZip01 —  20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think mqs, MQS, and LLK are the same person. If not they're certainly closely related. BQZ, I'm not sure what exact question you want me to elaborate on at this point. Please clarify. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that mqs and MQS are indeed the same person. Those two are related to LLK. MQS already admitted that.

However, "...the real kicker -- he says he's making a clean start. A clean start from what? A bad past obviously. If he weren't LLKING and was a new person, he'd be a new user and not need a clean start." He wanted a clean start from user:mqschmidt (see such a claim on his user page) and not LLK. Otherwise, I'd be with you 100%. — BQZip01 —  20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yea we've already established that there was confusion over that conclusion, but in the end all three of these users -mqschmidt, L.L.King and MichaelQSchmidt- are operated by the same person. They are each sock puppets of the user who has now identified himself as Michael Schmidt. Schmidt wants people to believe that L.L.King is a publicist or some other unrelated third party, but as the evidence in the SSP case indicates, they are all the same person. Now he wants a clean start so he doesn't get blocked outright, but his contributions will be watched carefully and if he runs afoul of the rules he will face sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BQZ-yea, I see I messed that detail up, but per CC, I'm convinced they're the same person and CC's last post is spot on in my opinion, so the end result for me doesn't change. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand CC's assessment and that you concur with his opinion, but CC is way wrong in many ways,

"Schmidt wants people to believe that L.L.King is...some other unrelated third party..." He doesn't and specifically stated/admitted the opposite.

"...evidence in the SSP case indicates, they are all the same person." The WP:CONSENSUS on the SSP page doesn't seem to warrant that conclusion.

"Now he wants a clean start so he doesn't get blocked outright..." Again, CC is twisting MQS's words. MQS wanted a clean start to put his past behind him. There is a minor distinction.

"...but his contributions will be watched carefully and if he runs afoul of the rules he will face sanctions." This is the kind of statement of which I am wary (especially if you support it) that this conclusion/ruling will be used as a club to suppress any/all contributions by MQS.

I am also concerned that I don't see any evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK. I would really like to hear your opinion on this one and not Cumulus Clouds's. — BQZip01 —  21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never suppress any and all contributions of an editor (except banned ones who are not allowed to edit at all). To watch him to make sure his past indiscretions don't reoccur is okay I think but it should not extend to WP:STALKING or harassment. I concur with the gist of CC's last comment, not ever fine point of it. The gist of it is that these three are, in my opinion, the same person and I've decided to allow him a chance at a clean start-I obviously wasn't clear enough on that. I see no consensus on SSP for either side, there was more than one opinion on both sides (block vs allow clean start). Any editor that runs afoul of the rules can face sanctions. I think my first post above answered why I felt MQS is a sock. BQZ, what exactly are you seeking here? I warned him and gave him the chance he was asking for. I don't think you want me to block him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification was all I was asking for. You've made your position and rationale much clearer, which is all I desired to understand. Thanks! I also concur that "it should not extend to WP:STALKING or harassment" and the vast majority of what you said. I also never meant to imply that you personally would use it to suppress any/all contributions of a user, only that your conclusion could be used to support such actions.

However, I don't understand how he fits the definition of a sock (I fear this label will follow him no matter where he goes and will be used to suppress his contributions): specifically, he doesn't fit in any category of sockpuppet:

Voting and other shows of support

He has not used it for such purposes

Meatpuppets

There is no evidence to support such a claim, nor has a claim been made

Roommates and sharing an IP address

Not an issue

Administrative sock puppets

Not even elligible

Circumventing policy

As a "clean start" he has not violated policy

So, where exactly did the sockpuppetry occur? What am I missing here? — BQZip01 —  23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The socking violations occurred prior to his MQS incarnation. Since he's known as a new version of a sockpuppeteer, that makes him a sock, but as it's an attempt at a clean start, he's not currently in violation of the socking policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That clears things up. Thanks! — BQZip01 —  00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice (part II)

About a month ago I approached you for advice on how to deal with a conflict at WT:MOSNUM. You suggested I use this RfC as a suitable venue to respond to the accusation of disruption that had been made against me by User:Greg_L. You can read my response and the ensuing discussion here.

Since then I have been blamed for the conflict at MOSNUM by User:Headbomb during the first of his 2 RfAs and accused of disruption again, this time by User:Fnagaton, on Headbomb’s talk page. This accusation of disruption followed my attempt to start a discussion on 5 July at MOSNUM. As might be expected in any discussion, some editors agree with my point of view and others don't. The problem is that those who agree with me are met with ridicule such as

• This MOSNUM talk page has officially been declared a “no whining zone”,
• “I want my IEC prefixes! I want my IEC prefixes! We had them for three years and I want them baaaaack!. Well… tough and
• Well, Anomie, do you feel better now after that little fourth-graders’ rant? ,

while an editor who disagrees is cheered on with

• Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here.

The net result is to discourage meaningful discussion, giving a false impression of consensus. The best way to get a feel for the atmosphere is to start at the top and read down. Here are some more examples .

The question now is what to do about it. I have been advised by one editor to walk away, and I have to admit that option is a tempting one. But last time I came here you suggested mediation as a possible route to resolution. The question then is what does that entail, and how would it solve the problem? Thunderbird2 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This incivility is unacceptable. I'll warn Greg L and if he does it again, report it here. For mediation, see Misplaced Pages:MEDCAB. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your assistance. Thunderbird2 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rlevse Fine. I’ll tone it down. But I think you’ve been snookered here. Thunderbird2 has been annoying the tar out of User:Fnagaton and User:Headbomb until we’ve nearly lost our minds over his refusal to get the WP:POINT. He has been very disruptive, refusing to give explanations for refusal to go with the consensus. We debated the issue solid and straight for four months. The debate has to end somewhere. Note how his vote stands out in this poll. That’s what this is all about; he simply disagrees with the consensus view. Really, we think that it is uncivil to be hounded no end by the guy. Am I missing something here? Because it seems like he’s just slyly hounding us and when I finally give him a piece of my mind, he then comes here to complain. You know, I’m glad you didn’t *whack* me and gave me a warning. But there really should be something done about Thunderbird’s persistent badgering of people. The issue over on Talk:MOSNUM is over and he won't let it lie. Greg L (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he's stubborn, that does not validate your incivility. You make some claims here about his behavior but the only evidence you gave was a vote page. I'll gladly look at it if you provide more evidence of badgering. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Coming. Much more coming. Greg L (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. And no, I can’t for the life of me think of some seriously great reasons why incivility is a good thing. However, I believe (and you’ll soon see others weighing in here) that if some drunk loudmouth was badgering a group at a picnic, Ward Cleaver himself could be painted to look like a mean nasty person if the drunkard chose to be *ahem* selective with the quotes you are provided. T-bird knows full well what he’s doing and is just being annoying and bothersome on purpose so he can play these “administrator” games. It would be nice if I had the patience of Job, but I don’t. I am fully capable of dealing calmly and rationally with reasonable people. I also note this, from a famous philosopher:

“The King of Oxford sent a troop of horse,

  For Tories own no argument but force;

  With equal skill to Cambridge books he sent;

  For Whigs admit no force but argument.”

Sir William Browne

Greg L (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the case is as complex as it is beginning to look, ANI may be better place for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re ANI, this discussion, initiated by User:Omegatron, is relevant. Thunderbird2 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rlevse: Indeed. Complex. And tortuously tedious. Like herpes:won’t ever end. T-bird: We’re not talking about that ANI. We’re talking about a new one to get you to stop being disruptive. Stop gaming the system. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GregL, this new ANI should look at behavior of all involved, not rehash old issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Headbomb

Indeed very complex. While I strongly disapprove of Greg's methods and way of handling things, he is right in saying that Thunderbird just won't get the point. I, Fganaton, and Greg L, tried over the course of the 3 or so months of the rewrite of the MOSNUM to get Thunderbird to express his concerns and to give us concrete examples that the rewrite was fundamentally misguided. Many times he was confronted with very precise direct questions and simply dodged or ignored them. For example, after being repeatedly asked (, , , , , , , and on my talk page , ]) to give us examples of how using bits and bytes to disambiguate (which seems like the sane thing to do since everyone agrees is unambigous, clear, and fully compatible with the spirit of the MOS), he still hasn't provided any. And that's just one question, and from my edit history.

Thunderbird has a tendency to completely misrepresent his opposition, a tendency to criticize but not to help, and a tendency to use "Well it's in the archives" as an arguments without ever saying where (see , there's section right under it called "vote comments". Thunderbird's vote is the 7th comment). Plus many if not most of his arguments have the appearance of being valid, and are designed in a way that debunking them requires posts of many thousands of words, and a plethora of references, as well as taking attention away from the fact that IEC prefix are not used in the real world, not even by computer scientists, or in computer science articles (see Google hits on Google and Google Scholar), and that Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball.

That is what is annoying and what can get on many people's nerves (just ask Greg L). For example he points out edits that in his opinions "brought down the quality" of the articles (see for examples , , , , ). While he was right about the quality of these edits, they brought the quality down exactly because they did not follow the MOSNUM (If you have too many things to disambiguate, use footnotes. If it's not clear, specify the number of bytes. Don't mix conversions such as 1 MB (2 bytes) and 2 bytes (1 MB)...), but only part of it (don't use IEC prefixes). You certainly won't see him point the various edits I made to the same articles (, , , , , , amongst others) that follow the entirety of the MOS, and shows that the MOS-prescribed way of doing things works, makes things understandable to Jimmy Longshort without resorting to units no one heard of.

Another fact that speaks volume IMO, is that I ignored Greg L's warning about Thunderbird since I don't like having second-hand evidence presented to me (Greg's warning, my reply, as I prefer building my own opinions of him through my own interactions, and still side with him on this (other than the issue of Greg's inflammatory behaviour, which I am very glad to see he agreed to tone down in the future). I came to the IEC debate as a newcomer, I had no bias resulting from previous interactions with anyone out there, I had (and still have) a personal preference for IEC prefix, I think that if Misplaced Pages would put its pants on, it would promote the use of IEC prefixes and bring them back from the dead. I've rebuked Greg L many times for his behavior, I had many clashes with him over the course of the re-write,... The fact that it's Greg L who has me on his side and not Thunderbird should speak volume.

This is a simple refusal from Thunderbird to get the point. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, no one uses IEC units, not even those most inclined to use them (scientists), and if things are unclear, disambiguation in a way that has unanimous consensus : explicit the number of bits or bytes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Headbomb. I’m not asking that you Rlevse, do anything about this problem; it’s the wrong forum. But I am rather annoyed with T-bird for coming here like a elementary school girl picking on boys on the playground and then ratting to the teacher that “one of those boys, Greg L, was being mean (using plain-speak) and made me cry and I just don’t know what to do because I’m trying to be sooooo reasonable”. He knows full well what he’s doing and thought he might get his way by getting a bureaucrat to start silencing editors who stand in his way.

  All we’ve done is gotten Misplaced Pages to fall in line with the way the rest of the computing industry communicates to their customer base. And because that’s the way the computer industry does it, it’s also the way all general-interest magazines like PC World communicate to their readership and is also the way professional print and on-line encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book communicate. We simply got Misplaced Pages following real-world practices so as to not confuse our readers with terminology that all agreed in a 12:0 vote was not even recognized by our readership.

  But T-bird just won’t let it go. No rule of conduct in a decent and civilized society says that we have to put up with this. And when I started dealing with him at level he understands (and full well deserves), he came here to complain. What gall. I just hope you’ll be aware of this the next time an issue comes up with this guy at the middle of it. 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think ANI is the wrong forum for this, you (both sides) may want to use mediation or arbitration. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I’ve suggested that before but Thunderbird2 and others in his camp (who’ve long acknowledged the reality of the situation) have uniformly rejected binding arbitration to rule on whether or not a proper, general consensus had been reached. The options have been simple 1) deal with the issues logically so we can address them, 2) accept binding arbitration, or 3) hold your peace. As Headbomb pointed out above (and Headbomb has tried to make it clear above that he came into this with an open mind regarding T-bird), T-bird has refused to accept any of those options. He just agitates endlessly badgers us and won’t let up. I submit that there are more than enough rules of conduct on Misplaced Pages for Thunderbird2 to abide by that would settle this.

  We’ve occasionally had a helpful editor, Francis Schonken, weigh in on Talk:MOSNUM. Francis has generally stayed out of the issue but has on several occasions interjected himself with usually sage advise as sort of a fairy godmother when he saw an opportunity to be helpful. After the new guideline had been adopted (after four months of intensive debate and a clear consensus of twelve editors had finally been arrived at), Francis offered up the following message for Thunderbird2 to consider. His message was simply to transclude the following from WP:DEADHORSE (Archive 104, 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) post):

This is an essay on the Disruptive editing policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:STICK WP:HORSEMEAT WP:DEADHORSE WP:DROPTHESTICK WP:DTS

This page in a nutshell: If a debate has died, don't revive it.

There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away.

If you don't, if you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it, if you continually refer to old news, if you parade your triumph in the faces of others ... you're not really winning friends and influencing people. Instead, you are annoying everyone nearby.

• If you have "won"‍—‌good for you. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win".
• If you have "lost"‍—‌sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of ... whatever.
• If the debate died a natural death‍—‌let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it.

So, the next time you find yourself standing over the body of a clearly deceased horse: please don't beat it. It won't help. There is no way to beat a dead horse back to life. Let the poor animal rest in peace.

See also

• First law of holes
• Meta:Don't be a jerk
• Misplaced Pages:Catch Once and Leave
• Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point
• Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process
• Misplaced Pages:Don't edit war over the colour of templates
• Misplaced Pages:Don't spite your face
• Misplaced Pages:Get over it
• Misplaced Pages:Godwin's law
• Misplaced Pages:How many legs does a horse have?
• Misplaced Pages:How to lose
• Misplaced Pages:It's not the end of the world
• Misplaced Pages:Just drop it
• Misplaced Pages:Let it go
• Misplaced Pages:Mutual withdrawal
• Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
• Misplaced Pages:One Against Many
• Misplaced Pages:The Last Word
• Misplaced Pages:Time to take the dog for a walk
• Misplaced Pages:Use common sense
• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning
• Misplaced Pages:You have a right to remain silent

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, we’ve all bent over backwards more than far enough to accommodate T-bird, but as Headbomb pointed out above, no amount of prodding and probing can get T-bird to address the issues. He just keeps coming back with the same fallacious claim that there was no consensus and continues to be disruptive. I ask that he be admonished to not edit against consensus and not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point on this issue, and that he be warned that if he keeps it up, that he will be blocked. Greg L (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To all sides, DEADHORSE seems very applicable here. If you guys can't agree, then there are some options: 1) all walk away and let things be as they are (I don't even know what state the MOSNUM thing is in), 2) you can continue the debate and hope it ends on its own one day, 3) seek mediation, 4) seek arbitration. As for mediation, I think all parties have to agree. As to arbitration, not all parties have to agree to seek it, you file at WP:RFAR and the arbs decide to take it or not take it. For GregL-if you get frustrated, don't retaliate by being uncivil on wiki. For Tbird-if there is a clear consensus, accept it-fighting clear consensus only hurts everyone. For all, if there is not clear consensus, see steps 1-4. The path chosen is up to those involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with mediation is that they tend to find a gray solution. Well this guys says black, the other guy says white. So obviously the truth is 50% black and 50% white.

As Marc Stiegler once put it:

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say go to arbitration or report incidents as they happen to ANI. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I note from T-bird’s post below that he apparently saw your above comment about how mediation often results in “split the baby down the middle” solutions. As I had proposed on many occasions before, I think the better option is binding arbitration. Why? Well, for one, I think the arbitration committee would see it entirely our way. Also, the last compromise solution tried on MOSNUM left some computer articles using the conventional prefixes like “megabyte” meaning one thing and yet another in others.

  The four-month-long debate process we devoted to arriving at the new guideline could serve as a paradigm of how dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages should be conducted and how a solid general consensus can be arrived at. The final 7:3 vote is as good as it was ever going to get. Why? Because several editors still felt Misplaced Pages should Lead by example and show the path to a better future©®™ notwithstanding we would be confusing our readers the entire time until the world wised up and followed our lead (and not withstanding the fact that no other publication or computer manufacture actually chose to follow Misplaced Pages’s lead during our three-year-long experiment with using the IEC prefixes). The consensus view was that the wise thing for Misplaced Pages to do was to simply follow current real-world practices and not try our hand at social engineering by being all alone in the use of unfamiliar terminology like “2 gibibytes of RAM”.

  I’ll take it up with Fnagaton and Headbomb how they want to proceed. Headbomb has already established himself as a good record keeper and he would likely have to do much of the heavy lifting of documenting our case if we went to arbitration. My feeling is that we’ll see how things play out from here out. Now that T-bird has seen this little stunt got him nowhere, we might be able to manage him a bit better. If not, we might consider all the hassle of arbitration. Besides, it’s Fnagaton and Headbomb that do most of the daily grind of responding to all of T-birds games; my role as of late was just to note when the thread was going absolutely nowhere and put an end to it with some ‘straight-talk express.’ I’ll just be a bit more careful from now on…

  I strongly subscribe to the notion that “personal attacks” (death threats, threats of legal action, attacks based on race) aren’t allowed and I wouldn’t dream of even desiring to head down that path; that’s just not me. I also see that “incivility” (suggesting ‘why don’t you leave this stuff to someone who’s more intelligent than you are”) is certainly not my style. If you were to examine the current “Bot removing links to metric units” thread on Talk:MOSNUM, you’d quickly see that my interactions and contributions when dealing with reasonable and honest editors are thoroughly productive and without rancor. There is no need whatsoever to employ “cut-the-crap plain-talk”. Still other editors though, simply don’t, IMO, deserve to be treated with “queen’s-rules, little-finger-out, white-glove dinner manners at the country club”-style interaction when they act like a drunken party crasher who refuses to accept reason and behave himself. Not only do they not deserve it, employing it doesn’t work at all. Now that we’ve had this little dressing down here, we’ll see how far we get with “queen’s rules”. I’ll leave that to the others; my penchant to simply speak the simple and plain truth as I see it (my thoughts, my speech) will one day underly my getting blocked for a week and told to go stand in the corner. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I completed a request for cabal mediation here. I have deliberately not included too much detail in order to keep it uncontroversial. I would be grateful if you could read it and advise whether further information might be necessary. Thanks. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could take another look at my request for mediation. When composing it I was careful to avoid making controversial statements, but User:Fnagaton has added a POV remark here. (The first 3 bullets are mine but not the 4th.) When I tried to move the statement to the discussion he moved it straight back. What should I do? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV, my edit contains the facts about your failure to accept consensus and your failure to debate, so when you left out your wrong-doing it is in itself pushing a POV by omission of those facts. Since you failed to mention your own wrong doing it is only fair that your wrong doing is in the correct place in the mediation report.Fnagaton 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two things, put your sig after each entry you make because it now looks like he made all 4. Then contact a mediation person about this as mediation is not my specialty. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Golly - that point hadn't occurred to me. I've signed my statements, but I have no idea who to contact about mediation (I've never done this before). Any suggestions? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to spend 8-10 hours on writing a detailed history of what happened because what's happening right now is people mixing events that happened after the rewrite with the events that happened during the rewrite. We had a vote where people expressed their degree of support. I've contacted about 20 editors who were involved, about 15 people comments on things. Only you were strongly opposed, and two person were opposed, one of them only concerned with disambiguation rather than deprecation. Considering you didn't substantiate your opposition, and that the other vote was another "I don't like it vote". That's a pretty damn strong consensus. Accept it, move on. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, I think your comments here on this talk page including the diffs report of Thunderbird2's failure to answer questions and subsequent failure to accept consensus would be fine on the mediation request without much editing needed.Fnagaton 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you guys can't work this out, I suggest mediation or arbitration. Preferably, work it out amongst yourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyannrunning

Thanks for your action. This has been a stressful situation with this person. I saw that you noted the fact that she (I think it is a she) is moving around LA a lot and often uses public internet access. In the past, IPs have traced to UCLA, LAX, Los Angeles Public Library, etc. This is why it is hard to really lay out a succinct sock case. Can you advise as to a better way of addressing this as she pops up, since I'm convinced it won't stop? It would be a great help. Her interest in relatively obscure articles both makes it easier and harder. In passing, there was another username that popped up that I think is connected: User:Downonme, who popped up once or twice and edited on Janis Joplin. In any case, thank you so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The changing IPs definitely make it harder. That pretty much leaves us with behavior and hope the IPs at least are close in range or only use a few ranges. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectful disagreement

Hi, I hope we can agree to disagree about the Shoemaker's Holiday RFA. When I learned he was going up again I did ask him to make a fuller disclosure because the very special circumstances of his case weren't widely known within the community. Durova 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the intent of the ruling was clear, whether one agrees with it or not doesn't matter, we should still abide by the ruling. And yes, I know more about SH than most. I agree he should have made a fuller disclosure and I think if he had any doubt he should have asked arbcom. I also think arbcom should be more explicit in these cases. Saying A is possible doesn't answer clearly if B is possible and causes these situations. They should say A is possible, then whether B is or isn't. BTW, I've been an arb clerk for 9 months, so I'm quite familiar with arb cases. In the cases I've seen if they want to enable RFA, they'll say so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, compare the following:

• Durova gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Durova.27s_sysop_access

• Physchim62 gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62#Physchim62.27s_sysop_access

• For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped

• For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_is_desysopped

No statement to specifically enable RFA; RFA is presumed. It is only with regard to other channels that the Committee specifies. Durova 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but I see not point in continuing to debate it. They need to be more careful in covering all points and thinking of how people will interpret things. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree they should write clearer decisions. Durova 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I apologise, but, frankly, I feel uncomfortable going back to arbcom. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman#Statement_by_Charles_Matthews is the statement opening the case - which specifically sets it out as a test case. This "test case" was extremely stressful, and drove me off[REDACTED] for several months, caused me to lose several grades in my final exams (which happened shortly after the case opened), and so on. As such, asking Arbcom to judge me again is something I cannot do, particularly goiven Charles Matthews' on the evidence page, which he has never retracted, apologised about, or been sanctioned for. I want nothing to do with them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I can see the predictament you you're in and understand the stress, but circumventing them, or even appearing to circumvent, them will only make it worse. If you want I'll even approach them for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am open to you approaching them, however, I don't want them coming anywhere near me. If they try to make me the subject of another "test case", I cannot be held responsible for my actions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That I totally understand. If you want, contact me at the 6 month point. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Request for clarification. This is not going to go well. Oh, well. Maybe it'll be cathartic and I can move on and begin to forgive them for what happened. Mind, 5 months is an awful short time to get over something where, since the stress aggravated my illness and made me have to drop out of a semester of University, I've had pretty constant reminders of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My sockpuppetry case

Thank you for your decision regarding User:Peter jackson's accusation of sockpuppetry against me. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I apply wiki policies and call them as I see them. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Report on Lycianaff1

Hello there. Thanks for taking a look at that report.

...I should let you know that User:Lycianaff1 is the sockpuppeteer—not the sockpuppet as the template said. However, you did block that guy for the correct reason.

Can you please check out Lycianaff1's sockpuppets? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's the oldest account, but it's abandoned. It looks like a newbie that doesn't know better. See notes on SSP and her talk. For the IPs, I think she just forgot to log in. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sure. However, if the edits continue regardless of the warning, then the issue should be re-examined. Thanks for looking into it, though. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, try to educate her but it continues, I won't have a lot of sympathy for her. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

all the parties...

thanks heaps for your help in structuring the arb case correctly, and clearing up any confusion... would you like me to notify the involved parties (or help by doing some?) - I'll hold off until I hear from you, and thanks once again. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Filing party, YOU, notify the parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

okey dokey - thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Was reading the thread on PM's talk page and noticed: "It seems more an AN issue, besides I doubt the arbs will take it as no DR has been tried other than unblock requests." I think what has happened here is that Guido has ended up in a limbo where no-one wants to do anything, or is able to review the case properly, because of the twin points of bits being on another wiki and the case involving legal threats (hence no-one will unblock until they are clear what is going on). ie. a classic Catch 22 situation. I'll be interested to see what ArbCom say. BTW, some of the links are not as precise as they could be (one in particular is to ANI but the discussion has since been archived). Can I change the links, or should I make a separate statement pointing this out? Or can I annotate within the statement PM posted on behalf of Guido? Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll post on PM's page you're merely fixing links, so go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Regarding this case, the suspected sock was not blocked. Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages essays about inaction