Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Domer48 (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 31 August 2009 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:44, 31 August 2009 by Domer48 (talk | contribs) (→Question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice


    Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries

    Resolved – Unblocked ahead of the start of the school year with the optimistic hope of attracting constructive contributors... –xeno 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

    What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Misplaced Pages should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

    London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

    Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of one vandal who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

    Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which are still blocked. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. John Reaves 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. Thatcher 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and KnightLago had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    let them expire now. this is the sort of very extensive school block that should be a last resort, and be used for very limited periods. With the abuse filter, we now have a very wide range of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    The template is rubbish, and the block was unnecessary. When you hardblock and tens of thousands of users, many of whom have no other access to the internet, just to get to one vandal - the vandal wins. You need to understand that. Hardblocking for an entire year was totally unreasonable.
    As clear as the template is, it's also useless, and kills off any contribution from public machines. The template claims that users must send an email from a non-webmail address, and then edit from home in order to "prove" themselves trustworthy. Do you really think schoolchildren and people who use libraries for internet access have any other means of access to the internet? Who doesn't use webmail?
    It may be necessary to soft block these IPs if there is a continuous stream of vandalism. But long term hardblocks are never the answer for these public ranges, allowing these users write access to Misplaced Pages, promoting growth, is a greater good than the negatives from fucking Avril Lavigne. Shownplus (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with DGG here, in that the blocks should be lifted. It Is Me Here 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I recall a number of occasions when the AV person has said he'll give up, and didn't. However, I trust that this time either he'll keep his word, or we can swiftly block him again. It's probably worth a try - either unblock them or let the blocks expire. But I would recommend no one unprotects the RefDesk :) -- zzuuzz 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    Well there wasn't much swift blocking last time lol, but I will keep my word. As for the reference desk, I've been trying to help out there since last spetember, answering questions and stuff, to make up for my past :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe there are also rangeblocks outstanding on other Synetrix clients - I know sub-ranges of the EMBC range (92.43.64.0/21) which serves all educational establishments in seven counties, certainly were hardblocked at some point. Black Kite 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Having one admin unblock them all at once will also provide us a useful series of log entries that we can use for future reference. –xeno 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    Some are already expired. Here's the main ones with their block expiry dates:

    -- zzuuzz 08:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you aggregated the data to simply 82.198.250.0/7, you might be able to make a more executive-level decision, but you would have to live with the ambiguity of collateral blockage because you would then be addressing the issue via the reality of a shared IP pool.--75.36.189.192 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    We can't block ranges larger than /16. -Jeremy 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP

    Raul654 has just full protected Lawrence Solomon ostensibly because of the edit warring that was occurring there over whether to include a properly sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Raul has previously edit warred himself over this very same topic (see , ) in WP:TAGTEAM fashion in support of User:William M. Connolley. The current dispute involves a number of members from "team" User:William M. Connolley notably including User:KimDabelsteinPetersen along with their other usual supporters who shall not be enumerated here. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen are strongly resisting the inclusion of a properly and adequately sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Given that Solomon had published public accounts of his interactions with both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen which were of a seriously critical nature, I believe it is fair to say that these two editor's have a conflict of interest on this BLP and should not be obstructing the inclusion of properly sourced material.

    UPDATE: The publications related to WMC and KDP include but may not be limited to the following:

    1. Misplaced Pages's Zealots: Solomon
    2. Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon
    3. Wikipropaganda

    I seek a discussion and a decision on the following matters:

    1. Regardless of whether this particular page protection is appropriate, or not, it is clear that Raul654 was involved in this specific content dispute and he should NOT be using his administrative tools to lock the content of this page AT ALL. I seek appropriate sanctions against Raul654 for his use of administrative tools while involved in the dispute.
    2. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt the on-going development of this BLP to the detriment of the subject and their actions there are demonstrating that they intend to do so. They both have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this particular article and their objectivity there cannot be assumed. As such I seek a page and talk page ban against each of them for the Lawrence Solomon BLP so that we can avoid future disruptive actions on their parts.

    --GoRight (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    I have placed notices on the talk pages of Lawrence Solomon, User:Raul654, User:William M. Connolley, and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why didn't you include me? I feel unloved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    You don't have a conflict of interest on that page. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Cos no-one loves yah, bebe :-). In the unlikely event of anyone thinking that GR is an uninterested party in all this, be aware of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and the tedious cabal nonsense; GR's request here is yet more water-muddying. The current dispute is over the inclusion of the word "environmentalist" or not; it is not at all clear how inclusion, or exclusion, of this word can be to the detriment of the subject. Since in 2008-09-26 I have precisely one edit to this page; GR's allegations of intent to disrupt are absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Your edits to the page are readily available in the article history. They speak for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    So are Raul's. Why don't they speak for themselves. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, why don't GoRight's own edits speak for themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Both Raul's and my own edits also speak for themselves on our respective levels of involvement and whether our edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, or not. I'll trust the uninvolved here to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    GoRight trusts the "community" when that community involves himself and a whole lot of Scibaby sockpuppets which he can use to falsely claim consensus. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    By my count, zero Scibaby socks have contributed here. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    ← I guess I see a few issues here:

    • Was protection appropriate? There was a full-blown edit war going on. If I saw a request at WP:RFPP with that sort of page history, I'd almost certainly protect the page. One could argue that un-aged sockpuppets were contributing a huge amount of the edit-warring, and that semi-protection would be more appropriate upfront - I suppose that would be reasonable as well.
    • Should Raul654 have taken action here? Don't know. The definition of "involvement" keeps changing - between written policy and ArbCom findings, we have at least 3 or 4 mutually contradictory definitions, some of which Raul654 violated and some which he clearly did not. His last edit to the page was nearly 1 year ago, but it did involve the same issue of the "environmentalist" descriptor.
    • Conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly reject that. Someone is unhappy with an editor's work on Misplaced Pages, and publishes their unhappiness in a sympathetic venue - OK, it's happened before. But that doesn't disqualify said editor, unless their edits are objectionable in and of themselves on grounds of our policies. Let's say that a vitamin salesman encourages people with a deadly disease to abandon effective treatment in favor of his products. I edit an article on the subject on Misplaced Pages, with reference to appropriate sources. He doesn't like it and attacks me on his website in moderately threatening terms. Hypothetically, of course. Have I just acquired a "conflict of interest"?

    I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on these points. MastCell  17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Call it a conflict of interest or whatever else you wish, but given these accounts which were published in national media, not someone's WP:SPS website with no readership, their objectivity and judgment with respect to Solomon can reasonably be considered clouded and thus their objectivity can be reasonably called into question. Based on that alone a page and talk page ban would be appropriate for this single article. As for whether their edits are objectionable under out policies, or not, there are a number of editors who believe that they are. The discussion on the talk page makes that clear enough. --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm curious about your charge that your fellow editors "have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt" the Solomon article. How do you know they have the "desire" to disrupt? Have they said so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Their edits to the main space page combined with their commentary on the talk page. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    So your view is that a preference for objective third-party references rather than op-eds and self-published sources constitutes a desire to disrupt? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that their respective edits and comments indicate that they intend to obstruct the introduction of appropriately sourced material into the article which could be considered positive towards the subject of the BLP, and in that sense they are being disruptive. That they freely undertook these actions speaks to the issue of their desire. That they were publicly chastised by Solomon speaks to their motive, and therefore to the need for a page ban to prevent further disruption of the article. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    GoRight's concerns seem to be quite legitimate. Raul, WMC and a couple of others seem to be very involved and opinionated on the subject matter involved yet they haven using their admin tools in relation to the subject. This seems very improper, not to mention the problems with the apparent POV pushing that's going on. If they want to work and collaborate on the article I think that's fine, but using their admin tools to advance a position is totally unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    3 questions (simply because i've been mentioned as an involved party by GoRight - otherwise i will try to stay out of the dramah..):
    • How exactly have admin tools been used to advance a position?
    • And what exactly is improper in the discussions?
    • What POV pushing has been going on?
    --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Arguable, as argued above (not by me). However, do you think CoM might perhaps be a bit more careful about flinging around plurals? Unless I (or someone else?) is supposed to have used admin tools here? And, just to be clear, the "POV pushing" that we're arguing about is whether LS gets to be called an env or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I can't help it if some editors try to throw the kitchen sink into every dispute. In my view, Raul654 is so partisan on the issue of climate change that he should not use his admin or checkuser tools in this area. This is a general position and people are free to disagree. In this specific case, protecting an article where two of the editors involved in the dispute were yourself and GoRight (given Raul's participation in your Arbitration case and his repeated calls for banning GoRight) was not appropriate. And this is not the first such incident. Thatcher 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    What position was Raul advancing? I'm rather confused here, we have a plethora of scibaby sockpuppets here, which seems to be the main reason for the protection (and btw. for Raul's participation both in 2008 and in 2009). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    He appears to be advancing the position that Solomon is not an environmentalist, something that he personally fought for last year. (This is, by the way, a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority. I can call myself an environmentalist because I recycle my pop cans and use a water filter instead of bottled water. What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists.) Thatcher 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Erm? You seem to have misunderstood the discussion.. I am not opposing an inclusion of the description that Solomon is an environmentalist, in fact i have yet to see anyone do so. What is asked for is a reliable source, that isn't an opinion article or a self-published whatever, (ie. something that is reliable for BLP info without the "X describes Y as ...") to establish this particular factoid. I was of the impression (apparently mistaken) that if asked, we must document/reference information? Or have i for some reason completely misread WP:V? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    As an involved editor, I would like to throw my own 2 cents into this discussion concisely, give my full support to GoRight's motion, and then withdraw.

    1. COI concerns: the case is stronger against William Connolley than it is against KDP because not only has Solomon written against Connolley but Connolley has responded in kind against Solomon, and has argued in a page still available in his blog (here), that Solomon is essentially a fraud, and not an environmentalist. KDP claims not to be offended by Solomon's writings against him, and I am inclined to believe him. Still, conflicts of interest are not, in normal situations, resolved by asking the potentially conflicted individual about how they feel. :)
    2. Concerning Solomon & environmentalist: we have a large amount of source material giving S and an environmentalist. Twice, I have take sources to the RS/N and the verdict was that KDP's & WMC's reasoning against the material was invalid (in the first case it was slightly more complicated than I present here, but my summary is accurate). On the instance of the Financial Post biography, KDP & WMC continue to insist that it is a WP:SPS, apparently in outright contradiction of the WP policies. It seems to me, therefore, that the two editors are ignoring both consensus against their position, and the rules.
    3. Concerning the page protection, that's just bizarre; there was no edit warring occurring as far as I know (I certainly wasn't editing the page).
    4. Finally, I may not have helped the situation as I must admit that my frustration over the many days I've spent in this argument has erupted into my comments on the page; sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    GoRight (again)

    Previously discussed:

    In addition to the above issues mentioned by WMC and Boris, there are several thing that bear mentioning.

    First, GoRight's diffs to claim my "involvement" are ancient. I have not edited this article in almost a year. His claims of involvement are completely without merit. Using his ridiculous interpretation of "involvement", admins would be prohibited from taking administrative actions on any article they have ever edited. This is not an accident - GoRight frequently claims involvement by the admins most familiar with his misbehavior in order to avoid being sanctioned for that misbehavior. (Abd proposed something along these lines in the on-going arbitration case, and it was rejected almost unanimously by the community as a transparent attempt to disqualify those most suited to deal with his disruption)
    Second, as the one adding the material, the onus is on GoRight to provide sources to back up his claim. The sources he cites have repeatedly been debunked on the talk page as op-eds or self-published sources. Thus, he is in violation of WP:BLP.
    Third, the current edit war is yet another instance of GoRight proxy editing for banned user Scibaby. GoRight's edits: ; Scibaby's edits: . This is the 6th or 7th incident of GoRight acting as a proxy for banned users in as many months, and the 3rd or 4th in the last few weeks. (He does it for Scibaby quite a lot, and recently has taken to doing it for Abd)
    Fourth, related to the above, when I protected the page, I gave two reasons -- edit warring and sockpuppetry. GoRight conviently omitted the latter from his description.

    I think a substantial block for GoRight, for repeatedly and willfully violating the 'no proxying' policy (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. --Misplaced Pages:Banning policy) is in order.

    When a previous community ban discussion was mentioned here, GoRight outright lied -- he claimed he would adhere to a self-imposed 1rr, a promise which he promptly ignored as soon as the discussion was over. I think a topic ban from global warming articles is also in order, as he contributes little or nothing of value while causing much disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Raul leaves out, of course, that I have been working in good faith on the talk page to resolve this issue and that I am NOT the only editor asserting this material so any claims of my meat puppeting are absurd, unless he wants to level the charge against ALL of those asserting this material as well which, as you will note, he has not. He is being selective for an obvious purpose given his history of seeking sanctions against me and being rebuffed each time. His previous attempt at this meat puppet accusation was investigated and rejected, .
    My previous pledge of adopting WP:1RR served its purpose between when it was made and now. I hereby rescind that pledge moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Just curious, when did you make the 1RR pledge? Was it recent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    See this. He made the promise on August 7 of last year. As soon as the discussion was over, he promptly ignored the promise, and participated in the many of his revert wars 12 days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Would it not be more appropriate to rescind the pledge *before* breaking it rather than *after*? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, yes. The part being left out here is that the pledge was to make a good faith effort, not to be 100% perfect. I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. - your editing record disagrees. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    As I said, exceptions ... not the rule. But please DO read Raul's WP:ATTACKPAGE and then read my edits in context to judge for yourself Raul's veracity in such matters. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    GoRight's sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Misplaced Pages instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --TS 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've started a discussion of this issue below. Please voice your opinions there. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Tony, "sabotage" is a pretty serious charge. I'm sure you have links supporting this, right? ATren (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know about Tony, but I sure do. And note that that page only covers the September 2008-April 2009 period. If I updated it for his behavior since April, it would be about 5 times longer. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    (note, I have added my signature to my earlier edit, above). Raul, that evidence was presented in the RfC you started on GoRight, right? If he wasn't banned then, what new information do you have to justify a ban now? As I recall, when I looked at that evidence many months ago, I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. I gave up looking after that. ATren (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, it was not. As the first sentence says, everything there is stuff he did after the RFC and the community ban discussion last August. I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. - that's because you have a history of defending his misbehavior. Your incredulity is hardly convincing counter evidence. Raul654 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    What I find concerning is that GoRight has been on Misplaced Pages for very nearly 2 years, as made around 3500 edits, but only 12% of them in article space. Moreover, as far as I can figure out from the edit counter, he has not made one single edit that is not either connected with global warming or global warming and fringe science conflict resolution - invariably pushing the fringe side. This does not look like somebody who is interested in the project except as a vehicle to push his own POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Already addressed in previous discussions. I am a self-acknowledged single purpose account which does not disqualify me from participating on the project. My purpose here is to address what I perceive as being a systemic bias on the global warming pages and to move those articles which are affected into a more WP:NPOV position. I believe that this is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I also seek to remove bias from the BLP's of the global warming skeptics in support of not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP as well (with this discussion being an example of a WP:NPOV concern rather than a WP:BLP one). --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Just a note that the issue of proxy editing/meatpuppetry was presented in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby and the people who reviewed Raul's argument there did not agree with his conclusion that GoRight had violated the BAN policy. As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. At that point the question is not whether they are replacing edits by banned users, but whether or not the content of the edits themselves is problematic. That may be the case in other edits by GoRight, but I don't think the proxying/meatpuppetry claim has merit. Nathan 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. - almost, but not quite. It says you can restore edits if you take responsibility for them, and they are verifiable, and you "have independent reasons for making them" (--Misplaced Pages:Banning policy). If you make an edit because a banned user did it first, you are not making them independently, and you do not qualify for that exception. Your action is simply proxy editing. This totally demolishes claims that GoRight's edits were OK. And, in the Scibaby discussion above, not a single person other than myself ever addressed this issue. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I guess since we're quoting policy, it is important that we be accurate. The text of the policy as of this moment reads: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and also Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. So not "make them independently" - have independent reasons (i.e. don't put them back based only on who made them). I think that we did discuss the meaning of the BAN policy and the MEAT policy, and we came to a conclusion at odds with your own. Nathan 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Note that my comment here was in reply to this version of Raul's comments directly above; he modified his comment before my reply was posted, and I didn't notice the change).
    Your position is absurd. When was the last time someone reverted with the edit summary that they were restoring an edit because person X made it? Has that ever happened? Because you are saying that is the only condition under which someone would be guilty of proxy editing. Otherwise, they could always claim to have independent reasons for making the edits. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, and not unreasonable - it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior; the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. Nathan 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) Should we consider deleting "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban" from the policy? That's the bit that appears to be the sticking point. You and others are arguing that it's generally OK to reinstate such edits, so perhaps policy doesn't reflect current practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


    It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, - no, it's not. The plain meaning of "have independent reasons for making them" means you are making it independent of the person who made it originally. If your reason for doing it is because someone else did it first (which can be inferred easily from editing behavior and does not have to be explicitly stated), then you are not independent.
    and not unreasonable - I stand by my above comment. Under you interpretation of the policy, the only way someone can ever be guilty of proxy editing is if they post an edit summary saying they were restoring an edit because person X made it first.
    it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. - this is absolutely, 100% wrong. If you see that a banned editor makes an edit that you happen to agree with, you are *not* permitted to restore it. Being banned means just that -- not permitted to participate on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, we send a signal to every banned user that it's OK to flaunt a ban, because someone might agree with you and edit war in your favor.
    This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior - this is irrelevant. Of course if someone does other bad things in addition to proxy editing, they can be blocked. The issue at question is whether restoring edits by banned user is permitted. And the plain reading of the policy shows that it is not.
    the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. - Absolutely not. The purpose is to discourage banned users from coming back and violating their bans in the hopes that someone will side with them -- which is exactly what is happening here. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    In the case of my restoring ANY edit my independent reason for making the change is that I believe that it improves the encyclopedia, and as I have stated many times I take full responsibility for the content that I restore. If the content I have restored is a problem then block or ban me based on that, not based on the actions of someone else and over whom I have no control. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that it improves the encyclopedia - thank you for proving my point, that under Nathan's interpretation of the proxying policy, it's basically impossible to violate because no matter how damaging the proxy edits are, the person will always claim to be doing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    And as I have made perfectly clear, I accept full responsibility for the content I add to the encyclopedia. If that content is damaging then block or ban me for that, if not then your argument is moot. --GoRight (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Raul, I previously suggested that you drop this theory. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, every uninvolved user shares "Nathan's interpretation." The community does not think that the policy means what you claim it does. Because policy is derived from community norms (rather than vice versa), it flatly does not mean what you claim. Instead, focus on how GoRight's editing is bad; trying to catch him in an absurd technicality tends to turn people off (as you can see above). Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have removed the sentence "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry" from WP:BAN, as it appears no longer to reflect community consensus and to be producing needless confusion. By obviating disputes over this wording we should have one less source of conflict. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think that goes a little too far. I think we all agree that editors must take full responsibility for the content of such reinstated edits. I've revised it. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Interesting that you added "Users should generally refrain from knowingly reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of their ban" in light of yours and others' comments here, which state that editors are free to reinstate edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content of those edits. I think it's important for the policy to be clear. It has caused too much conflict and misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. I re-added that because editors do in fact tend to avoid restoring these edits. I think it's a best practice. But at the same time, I don't think restoring comments should be sanctionable as long as they take full responsibility for the edits—its' sanctionable if they're personal attacks, DE, and so forth. Probably needs more work; should ask folks on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    GoRight community ban

    Previously discussed:

    Proposal: GoRight is banned from global warming-related articles and talk pages.

    Support
    • Are you alleging that GoRight, an account since October 2007, was editing the article at the direction of Scibaby, and not from their own interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules? If you are, then you need to provide evidence. If not, or are unable to provide such evidence, then I think you should retract the above statement and apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose
    Yes, sorry about that. ATren (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Any question of a ban should be directed toward Raul654 and his persistent targeting of GoRight, and his use of sysop flags within articles where his adversary opinions well known. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      I don't think encouraging a tendentious editor's paranoia is a good idea there. Note also who, exactly, brought the complaint here and the ludicrous rationales offered for it. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      I am not scibaby sure what you scibaby mean by scibaby rationales - that scibaby WMC and RaulSCIBABY do not have well scibaby known opinions on certain scibaby issues. You may scibaby have noted that they scibaby have not really responded to scibaby the allegations that scibaby they are using sysop scibaby flags within articles that scibaby they have some scibaby investment in. There scibaby seems to be scibaby a meme that they scibaby keep uttering in an scibaby diversionary tactic - although I scibaby can't bring it to scibaby mind at present. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) not scibaby
    Good for you that you find that funny. I've blocked about 2-3 Scibaby socks per day for the last 3 days, and an CU had to verify those identifications. I can very much use this time for other things, both on and off Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    (e/c)Hmmm, interesting. So you are of the opinion that scibaby doesn't exist? Or that the edit-war in question didn't have scibaby sockpuppets involved? Were the (4 in the current edit-war) editors then blocked for spurious reasons? (btw. not by Raul, but by various admins and confirmed by User:Nishkid64) Wouldn't that be an extreme abuse of WP, and in such a case require that you took it up immediately? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I will spell it out; the question is whether or not Raul654 and WMC used admin tools in an area where they are known to have strong opinions and to have had concerns raised previously, in violation of WP:Admin. To bring up the meme of scibaby as a smokescreen is not remotely funny - it is obtuse, wearisome and irritating. It also avoids answering the question; is using the flags appropriate in areas where the admin is deemed to have an interest and has already had concerns raised? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ah. But now you are ignoring that scibaby was involved in this particular instance. Btw. i am unaware of WMC using any tools here? Was he? There are btw. to my knowledge two CU's who are on the scibaby edits - one of these seem to be Raul, and the only instances where he's been involved in the article has been in connection with scibaby, so what is specifically wrong about the use of tools here? (did he advance a position on the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    The other CU working the Scibaby stuff is User:Nishkid64. He has occasionally edited global warming related articles, and his edits generally reflect the prevailing scientific view of the subject. Should we find a different CU to work this? In looking at the current list of checkusers there are perhaps only two who are completely and utterly detached from the topic and personalities involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Not ignoring, but considering it irrelevant to the matter as complained of. Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users ("Proxying") GoRights inclusion of the disputed term and the sources that were also being used by scibaby socks are allowed by policy provided that he was prepared to take ownership of the edit and sources. From his known viewpoint there should be no reason to doubt GoRight would not find these sources and thus the descriptive phrase appropriate. Therefore Scibaby is irrelevant to whether GoRight should have used the term, but is regarding who protected the page and in which version. I would note that the accusation of proxying by GoRight (disregarding the rejection of previous claims that GoRight is a Scibaby meatpuppet) has not been withdrawn by various parties, including Raul654 who only dropped it to try and make the article ban find consensus faster. To me, this appears to be a concerted effort to have GoRight removed because of his point of view - and the constant mention of Scibaby is being used to smear GoRight by association. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems excessive given the evidence presented Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose, though I would support Raul being restricted from taking administrative actions on the same, broadly interpreted. Viridae 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed Keepscases ban - for turning a community ban discussion into RFA style. Everyone's been here long enough to know that's now how it works, nor should it change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • GoRight is a partisan and can be a problem. I would probably support a 1RR restriction due to occasional edit warring in the past. But if we really want to stop abusive partisan involvement, Raul654 should stop using his tools in this area. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      Well, if "involved" admins are not supposed to deal with abusive socks on the articles they watch, may I suggest that you volunteer and watch all the GW articles yourself, and promptly deal with abusive edits? Don't worry, after a day or two you will be "involved" as well, and can pass on the baton, and after 18 months we will be through "uninvolved" admins and the socks can have their playing field. Or, maybe, we can all agree that dealing with obvious abusive socks is not inappropriate use of admin tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      Can we also agree that checkusering everyone who disagrees with you is not "dealing with obvious abusive socks" and is in fact an abuse of the tool?
      It's possible for admins to protect pages and block socks without becoming a partisan in an edit war. Raul has never been able to do this. Other admins have been much better at showing restraint, and that the area would get along fine without Raul's administrative participation. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      We can also agree that 2+2=4, or that the moon circles the Earth. Is there any but a rhethotrical reason to suppose that any Checkuser "checkusers everyone who disagrees with them"? I've by now blocked about 10 Scibabies myself, and reported probably the same number. IIRC, all have been confirmed by CU. If I can recognize them, so can the Checkusers, and checkusering a user for which a reasonable suspicion of socking exists is not abusive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, there are non-rhetorical reasons to suppose that every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered. Expect to hear more on this soon. Thatcher 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    May I suggest that you either put up or shut up? And, given that we have somewhere around 500 identified Scibaby socks, "nearly" every new editor on the GW articles is a Scibaby sock... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Before you accuse me of making personal attacks, you might consider whether might actually know what I'm talking about. This is not the time or place to go into detail, but Luke might not actually be talking out of his ass. Thatcher 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, but either you have something to say or you don't. Making unsupported insinuations is not acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm confused. Are you chastising yourself? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Huh? Have I been unclear? I find it deplorable is someone in a privileged situation says "I might know something about X, but I'm not telling". Either keep it confidential, or spill the beans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you were unclear, but now you have clarified things enormously. I was under the mistaken impression you might have a valid question or concern; now I see you are merely incredibly rude and pushy, or else obtuse. No one has even remotely taken the attitude you suggest; however, you have managed to be very insulting. I suggest you moderate your tone. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Um. CHL said Raul was "checkusering everyone who disagrees with (him)" and Thatcher implied that there was evidence that this is so. If Raul (or anyone else) is indeed abusing CU, then the community needs to know and action should be taken. But I have to agree with Stephan that making such intimations without disclosing the evidence for them is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps you missed this part of Thatcher's statement? "Expect to hear more on this soon." --GoRight (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Not only "expect to hear more" but also, and I'm guessing here, if there is a sock army whose modus operandi includes disagreement with a certain editor, or making a particular point, that would be a flag to check, would it not???? And giving any more details than that would be violating beans. This demand to know all the hairy details is inappropriate, given the nature of CU; we choose CUs carefully because they will know things everyone shouldn't. If there is concern, state it - but try to restrain yourself from making demands because you cannot bear not knowing what is, by its very nature, private and protected information. Otherwise we'd all have CU; surely you see the sense in that? And I reiterate; Thatcher has indicated more information will be forthcoming in the future. I suggest we AGF a little and show some patience. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose. One of the issues in the current RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley has been the effect of consistent factions, involved over a spread of articles, on community bans or other discussions, particular over issues of administrative recusal, as started this. In considering a discussion like this, it should be noticed that many editors voicing opinions does not equal "the community" if that sample is heavily biased. WP:BAN requires a "consensus of uninvolved editors," and the difficulty of judging involvement does not negate its importance of. What's remarkable here is that more apparently neutral editors are being attracted, such that what might have been merely ambigious, and thus arguably sustaining the factional position when it is over an admin action, is actually snowing against the faction. I support an RfC on Raul654 for long-term abuse of tools and behavior unbecoming of an administrator and damaging to the project, including the original manufacture of the Scibaby affair through use of tools to block an editor with whom the Raul654 was edit warring, and many, many other examples; GoRight could be a certifier; the more editors who participate who don't have a POV agenda the better. For some history on Raul654 and William M. Connolley v. GoRight, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight, filed by Raul654 and WMC, and the evidence page I compiled for that, User:Abd/GoRight; this was my first encounter with the faction, and my POV on global warming is opposite to that of GoRight, near as I can tell. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Other
    I oppose any ban of GR for proxying. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    All right, in the interest of reaching consensus I've removed that part of the proposal. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Raul. There's a history tab up top, ya know. Tan | 39 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    So an editor complained that Raul is involved in the article dispute and shouldn't have been the one to protect it, and now Raul is proposing that the same editor be banned? Jeesh. This seems to me to epitomize bad judgment and a lack of restraint. Why not step back and let cooler heads and uninvolved parties assess the situation and help resolve it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I cannot support this proposal, as I don't see adequate evidence for it. I do see adequate evidence for banning Raul from using his administrative and functionary tools from anything to do with the political dispute over global warming, and I really don't believe we have a single global warming article that is not contaminated by that political dispute. Raul has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he lacks the self control to avoid inappropriate behavior in this topic area, so I conclude that we need to impose some external controls. GRBerry 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with GRBerry... Raul's many positive contributions notwithstanding, he has a blindspot in this area. support a ban as GRBerry outlines. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd support both a advance function restriction on Raul, and a community 1RR on GoRight as above—both restrictions in the topic of global warming. I suspect it would lead to less AN issues from both camps. I think this discussion has run out of momentum though. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Note to the current edit warriors

    The next person who adds or removes other people's postings in this section will be blocked. Enough, already. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Tony Sidaway's refactoring of the discussion turned it into a soup that was entirely unreadable. Most salient of which, LessHeard vanU's oppose read as a support for the ban. –xeno 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    So if I revert any more of Tony's totally inappropriate removal of material, I'm getting blocked? I don't think so. Tan | 39 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    How about we close the whole damn thing? This is going nowhere and has broken down into mutual recriminations between the usual suspects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Now that I can get behind. Tan | 39 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    That also works for me. Tanthalas, I'm not going to take sides on this, despite the antipathy I hold for Tony.. it looks like squabbling kids throwing mud at each other. I'm not going to take sides, both of you stop. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I reverted an inappropriate removal of material, once. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me an edit warrior or compare me to a kid throwing mud. Tan | 39 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Agree with Boris, this debate has little to nothing to do with the original issue. Anyone like to think about the amount of article space editing that could be accomplished in the amount of time that gets spent here? (And I didn't even invent the "please stop the flame-war" flame.) Awickert (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Please try to avoid turning this discussion into a vote. This isn't new policy and since most of the people using this page should be aware that voting is harmful to consensus there really shouldn't be any surprise about the edits I made. --TS 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Have no problem with you SAYING that, Tony. I do have a problem with you unilaterally removing many posters comments because you disagree with them. Just like I disagreed with Tan for restoring without even a request on Tony's page. It doesn't do rational discussion any good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Seconded. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Moving forward

    Is the page going to stay protected until Sept. 10? I don't know if the dispute over whether he's an environmentalist will sprout up again, but I've proposed a resolution I think is reasonable on the talk page. I'm hoping it can be worked out amicably. I've also noted some other edits that I think would be helpful in improving the article that I don't think will be especially controversial. If anyone violates 3RR or edit wars there are appropriate venues to address that and certainly there is attention on the article now. And I would think this discussion serves as warning to all involved to obey the speed limit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    • It will stay protected until an admin is satisfied the edit war won't continue if unprotected at which point they should unprotect. –xeno 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I haven't really looked into whether there was edit warring or not, but one of the issues raised in this discussion was whether the protection was appropriate and helpful. I think with the close supervision that is in place now it would be good to see if we can edit the article collaboratively. I don't think any changes to the environmentalist bit should be made until some agreement is reached. But there are plenty of other areas that can be worked on. I should note that I'm totally new to the article so my hands are clean. :) I'm just a good faith editor looking into the issues raised in this report and trying to help work out differences so we can improve our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Without commenting on whether or not the protection was appropriate, I think the article could use some cooldown time still while the point of contention is worked out. Perhaps Raul would like to self revert without prejudice to himself and another admin can reprotect if edit warring continues. –xeno 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    By "self revert" do you mean unprotect? Raul hasn't edited the article in almost a year, so there's nothing to revert in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes. –xeno 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    I just checked the Lawrence Solomon article history, and I don't see anyone violating the 3rr rule, or any vandalism, or violations of BLP. I would say that the full protection was unnecessary, and should be removed. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    No-one mentionned 3RR. But there was clearly edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Err, Cla, from the 23 to the 27 of August there are several edits that are only about inserting or removing "enviromentalist":
    • 14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
    • 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
    • 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 02:07, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf)
    • 02:18, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith
    • 02:21, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf)
    • 02:36, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith
    • 03:06, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Stopange),
    • 03:29, 25 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris
    • 05:10, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Do You Tweet?)
    • 06:52, 25 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz,
    • 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0
    • 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 21:40, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby range 173.116.44.213
    • 00:36, 26 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0
    • 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley
    • 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight
    • 23:20, 26 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz
    • 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight
    • 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris
    • 03:14, 27 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (A Prose Narrative)
    • 04:44, 27 August 2009, remove, Splette
    • 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection
    Several auto-confirmed editors edit-warring among each other, even if 3RR was not technically breached, and two socks three socks from the same sockmaster in the middle. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    A Prose Narrative is scibaby as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    What is the point of highlighting the fact that Scibaby interjected here? Does this not illustrate User:LessHeard vanU's point from above? I think that Enric's chosen highlighting is completely backwards. As the banned user in all of this, Scibaby's edits should be in normal font and all of the NON-banned users should be highlighted. Let us focus on what the NON-banned users are saying and downplay that the banned users are saying, or is that NOT what we are supposed to be doing with the comments of banned users? Enric has just accomplished the exact opposite. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    The point is, that the protection reason wasn't just "edit-warring", but "Edit warring; sockpuppetry" both are clearly evident. Or do you suppose that we should completely ignore the reasons for protection - and simply close our eyes on the fact that scibaby was responsible for 20% of the above edits? Why?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Fine, I fail to see how that matters. The simple facts are: (a) even if you completely ignore the Scibaby edits there is STILL edit warring, (b) Raul had himself edit warred over the exact same content, and (c) Raul used his administrative tools while in a content dispute. This Scibaby discussion is a distraction from those pertinent facts, and including it doesn't alter them in the slightest. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    173.116.44.213 is from a Scibaby range. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Bolding reversed. There you have, a bunch of autoconfirmed editors edit-warring, now explain how semi protection would have avoided that. And please notice that Raul reverted that content for the last time in September 2008, 11 months ago . --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Nice bit of evidence Enric Naval compiled. How you present evidence can depend on what you are trying to prove with it, if you have an axe to grind. Enric, I suspect, wants to prove that the protection was reasonable, and isn't a lot of sock activity a reason for protection? Actually, no. Semiprotection, at most. The sock activity here is largely moot. If we take out the socks and a single revert for each sock edit, following Enric's list, we get:
    list of edits and reverts
    • 14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
    • 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110
    • 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0
    • 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen
    • 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0
    • 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley
    • 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight
    • 23:20, 26 August 2009 , remove, Stephan Schulz
    • 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight
    • 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris
    • 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection, Raul654
    This is a classic "Constantly Affiliated Block" ("Cab") sequence. The editors removing have been revert warring on global warming articles for years, supported by administrators, always the same administrators, in what I've seen. (KDP isn't listed in the faction described in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but is a very frequent editor on the Cab side in global warming articles and in some other places. Stephan Schulz, WMC, SBHB, and Raul654 are, of course, listed.) The issue is not whether there was or was not edit warring, there was such, as the above shows clearly. Rather, the issue is whether or not Raul654, highly involved historically and always intervening on the side of the Cab editors, never the reverse, should have been the one to spontaneously protect. It creates an appearance that perhaps he protected the article into his preferred version? Historically, when an independent admin has protected one of the GW articles, WMC has unprotected, even if he had been part of the tag team edit warring, if it was the Wrong Version.
    In the above sequence, the struggle is over "environmentalist." Is Solomon an "environmentalist"? There is RS saying that he is, and no RS saying that he is not. Hence the arguments over relative reliability of sources are red herrings. (RS can be biased, by the way, claims of bias in a reliable source are likewise red herrings.) Solomon is an unusual writer: an environmentalist who is a global warming skeptic. And the GW Cab doesn't like this, it's obvious, and KDP makes personal charges against Solomon on the article Talk page as arguments that he couldn't be an environmentalist, since he "supports damaging the environment."
    So they act to keep "environmentalist" out or de-emphasize it. However, Solomon has apparently earned the sobriquet with his past work, and his most recent article was indeed written from an environmentalist -- or "conservationist" -- perspective. The editors will work it out, I'm sure, if allowed, but GW articles probably need discretionary sanctions even more than Cold fusion, with involved admins strictly hands-off those tools. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why don't you just add two letters to your cute little acronym? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Responses to 3 items:
    1. It was above noted that those socks were autoconfirmed. If that is indeed the case, full protection is fine. If not, the semi is the way to go. Also, edits should be allowed by admin proxy after discussion on the talk.
    2. The only reason that I can see to describe factions is to destroy chances of collaboration by disqualifying others opinions. This is useless and damaging and 100% WP:ABF. Please strike it.
    3. Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in.
    Awickert (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    "Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in." - But this is precisely what makes you ideal for the task at hand. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, that is what I meant. Ah, the sweet sound of agreement. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    (Outdent)

    I note in Raul's ban proposal against me above that two users, User:Viridae and User:GRBerry, have expressed general support for some type of restriction on Raul's use of administrative tools on global warming pages, broadly construed. Is there any additional community support for such a sanction or something of a similar nature? --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    Life seems fairly confusing at the moment. I think it would be best to finish off your original proposal first (which I think looks like being rejected - or is this new start intended as a recognition of the original failure?) before we start a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Might be better to let things settle down, then approach this more formally. Thatcher 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I was thinking of this as just a continuation of the discussion from above (I thought that was what the section heading moving forward was intended to be). Two user's had expressed support and I merely summarized it here to query if more support existed, or not. If so then it should be pursued, if not then the matter can be dropped. That was my only intent, but I'll just let things unfold at this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    There are lots of elephants around here. Pity we're not allowed to mention them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    Doctor Steel (band)

    Before I put myself on a Toy Soldier hit list (which would suck, a good friend is one and he knows where I live), I'd appreciate some other thoughts on this please. We seem to have a Doctor Steel article - again - this would be the tenth different title, since the others have all been salted. (The title Doctor Steel was salted as well, I believe, but Ched Davis (talk · contribs) edited through the protection to create a redirect to the new name, stating that he felt the band has improved in notability.) Background: the Toy Soldiers (Doctor Steel's fans) have been trying to get an article on Misplaced Pages since 2007. Notability has always been an issue; he's an underground performer, with some glancing blows such as an appearance on Leno (his name wasn't even mentioned) and a couple of bloggy interviews. This deletion review is the best indicator of what's been going on, and recommends userspace drafts before recreation. That was bypassed here. The new article has one reference that might actually be a reliable source; the rest are blogs or from the artist's own sites. The creator has worked on nothing but Doctor Steel articles, and the other major contributor requested in a deletion review today that a deleted and salted article on one of the good doctor's albums be userfied, noting the request came from a "representative of TSU" - likely "Toy Soldiers Unite," the fan club. Because I've been watching this, and involved with it, for quite a while (and because I have work to do), I think I should probably not be involved in dealing with this. Mostly because I've got an itch in my deleting finger. I'd appreciate if some other admins could look at this and see if I'm being too harsh, or if this is something we should look at more deeply. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    First, I want to thank Tony for asking me to comment here. Now, admittedly I don't have a strong preference one way or the other on this subject. The redirect that I created was done so upon request, when another respected editor asked me to speak with the person who was requesting it. The request was actually for about 4 or 5 different redirects, of which I created only the one that I thought most relevant. I looked at some of the history, some of the sources, and looked through several "Google searches" before doing so. Now, that said, I admit that most of the sources for the article are ... ahhh ... less than "prime" sources. It's also a ... ahhh ... rather ... ahhh .. unusual genre of music in my own personal views and tastes. However, I believe in this project as a "sum" of knowledge, so I did recreate the redirect. It appeared to me that it had been about a year since the last deletion discussion, and consensus can change. Looking at WP:BAND, I personally believe this is a borderline case, and have no objections to us having an article on him/them. Most likely, WP:AFD would be the place to continue the discussion, but I certainly wouldn't CSD it. All that said ... I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other on the article, although in general I would prefer to keep any content that wasn't a violation of policy. (NPA, etc.). — Ched :  ?  19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    (EC)Every AFD run on articles related to this person/band have been about copyvios. There has not been a full AFD run (near as I can tell) which addresses the issue of notability. Looking at old (now deleted) versions of this article, this article looks substantially different from others, based on that, and the fact that no full AFD has been run which has addressed the issue of notability, the best option would be to actually run a new AFD. Old AFDs under any name should be linked to it. Be as detailed as you can in analyzing the sources, so people know about the reliability of such sources. If you want to make a final decision on this, a fresh AFD seems the best way to handle it. --Jayron32 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Jayron's suggestion for another AfD is probably the best idea. Also, I've moved Doctor Steel (band) to just Doctor Steel, the "(band)" being unnecessary. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I also agree with an AFD - despite the long-term campaign of spamming Misplaced Pages, the latest version of the article still lacks independent and reliable sources which cover the topic of the article in any detail. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input. I'd rather that someone else take on an AFD, but there seems to be some opinion it's needed, so I'll see what I can do. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs

    Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs (archived)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Landmark Education and related articles have long been dominated by socks, WP:SPAs and conflict of interest accounts. This can be seen most easily by the massive sock investigation which resulted in indef blocks by checkusers on at least 17 accounts: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway.

    These accounts have a singular focus with regard to the topic of Landmark Education and its predecessor company Erhard Seminars Training, which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it. These accounts should be topic banned from this topic.

    Accounts already indef blocked for socking
    1. Eastbayway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. Julia1287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. Kimberlyhobart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. Gilbertine goldmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    5. Gilbertine goldmark 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    6. Triplejumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    7. Oneoneoneoneone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    8. Jjaberwock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    9. Ftord1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    10. Sailor1889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    11. Saladdays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    12. Belladana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    13. Wisdum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    14. FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    15. Littlebutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    16. Ebay3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    17. Barnham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Multiple editors with a single voice

    8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Misplaced Pages. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

    Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) From Arbitration case, COFS

    The Landmark Education articles are similar to the articles from COFS, so this principle could be applied here.

    Proposed topic ban on the following accounts

    (Note: top edits for each are on topic of Landmark Education/Erhard Seminars Training.)

    Note: Spacefarer was previously blocked as sock of FreedomByDesign .
    Note: AJackl has been warned by four different administrators for disruptive conflict of interest editing on this topic: Garden 22:15, 1 June 2008, Jehochman 07:22, 23 October 2008, John Carter 18:50, 24 August 2009, and finally Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 24 August 2009

    I am not an uninvolved administrator in this topic area, and as such the action itself should be carried out by another administrator. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    First let me say that I would welcome a comprenehsive review of all the matters raised here and their ramifications.
    I would hope that this review is carried out by administrators who are genuinely neutral and impartial in respect of the issues of Landmark Education in particular, and of the Human Potential Movement in general.
    I am astounded and apalled to be accused of being a SPA with a "focus which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it." I regard this accusation as a clear personal attack and ask for it to be withdrawn.
    No doubt my contribution record will be scrutinised and the adjudicating administrators will draw their own conclusions, but I would like to make the following points:
    1. I am not a prolific editor on Misplaced Pages - over the past year I have made maybe a hundred or two edits - of these about 3 or 4 have been on the Landmark article itself, and maybe a couple of dozen on the LE talk page. My focus in the talk page has always been to further a constructive debate about the direction to move in order to improve the article.
    2. I have never been blocked, warned, reprimanded, or accused of disruptive editing.
    3. I see my editing in the Landmark article as being legitimate attempt to restore balance in accordance with the NPOV policies in the face of a concerted attack by editors wishing to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote their own viewpoints.
    4. Cirt generously acknowledges that he is "not an uninvolved administrator", but this is something of an understatement. He was - under a previous username - one of the most persistent, disruptive and abusive editors on this and related articles.
    5. My comment on the LE talk page this morning was suppressed from visibility by Cirt within 25 minutes of my posting it: ] . Is this a legitimate use of the tags employed here? DaveApter (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Cirt is involved in this dispute under a different account? For that matter can you also provide evidence that he was "persistent, disruptive and abusive" with this account? Chillum 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have plenty of evidence, but am unsure as how to proceed, as I have already been threatened for attempting to bring this up. Numerous wikipedia users and administrators know of Cirt's previous identity and behaviour, and expressed reservations at the time of his/her RfA. DaveApter (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Accusations not backed up by diffs are a violation of WP:NPA and thus a blockable offense in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'd support topic ban for all notified accounts who don't care to defend themselves here. For those that present some defense, a more throughout review is needed. This case ended up in ArbCom once, and it is possible it may need to go there again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    • A small number of recent edits to Landmark Education have been improper (removal of appropriate sourced material), but I don't think there is currently a big problem on that page (not sure about the other related ones). Many of the accounts proposed for a topic ban haven't been active for at least a year, in some cases two years. Regarding DaveApter: one could make the case that there is a conflict of interest -- though he is open on his user page about the connection and rarely edits LE itself (once in all of 2009, an edit that was not reverted), sticking mainly to the talk page. Ajackl might be a different matter. I know that the history of these articles (and Scientology) has been very difficult and I sympathize with the frustration that leads to this kind of proposal, but I'm not sure a slew of topic bans is necessary at this stage; normal vigilance on the articles themselves seems to be sufficient for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    What is the case that I have a conflict of interest? DaveApter (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (nb I will not be online for the next 12 hours or so to continue this conversation).
    Note first that I didn't say such a case would be convincing. It's a matter of how far one wants to read between the lines. You say you are not an employee of LE -- but it is well known that LE uses large numbers of "volunteers" instead of paying people to do much of the work associated with running their courses. Have you been a volunteer for them? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter: even if you come to the LE article with a conflict of interest, in my view the way you contribute to the article meets the requirements placed on editors with a conflict of interest. If you don't have a history of volunteering, all the better -- but either way I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Upon further reflection, a proposal of this nature would deserve either a full presentation or none at all. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    To answer Chillum's question

    I returned to this section today to answer Chillum's question, but find that Cirt has now made it into an archived discussion.

    Cirt's previous identity was smee

    At the time of his RfA ], acknowledgement of this former identity was supressed, allegedly on the grounds that he was at risk of real-world harrassment. I and others found this explanation implausible, and felt it was merely to sheild this information from voters in the RfA.

    However, Cirt's supporters held this line very strongly, and I was myself threatened by Jehochman for attempting to discuss the matter later here ].

    Apparently the obstacle is now moot, as Cirt seems prepared to acknowledge the identity: ]

    Here are some wikidashboard links that give some flavour of the editing patterns. You can decide for yourself whether smee is the disruptive one, or the editors Cirt was seeking to ban.

    ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

    A number of users and admins expressed reservations about whether Cirt's apparent "reform" was genuine, or was a tactic in a long-term strategy to promote the POV-pushing agenda evidenced earlier. Perhaps in the light of recent activity, is is time to review that question?

    I strongly request that this whole matter is examined by some non-involved impartial administrator DaveApter (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Those links show nothing more than volume of editing. I don't see any indication of abusive behavior there. Chillum 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    OK, sorry for not giving adequate detail. I guess the most direct evidence of disruption is the fact that he was blocked no less than seven times in the space of eight months for edit warring:

    Three here: ] And another four here under yet another different username: ]

    And a random selection of his edits over a two week period in May 2006: ] shows 500 edits with over 400 of them on topics related to Landmark Education or Werner Erhard, all pushing a particular Point of View. And this is someone who accuses me of being a disruptive SPA and seeks to have me topic banned for making a fraction of that number over a four year period? What's going on here? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Question

    I've recently got involved in mediating a topic I've not previously been involved with, a heated one subject to prior ARBCOM case. This seems generally to have been going fairly well, but strangely I've been having problems with one editor in particular (oddly, or perhaps not, he was one of two editors whose ANI block/unblock thread prompted me to get involved). Now the editor does engage in some constructive debate, whilst at times also being highly dismissive of others' attempts to debate, and it seems this has contributed to some editors withdrawing from the topic. My attempts to try and move things forward - let bygones be bygones, let's focus on content, sort of thing - seem to have increasingly led this one editor to view me as an opponent, and responding with a sort of wikilawyering where he seeks to find fault with my actions instead of responding to the points made. This has got to the point where a user talk reminder to properly indent talk page replies was deleted without comment, and when I left another message saying that wasn't very helpful, he deleted that too and complained elsewhere of "harassment"!

    So my question is this: does anyone have any suggestions? I'd like to avoid making a federal case of it if possible... but what appears to be a WP:Battleground mentality is making that extremely difficult, unless I just give up, which would be an option of the attitude was only directed at me, but it isn't. But nor is it general - he's capable of focussing on and discussing content when he wants to. Anyone? Rd232 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    PS On a related note, is a consistent refusal to follow talk page indentation practice, despite reminder, considered disruptive? It seems so to me. I pointed to Misplaced Pages:Indentation and WP:Talk, and he said the former was just an essay (which is true); and I note now the latter was the wrong link (Misplaced Pages:Talk page has a section on Indentation, WP:Talk has one sentence). Nonetheless he's been around long enough to know how it works, he's no newbie (2 years, 13k contributions...). Rd232 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Have you considered a request for comment on user conduct? Also, you're always welcome to post mediation related questions on WT:MEDCAB. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    I would support your suggest PhilKnight, in light of Rd232 very one sided view outlined above. Is it not also correct to provide diff's to support claims and accusations? Thanks again Phil for the suggestion, --Domer48'fenian' 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Mediation certainly would be a good idea if both sides would agree to it. There was a proposal up recently that didn't get accepted. Since then it seems the editors have worked out at least part of a framework that both sides agree is fair. Without favoring either Rd232's or Domer48's view of the matter (the dispute appears to have nuances regarding loaded phrases which escape the comprehension of this Californian), past experiences with other long term disputes have turned up two consistent patterns, one or both of which usually happens when an administrator steps in and attempts to resolve the matter:
    1. The administrator either has or develops a preference for one side of the dispute.
    2. The administrator is totally unbiased, but one or more strong partisans attribute bias to that administrator and repeat the allegation until it gains traction.
    Either scenario hinders resolution. So if it's feasible for all parties to focus on content rather than conduct that would be best. Durova 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Durova I think you represent the situation fairly well, so thanks for that. The initial issues was with this editor here I provided a brief review here and another report was produced here so this in my opinion is not a case of moderating but IP Abuse. While I do not have a problem at all with the “moderator” now appearing on any and every article I edit however when they become a participant in a discussion it is another story. I’ve suggested they file a WP:RfC, but in the mean time, they should refrain from making accusations unless they are willing to support them with diff’s. --Domer48'fenian' 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Well I suppose I should have anticipated Domer48 finding this post and deducing that the question was regarding him. But in view of the fact that I was pointedly not making "claims and accusations" but asking for comments without specifying the editor I was asking about, I'm slightly surprised that he finds it helpful make any comments here. Incidentally two points made do need addressing: first the notion that the IP I placed under 1RR restriction for a variety of problematic edits can be characterised simply as "IP abuse" (no); and second the notion that I'm "appearing on any and every article I edit". I appeared on a couple, in the course of investigating the behaviour of the IP which Domer (and another) had asked me to address! I got stuck on a couple, attempting to move the discussion along a bit. Again, if one were seeking to build a case that Domer views WP as a battleground, he seems happy to continue furnishing evidence to support that. Finally, Domer continues to fail to indent his comments when they are replies. What exactly is up with that, Domer? PS Filing an RFC is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to avoid - that's one of the options my "federal case" remark was alluding to. I'm focussed on trying to move content discussion forward - a point I believe you've heard me make before. Rd232 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Editors here are no fools and your comments are directed towards me! Now this is heading for a WP:RfC, as your continued disruptive accusations have continued. Admin's can review the edits of the IP and make up their own minds on it and act on it if they wish. --Domer48'fenian' 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    I have no wish to go through the rigmarole of an RFC, but Domer's response above, and his response to my comment at Talk:Irish Volunteers suggests a determination to force a confrontation. I have come to this topic with no prior engagement and little interest, and I have tried my best to move things forward, including sanctioning some problematic editors. It did not initially seem that Domer was a problematic editor, but as I've seen more of the topic, it's become evident that in some respects he is; although in view of a record of some useful contributions in what I've seen, and a very long history on Misplaced Pages (2 years, 13k edits), I'm unsure how to proceed. Here are the problems I've observed:
    1. An apparent unwillingness to engage constructively in discussion on the basis of being open to changing his mind. This takes the form either (eg Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting) of ignoring key points made, whilst repeating variations of his point, making the whole thing rather circular; and when the position becomes untenable, retreating into sarcasm and tendentiousness. Or else bluntly refusing to engage (and declaring an editor "a troll") or else just not engaging substantively with the issue (Talk:Peter_Hart#Article_is_entirely_unbalanced; eg in that discussion)
    2. A willingness to engage in wikilawyering, citing policy that everyone is evidently aware of, to some extent in lieu of actually responding to points others make. Example: Another example: a reversion of his deletion of another's talk page comments led to this unedifying exchange about a previous exchange where he'd left me a comment on an article talk page, and I'd removed it as the substance was recorded elsewhere and it wasn't relevant to the article, and responded to his point on his user talk page. This had satisfied him at the time, but suddenly it became an issue!
    3. Willingness to take offence at nothing. For example a reminder to indent replies was deleted without reply or comment, but the fact of having reminded was used as part of this comment accusing me of "being very hypocritical" (because I'd remarked that his previous citation of sourcing policy was unnecessary). When I responded to the deletion without comment, he claimed "harassment" Rd232 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    4. Deleting others' talk page comments. Albeit the comment accused two editors (including Domer) of gaming the system, I considered deletion inappropriate and unconstructive, particularly by one of the editors in question. My reversion of the deletion (together with a "let's move on and AGF" reply) was met with this outburst.
    5. Fairly consistently failing to indent talk page replies appropriately. As demonstrated in this very thread.
    Well I guess that's it - and that's basically from a few days at just three article talk pages (Talk:Irish Volunteers, Talk:Peter Hart, Talk:Dunmanway Massacre) and his user talk page; but in addition one editor had remarked that his behaviour contributed to him leaving , and he has a substantial block log (padded somewhat by unblocks). So what course of action can be taken here? I'd love to see Domer do some soul-searching and appreciate a certain need to be a bit more forgiving, a bit more open-minded in terms of being able to change his position in the face of evidence, less eager to seek fault in others and and generally more willing to be collaborative. I've seen no sign of that being at all likely, but it's by far the most preferable outcome. I'm not sure what else would be an appropriate course of action. Comments? Rd232 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Now that there's a better framework for discussion than during the last mediation request, would you be willing to undertake another try at mediation? Durova 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand - what was the last mediation request? Also I'm not really sure what there is to mediate; the specific content disputes I've seen don't seem to need that. (Or insofar as they do, I've been trying to do that, notably for PIRA by use of a subpage draft, User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft.) Rd232 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    It sounds like you're involved and playing a game of "I didn't hear that." You have strong differences with one of the editors involved. If you want to participate in editing the article and in discussion that's great, but to suggest that you're in a good position to mediate and administrate seems pretty preposterous to me without even looking into the specifics of the dispute. I'll take you at your word that you mean well, but when the role you're trying to play isn't working you need to change tacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    With respect, our differences on unrelated topics, ChildofMidnight, make your contribution here less than helpful, especially since by your own admission you haven't looked at the specifics. I do not in fact have strong differences with Domer on content; you could not possibly reach that conclusion if you'd bothered to read the talk pages in question. The most text-heavy dispute (Talk:Irish Volunteers) revolves around whether the first meeting of an Irish organisation I've never hard of took place in October 1913 or November 1913! Do I give a monkey's either way? I do not - I'm merely trying to mediate in a discussion about sourcing. Rd232 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    There was a mediation request on the disputed lead sentence filed within the last month, but not all parties agreed to it. Formal mediation would be better than informal. When one side isn't confident about the mediator's neutrality that usually stands in the way of resolution (whether or not the mediator actually is neutral). There's an art to effective mediation; for a long term dispute it's best when that's in experienced hands. Durova 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry Durova, "the disputed lead sentence"? The lead of what? And I have had no indication that anyone else has had problems with my attempts to help, quite the contrary - primarily at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft. (Some words of thanks here - User talk:Rd232#Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army). I appreciate I'm not experienced at mediation, but I thought I was doing OK, and I'm not about to give up because of one editor who exhibits the behaviour noted above. Rd232 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ack, apologies. Admin name of letters plus three number combination, confusion about what was said to whom. The basic suggestion of formal mediation (generally speaking) still stands on the lesser grounds of how longstanding the disputes in the general area have been, and the advantage of getting the most experienced individuals to help broker a solution. Durova 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    I’m not about to waste Admin’s and Editors time here with one of my robust defences complete with diff’s, though it appears to me that the ones offered as an indictment have made a good start for me. To avoid the drama of a WP:RfC all I’d insist on is that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. If at all possible, I like it if editors could confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse. While I’d like that, I’ll not insist on it. I don’t think that I’ being at all unreasonable here and I’d hope we could all agree and support this request. --Domer48'fenian' 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Rd, as you know I've had endless drama dealing with this case and this particular user in the past. If you open a request for comment on user conduct, then I would give my account on the interaction with this user and be one of the two requisite parties to certify the report. Although not experienced in this particular dispute (like you and I), I am sure both User:Rockpocket and possibly User:SarekOfVulcan would also be able to describe their encounters with the user. Nja 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • In view of Domer's typically wikilawyering response above, I reluctantly conclude an RFC is probably necessary. I'll have a think about it. Rd232 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm shocked, shocked I say that you haven't been more successful as a mediators. Your calm, rational and helpful approach is clear for all to see. Perhaps the RfC should be on your bullying and inappropriate behavior? I'd be willing to certify. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure what to say about that. I'm suddenly wondering if an WP:RFC/U against you would be appropriate, but given our previous exchanges on unrelated topics (which seems to be your sole motivation for commenting here, considering you've by your own admission not bothered to look at the details), it would be better not to. However if somebody else were to propose one, I would consider whether it was merited. Rd232 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    You claim you have no idea why you're not an effective mediatior, yet even here you go on the attack bullying those who disagree with you. I comment where I have something helpful to say. In the case of this thread, it seems obvious and worth noting that your attacks and bullying aren't constructive to building an encyclopedia let alone helpful and collegial approaches to being a mediator. That you engage in this sort of behavior as an admin is troubling. Yes, I have a history with you because I've seen similar behavior from you elsewhere. Shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not going to reply such nonsense, except to remark that you should really stop disrupting a thread which is nothing to do with you. File an WP:ANI or separate AN post or an WP:RFC/U or whatever it is you feel the need to do. Rd232 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    "Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important." -- CoM, about thirty seconds earlier Tan | 39 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    I thought I was being reasonable with my suggestion above, obviously not? It appears that there are a couple of Admin's with axes to grind, and I'm to be the sharpening stone. If I could just make one suggestion, Nja247, you seem very eager and hot to trot, so instead of pushing and poking Rd232 to have a pop at me, why not do it yourself? You obviously got the green light from User:Rockpocket and User:SarekOfVulcan to be putting their names forward like this otherwise it’s very inappropriate to be doing that IMO. A bit like using an editors block log to bolster a weak argument. So if editors would not mind, could they please let me know how far back they want to go with my WP:RfC, will we be all working together on this, like a group action, or is it one at a time? Is it the case that my suggestion above has no merit at all? --Domer48'fenian' 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Making general comments about policy is not "being reasonable" in this situation. Being reasonable would involve some kind of comment showing that you understand you have made mistakes and that you can improve (as no doubt we all can). At the very barest minimum, it would involve finally responding to the point about indenting comments! Look, I'm not going to jump into an RFC just because an editor with an unrelated beef (ChildofMidnight) disrupts this conversation. But to in good conscience leave the matter here for the time being, I need some sign from you that you understand why I said the things I said above, and that there are things you can do better, and that you will seek to do them better. Rd232 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you're not allowed to discuss policy. That is strictly prohibited. Rd232's idea of mediation is that he tells you how things should be and that's it. Numerous editors have suggested with various levels of subtlety that his approach isn't working, but instead he's concluded that they are all wrong and the solution is to take his dispute to the next level. That's, apparently, what he thinks mediators do. I don't have a beef with rd232, but his disruptive bullying is not conducive to encyclopedia building. He calls someone a wikilawyer, which is a personal attack, and threatens anyone who disagrees with him with RfCs, yet thinks he's an effective mediator. Domer, I would jsut disengage as best you can. Rd232 acted the same way on Yusuf Irfan where there were grotesque BLP violations and distortions and refused to help the subject of the article. Finally they had to take legal action so they could get some effective response from Misplaced Pages. That kind of thing shouldn't be necessary, but with admins like Rd232 it is unfortunately. They only hear what they want to hear and ignore anyone who disagrees. We're all wrong, so that's the end of the story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yusuf Irfan? (actually Irfan Yusuf) ROTFLMAO. An article I edited in April from a WP:BLPN request (AFAIR - and probably from you). Whilst I was just trying solve BLP problems and generally follow relevant policy, no doubt it seemed to you that I was on your side there - except that when you posted a section on the talk page "Administrative action needed" I told you that wasn't the way to do it, and also said I thought that wasn't going to be helpful. You raising this here and now in this way is hard to respond to without falling over laughing. PS Nice work on misrepresenting my comments and actions (did I use the noun "wikilawyer"? no); I'm not going to bother responding in detail, but if an RFC is filed against you, I may come back to it. Rd232 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't find it humorous that an individual had to take legal action to get a biographical article about them cleaned up because of your flawed judgment and failure to take appropriate action. Here again we see you causing disruption and wasting the time and energy of numerous good faith editors by refusing to recognize that you are not in any position to be a mediator in this situation. You are at odds with one of the parties involved. What is it that isn't getting through? This isn't rocket science. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    CoM, there is no indication of legal action at Talk:Irfan Yusuf or in the history of Irfan Yusuf, an article I unwatched long ago after dealing with the problems that prompted the original BLPN request (AFAIR). What was left was AFAIR fine, WP:BLP-wise. And the only one disrupting things is you - has the topic ban blown that big a hole in your wikilife? Rd232 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    My suggestion above is directed at you and the editors on the talk pages. Now are you willing to insist and agree that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. Are you going to encourage editors to confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse? Now, are you going to stop presenting yourself as a moderator and accept that you are an active participant in these discussions? Making general comments about policy is "being reasonable" very reasonable in this situation. Please look are your indenting here and you keep going on about it? civility in my book is more important. --Domer48'fenian' 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Of course I understood that Domer - it's probably not clear to anyone else why you cite those particular policies but it is to me. And of course I will seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies, and by and large they do, and when they don't I have responded to that in what I thought was the most appropriate way. I'm not going to stop presenting myself as a moderator, because that continues to be what I'm trying to do. I'm not substantially editing articles on this topic, and I'm trying to limit my talk page comments to moving things forward in content discussion and so forth. I think I've asked you this before - but what exactly do you expect of a moderator? For example, at Peter Hart I pointed out problems on Talk:Peter Hart, but didn't do anything apart from posting at WP:BLPN (and then someone else did something about it). Finally, your habit of finding fault in others instead of addressing your own seems to be popping up again - though on this occasion I don't see what your link above to my indenting is supposed to demonstrate. Let me just say pre-emptively that in 15k edits I've probably not correctly indented every comment I've ever made. Mea culpa; but I do try. Your turn. Rd232 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    That you will "seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies" is about the best I'm going to get so I'll accept that. Based on your comments and opinions on the articles you have currently inserted yourself into, I see you as an active participant in these discussions, and not as a moderator. Your conduct and comments here illustrate that also. Now unless there is anything else, I'll take my leave of this discussion. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, there is something else. As I indicated above, the barest minimum for letting this go is that you (a) accept that you've not always been indenting comments properly and (b) will try do so in future. This is an unbelievably trivial thing, and I've mentioned it probably a dozen times to you, and still no acknowledgement or reply. Rd232 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    I have been indenting my comments and I will continue to do so. Your right though, you are being unbelievably trivial. Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Latest "Profound Intent" Coatracks/Spam...

    The band "Profound Intent" has tried for a long time to get articles on their band, their members, etcetera on Misplaced Pages. Some of the articles had been created ten or more times before being salted/protected against recreation. See for the last time I saw them pop up. It now seems they're attempting to WP:COATRACK their way into having an argument about being able to recreate the article on the band.

    Could someone look at the four articles and determine if they are A) Notable enough to have an article, or B) If the section on the band should be removed as not being relevant to the subject.

    Larry Pretlow II (The article on his music career, LaPret was deleted ten times, before being salted.
    Associated Society of Youth Engaged in Politics (see section at bottom which mentions the band (with "Profound Intent" being a redirect to the Larry Pretlow II article). I'm not sure the article as a whole is notable, but we can take that to AfD if necessary.
    Rasi Caprice. again, the Profound Intent is a redirect to Larry Pretlow II, plus "Associated Acts" has LaPret/Larry Pretlow II there.
    John Capozzi The whole DC Statehood thing is one big PRofound Intent section.

    More eyes would be appreciated, thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    John Capozzi probably meets WP:Politician, being listed at Shadow congressperson. For the rest there is precious little evidence of notability. Given the previous history, it would be tempting to speedy delete them, and also to remove the reference to them at John Capozzi. Rd232 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have placed CSD's on the first three, and removed the Profound Intent section at the John Capozzi article. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I declined the speedy requests, as these clearly do not qualify for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion (A7) is only for articles which do not make claims of importance. These clearly do make such claims. Whether such claims of importance amounts to the subjects being notable is up for debate, which is why that debate should be had. Please start WP:AFD for each of these. They will likely be deleted via AFD, but if it is done the right way at least once, it will make it that much easier to enforce a speedy deletion (G4) in the future. --Jayron32 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    WP:UAA

    Since when is the improper username policy changed to "It doesn't matter if the user name is improper, we aren't going to block them till they edit"? Several admins on the WP:UAA page are refusing to block obviously promotional or even offensive user names because the Users haven't edited yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    Wouldn't WT:UAA would be a better venue for this? Until It Sleeps    02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    blocks are preventative, not punitive. For the case of a so-called promotional username, for a username that appears to be promoting an entity (Say "Ilovethebostonredsox") but gives no indication that the user is actually spamming or otherwise attempting to use wikipedia to promote the entity that shares their name, its not a real major violation. Also, see Misplaced Pages:Usernames#Dealing with inappropriate usernames. There is usually a glut of usernames at WP:UAA which do not need immediate blocking, and it tends to overwhelm any admins that would otherwise help over there or mask real problematic usernames. If users could restrict reports there to ONLY those names which were so over the top that they needed immediate blocking (swearing, racially offensive stuff, gross or patently offensive usernames) then they would be dealt with much better. 95% of the usernames reported there could be dealt with without blocking, if someone just dropped a note on the users talk page which stated "Sorry, but your username does not appear to meet our username policy. Do you think you could pop on over to WP:CHU and request a change so it does?" Even users which have spammy usernames and which are also spamming should be blocked for the spamming alone, since even mentioning the username as a reason for blocking tends to make them think "If I just had an obscure username, I could spam all day long" It confuses the issue. UAA should be reserved for the really disgusting stuff. --Jayron32 02:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    So you're saying that User:FcdallasisthecoolestteameverSUCKIT is not an offensive user name and should not be blocked until they actually edit? Why, then do we have bots who report User names before they've edited? Should those bots be modified to wait until the offensive user names have actually edited before they report those names? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, because if the name was YouAreAWhoreSuckIt, then we'd like the bot to spot it regardless of edits as I'd block that for being a violation. The example you give isn't a blatantly obvious or serious violation of policy. Until there's an edit showing some sort of bad faith there's nothing to be done, except possibly asking them about it on their talk page and encouraging discussion or changing it. This is all covered in the UAA listing guidance.
    Generally, a lot of the ridiculous reports could be avoided if people read the guidance at the top of UAA, which consists of a small introductory paragraph and five bullet points. Nja 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    As the admin who marked this one with "Wait until the user edits", let me explain myself. First, Jayron, I would say we deal with the vast majority of these reports exactly the way you suggested ... with {{uw-username}}. Second, as for the spamming, {{uw-spamublock}} makes it very clear that the blocks are for both spamming and username (Block for the spamming alone, and you send a message that the username is OK). Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    This username isn't immediately blockable, in my opinion. I left a note on their talk page; if they fail to respond or address the concern, then further action may be taken as appropriate. This seems like the best way forward. –Juliancolton |  15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yep, if they don't respond then guidelines at UAA say to take it to WP:RFCN. Nja 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    OK, so I won't bother reporting names from people who haven't edited, even though there's always the likelihood that an inappropriate user name will wind up in an article's edit history, making us look bad once again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    You know what makes us look bad? Blocking new users the moment they do one thing that irritates us, without even bothering to talk to them. Note that, for comparison, having an unsavory name in an edit history has no tangible negative effect on Misplaced Pages, while the fact that our pool of contributors is shrinking is easily and widely observed. rspεεr (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    The operative term there being "tangible". Wait till the Guardian runs across edits made by an inappropriate username. They're just drooling for such an opportunity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Are you seriously proposing that we should block people based on what the Guardian might say? They will hate Misplaced Pages no matter what we do. Why should we give them any say over our blocking policy? rspεεr (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    No offense, but I give a shit about what the guardian has to say. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    The purpose of talk pages

    A user has taken to using the talkpage of Hindi, Talk:Hindi as a forum for asking for Hindi translations and spellings., , , , , , , . While I realize that the motives of the user are good, these comments do nothing to contribute to the article Hindi. If the user wants to find people able to provide translations of transcriptions, the first step would to be to post such requests at the talk pages of the articles where the Hindi version is needed. Another possibility would be to use WP:LANGUAGE or perhaps better, WP:INDIA. The user could also get in direct contact with Hindi-speaking users. If we start to use talk pages for articles of languages as places to request translations to or from that language, we could soon see the talk pages of larger languages turning into translation forums. Even if the translations are to be used at Misplaced Pages, I would say that any of the options I've mentioned are better than using talk pages of language articles. In my understanding, talk pages should be used to discuss how to improve the articles to which the talk pages refer.Jeppiz (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Either that, or use the language reference desk. Graham87 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    That is an even better option, thank you. At any rate, I feel that the requests should not be posted at talk pages of language articles.Jeppiz (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a little backed up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, when you wrote this, there were only 114 pages there - the number is frequently higher. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've hacked away it for a bit, there should be a little less than 75 there now. TNXMan 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Eek, I didn't realize it was pretty small then.  :) Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Persistent vandalism on List of former Muslims article

    Resolved

    There has been persistent vandalism on the article by a user Dhard2009. He has been warned many times in the past, to no avail by myself in his talk page. He keeps re-inserting a non notable figure Charles Wardle to the list, even though this contravenes WP:LIST. Someone please block this guy. SantiagoMatamoros (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    Pages created with maintenance templates

    Resolved – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    I often see many pages that are created with maintenance templates. These are usually reposts of deleted pages, copy paste moves, or other abuse. Is there anyway to put some tracking system on these templates to track the original page they were put on? Triplestop x3 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think there might be an edit filter in place for this; if not, it shouldn't be too difficult to add one with a tag you can search for. Hersfold 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem there is one. If there were, it'd go something like (article_id == 0) && (action == "edit") && containsany(added_lines, "{{cleanup", etc...) Some of the syntax is probably wrong there (aside from etc...) but it should give you the general idea. Hersfold 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Done - Special:Abusefilter/237. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know which template that Triplestop may be referring to, but whenever I see a page created with a {{hangon}} tag on it, it's a pretty sure sign it's a repost of a deleted article. Killiondude (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    User:Djdela

    Resolved – Blocked indef by Jake Wartenberg

    This user has continually made the same page over and over again for the past 20 min and it keeps getting speedy deleted and he keeps making the same page it's getting very annoying another user did report him under vandalism, but it's taking too long.--Fire 55 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you.--Fire 55 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Sam Leeson

    I mentioned this on the #Misplaced Pages IRC channel on freenode and they suggested I go here, just in case why anybody is wondering. This may be a situation where we are "too little too late", so to speak, since this was an incident that occurred in 2008. But it just kind of sticks out since I don't think anybody noticed this pattern of events:

    • "Early Life: Samuel Leeson or "Little Leeson" as his friends call him, was born on the 19th of August 1994. He grew up as a normal kid. At the age of 3 he started school at Beech Green Primary School, in Gloucestershire were he was born and raised. At the age of 4 he was put into hospital for a serious blood transfusion which he needed 2 of. After he carried on life as normal. At the age of 11 he started Severn Vale Secondary School in Gloucestershire. He is still going there to this day and has still got 2 years left."
    • Sam Leeson, 13, commits suicide on June 5, 2008.
    • User:Cricket07jack recreates the article on Sam Leeson to say:
    • "Sam Leeson (1994- June 5th 2008) was a Severn Vale Schoolboy who commited suicide when he had been cyberbullied over sites like Bebo and Youtube as they called him a Emo. The Severn Vale Pupil lived in Tredworth, Gloucestershire and was a popular and well loved child. Sam's Mum sally cope who is 45 said that she only knew he was being bullied after she looked on his bebo profile after his death ( His Profile on Bebo has been Deleted)"
    • Lastly, I proposed the article be deleted today, as an unnotable biography, unbeknownst of the history page.

    I wasn't really sure if we should or shouldn't say or do anything, it just seemed puzzling to me when I saw that. — ℳℴℯ ε 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Sending it to AfD -- or marking it as PROD -- was the appropriate thing. (Although the work on nominating this is not complete -- aren't you supposed to add the article to the list at AfD?) As tragic as his story is, it's not a notable event for the rest of the world. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Add topic