Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.196.92.63 (talk) at 19:33, 3 February 2012 (→User:BarkingMoon sock tagging: tagging policy and practise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 24 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 9 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Help with Germanic Neopaganism article

I request the attention of any administrator on what's happening to the Germanic Neopaganism article. A user named ThorLives has been systematically deleting material since last November, essentially reverting the article to a months-old poor, incomplete and unsourced version. Here you can read the former version of the article. Here you can see the extent of content deletion that has occurred over the last two months.

Despite complaints by various users no-one has intervened to stop this and restore the article to its decent state. ThorLives originally claimed to represent the Odinic Rite, a notable Germanic Neopagan organisation, and continues to claim to this date an involvement of many years with Odinism (ie the Odinic Rite). He has been using this claims to modify the article according to his personal ideas on the movement (Germanic Neopaganism). However in November the Odinic Rite Internet Information Officer took part to the discussions on the article talkpage and stated that ThorLives is actually not a member of the OR and does not represent it in any way (here his intervention). --Bhlegkorbh 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a look. Whether or not that user has any affiliation is irrelevant unless it prevents them from editing objectively. Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist Catholic neo-Platonic pagan myself. I am not sure yet this needs an admin's intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I see that Kim Dent-Brown is on the case as well. For the record, the earlier version referenced above, this one, has a slightly better lead but also features a laundry list of organizations and their URLs, and falls totally foul of WP:NOTDIR. I have, in the meantime, restored part of that lead. What the Odinic officer (from out of steorarume) has to say is interesting but has no bearing on the article, and they themselves--admirably--invoke neutrality. I move to close this: there is no need whatsoever for admin intervention; what's needed is editors with a bookshelf full of reliable sources. The insinuation that some user needs to be punished for their edits to the article, the claim that there is wholesale destruction going on, they are both unfounded. Bhlegkorbh is urged to reconsider various Misplaced Pages guidelines, including WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm delighted this has come to AN because I hope it will bring some more eyes - and in fact has already done so, thanks Drmies. Disclosure: I am an admin but have been editing there as what I hope is an honest broker between editors with strong views and have not used my admin privileges. I have some sympathy with the article's topic, being Wiccan, but no great familiarity with the detail.

I try to AGF and I'm probably a bit of a softy as far as trying to keep people on board, but I must admit Bhlegkorbh has strained my ability to AGF to breaking point! Since November s/he has made about 45 edits to the article talk page, complaining about the article's quality. I have encouraged him/her to make changes to the article but s/he has only made three; two minor typo/formatting and one massive reversion to a version of the article that was several weeks old and embodies the "perfect state" to which s/he wants it to be returned. Bhlegkorbh did not on that occasion discuss the reversion before or after the fact, and I note that this AN post has not been mentioned there either, nor on ThorLives' talk page (I will rectify that in a second).

I agree with Drmies view that this complaint is unfounded but I'd like to see if anyone else has feedback in case (a) my perspective needs knocking straight or (b) I have things about right and we can offer Bhlegkorbh a definitive community view. This would be very helpful for the future of the article. Kim Dent-Brown 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be moot now as the OP has indicated that s/he is retiring from Misplaced Pages. If someone uninvolved would like to close this, I suggest we are done here. Kim Dent-Brown 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User has reverted the blanking of their Talk page, so we'll leave this up a while more. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey?

I received via e-mail (presumably through Misplaced Pages's e-mail facility) a request to participate in a survey about Misplaced Pages. Without revealing names, the investigator is a PhD candidate at the City University of Hong Kong, and the return address and URL for the survey do indeed seem to be from that institution.

Is anyone aware of the legitimacy of this survey? Is it sanctioned by the WMF, or is the Foundation at least aware of it? Just checking out of an abundance of caution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just noticed that the username the email supposedly came from (listed at the bottom of the mail) is not a name I can find here. If someone from the WMF wants to contact me via e-mail -- preferably someone whose name I would know from seeing it here (i.e. Phillipe) -- I can pass along the particulars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose not to respond because: (a) the email contained a unique-ID link to the questionnaire (ie which email/accountname it had been sent to), (b) the first questions then asked were personal details, (c) those personal details were not skippable when left blank. —Sladen (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Normally I'd just merrily fill a form like that with junk/misleading data; however since I care about Misplaced Pages and if it indeed genuine, I'd rather than do that.

I can't see anything at meta:Research:Projects#2012_projects that sounds like that. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I will pass on responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We need clearer guidelines about security and surveys as I mentioned here. Things like legal threats lead to instant blocks, and there should be something similar for those who run unapproved surveys (blocked until survey is WMF approved or withdrawn). Exploits are going to occur when admins respond to surveys targeted at damaging Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it starts to look a lot like phising, which is something we should be protecting ourselves from.

FWIW, Philippe asked on my talk page to e-mail him the survey info, and I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the survey weeks ago. I don't remember answering anything too personal and I haven't been sent any (additional) spam. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This survey may be wonderful, but there will be malicious surveys and we need to start protecting the community by making a policy analagous to WP:NLT to say that any editor who asks another editor to complete an off-wiki survey will be blocked until it is established that the survey is WMF approved or the survey is withdrawn (that would include removal from the website notified in the survey request). If a "no unapproved surveys" policy were in place, editors (and admins in particular) would think more before responding to unknown people at unknown websites, and there would be a reasonable chance that any wide-spread survey notification would be reported. By the way, attackers are sufficiently clever to not cause any visible damage while more targets are being gathered (if you suddenly got spam or if your account was compromised, you might alert others that it was possibly caused by the survey). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should work out more ways that people can possibly harm others by purporting to study Misplaced Pages. I also think that a "block non-identified surveyors on sight" policy would be a wonderful way to welcome academics potentially interested in Misplaced Pages. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am rather pessimistic when it comes to security. I take your point that an instant block may not be a good approach—what about a polite request to explain the situation at their talk page (a request that would lead to a block if ignored after reasonable notices are given)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One problem with that in the present instance is that I couldn't find a username which corresponded to the one listed on the e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange. If Misplaced Pages mail was used, there should have been a footer visible at the bottom saying This e-mail was sent by user "Example" on the English Misplaced Pages to user "Another example". The "Example" user may have no user page or talk page, but Special:Contributions/Example should show that the user exists, even if no edits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my e-mail has that footer, but I must have been typing in the name incorrectly, because when I cut-and-pasted it just now, I found the user: User talk:Ling JIANG. Another editor has left Ling JIANG a note pointing them to meta:Research:Subject recruitment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Prods not expiring?

I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place . . . I really have no idea if this should be on AN or AN/I or somewhere else. Anyway, looking at Category:Proposed deletion there seems to be a lot of pages which have had prod tags for more than 7 days but which aren't in Category:Expired proposed deletions‎. It looks like something isn't working right with the proposed deletion template or whatever it is that makes the prods say they are expired. Calathan (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone to a few of the articles that have prods that should have expired, cleared the page cache, and the template changed to show that they were expired. There is something odd going on though. -- Atama頭 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm clearing out the backlog but there are dozens of articles. Also nobody was deleting the empty prod categories, I'm not sure if that contributed to this problem, usually an admin zaps them right away. It looks like I might have to get back into the habit of patrolling prods again if other people aren't doing it. -- Atama頭 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the template is not working; I wonder if it might be in some way the after effects of the shut-down. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The trick is that the oldest prods currently in play are from 23 January (I just cleared 22 Jan), long after the shutdown. {{Proposed deletion/dated}} calls for Template:Category handler, which adds the expired PROD category; is there something going on with that template, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been doggedly going through these prods, and I've cleared out tons but can't keep up. I cleared out everything proposed up through the 24th, but many prods from the 25th are still there and they have all expired by this point, and now prods from the 26th are going to start expiring. I could use a bit more help if anyone is interested. :) Just make sure, if you aren't familiar with prods, that you look over the criteria before deleting (that it hasn't been deleted and restored before and that it hasn't survived AfD or a previous prod). I also look at the articles' talk pages, sometimes people who object to deletion don't know that they can just remove the tag unlike a CSD or AfD tag and will protest deletion there (any objection to deletion makes the deletion controversial and the prod invalid). -- Atama頭 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with the job queue. I did a null edit on one and it appeared in the list. The page linked to from Special:Statistics to view the size of the queue appears to be broken so I could not check the stats. This does point in the direction of a technical issue that needs to be reported to those who actually run the system/code. I don't think this is associated with the toolserver, but there have been issues there of late. Just remember, this is just a hunch. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing happen with BLPPRODs occasionally; it usually resolves itself fairly quickly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this issue is related to the thread at WP:ANI about the user who accidentally created a page with the prefix for the Turkish Misplaced Pages? Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can probably tell from the redlink above, everything from the 25th is now gone, and if the 26th gets cleared out during the day we won't be backlogged on prods anymore. :) -- Atama頭 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The backlog is now cleared, as of this moment all expired proposed deletions are dealt with. It looks like the initial issue is now resolved. -- Atama頭 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist has requests dating back to December, which I don't think have been actioned. Could someone please take a look. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reposting; was archived without response on 31 Jan  Chzz  ►  12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump  Chzz  ►  13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump  Chzz  ►  18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (Have I gone invisible?)

Speaking for myself only, it's not that you're invisible, it's that the page seems pretty incomprehensible to someone who don't already frequent it. A note on the talk pages of a few admins who you know have worked there before might lead to better results than a note at AN. Although it's possible the problem is just that I'm the dumbest admin around... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

The Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (henceforth DID) talk page has been a horrible, slogging mess for a good two weeks now, so there's a lot of text if anyone wants to read it and external input is both needed and requested, but this is a much more focussed issue. Tomcloyd (talk · contribs) recently posted a lengthy section on the talk page aimed at individuals with DID (some minor copyedits as well). I removed it as soapboxing that was irrelevant to improving the page itself. Tom then replaced it, and it was removed again by Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs). Well, it has since been replaced as part of a new section - Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#If you have DID, this may not be a safe place for you, but it should be. I see this as a pretty clear and inappropriate misuse of the talk page based on a very specific personal (and professional) point of view of a couple editors. Within the scientific literature there is a pretty clear and bitter dispute between those who think DID is caused by significant trauma in childhood, and those who think that it is produced by bad therapy in adults (henceforth traumagenic and sociocognitive hypotheses respectively). I've been consistently pointing out that there are many reliable sources for both positions and therefore both sides should be included in the article, to editors who fall strongly on both sides of the debate. This lengthy talk page posting includes a section ("Signatories") where editors offer to be contact points for the article, which could be an invitation to meatpuppet (or not). Either way, it seems a fairly clear inappropriate use of the talk page.

Though I would welcome outside input and involvement on the page, my specific question for admins and community at large would be the appropriateness of this section of the talk page. As far as actual edits to the main page, they're surprisingly minimal and the main page has only been locked down once for 3 days (and for a stupid reason utterly unrelated to the traumagenic/sociocognitive hypotheses). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Highly inappropriate for a talkpage or elsewhere. Equating disagreement with holocaust denial and calling opponents sociopaths is textbook battleground behavior. I propose a topic ban from DID articles, broadly construed. Skinwalker (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is the point of view of some editors. The point of views of every editor involved in the recent content disputes and discussion is clearly available for all to see on the talk page. The section was created as a response to the perceived bullying (by, among others, WLU); it may not be the perfect solution, but I feel its current existence as part of the talk page is warranted. After some of the content disputes are resolved, and (more importantly) after discussion becomes more civil and accessible as a whole, the section may outlive its usefulness. My point here is not to accuse or condemn WLU, but simply to point out that there are several different sides to this issue which warrant a much closer examination and no hasty decisions. —danhash (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please come and help. However WLU's behavior is already being looked at. Please contact Salvio Giuliano and see this page for more information~ty (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, a rudimentary google search shows recent off-site canvassing for the pro-DID faction. Skinwalker (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting the most recent timestamp in that discussion - Jan 23rd, then 21st, then 15th - and given Tylas' newness, I don't think this is a deliberate violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. The only new account on the DID talk page is Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs) and he has an opinion diametrically opposite that of Tylas and Tomcloyd. In my opinion, meatpuppeting isn't an issue, and I will leave a note on Tylas' talk page indicating this sort of thing isn't a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend good faith to new editors who may not understand this tactic is not acceptable. I'm more concerned that TomCloyd - who is not only a seasoned editor but a Misplaced Pages Regional Ambassador - thinks that activism, namecalling, and flagrant violations of Godwin's Law are appropriate ways to resolve a content dispute. Juice L's behavior seems to have been quite unhelpful as well. Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, during the last few weeks, Tom's been using a lot of words like sociopath, holocaust denial, bullies, abuse, and victimizing. I don't expect this kind of persistent personal attack from any editor, much less from one who says he's a mental health professional. I've never seen such inflammatory comments about contributors resolve a content dispute; have any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been posting to the talk page occasionally after a notice at WT:MED a few days ago. I've not edited the article and have no interest in doing so.

The dispute is your average, basic appalling mess. Basically, we have a "true believer" of a mental health professional(?), who wants Misplaced Pages to reflect what he tells his clients, versus WLU, who wants the article reflect the non-trivial skepticism present in the academic literature. And we have just enough additional inexperienced folks (including one or two people who have been labeled with this condition) involved that the talk page is long and chaotic. We've already had multiple explanations of basic things, like the important difference between a psychiatry textbook and an advocacy website and the fact that Misplaced Pages articles follow the MOS rather than our old English teacher's idea of a proper outline, but the bigger, and probably unsolvable, problem seems to be that the DID proponents really, really, really need this article to minimize any skepticism about this condition (which, whatever its cause or its proper classification, does produce significant suffering for the affected people). I begin to see the appeal of a "block 'em all" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So I tried to delete the section by Tom Cloyd in the talk page that deals with the hardships of DID-persons who tries to edit the article. It is totally inappropriate for it to be on the talk page. If he want to have it on his own userpage then I have no issues with that at all. It also likens anyone who doesn't believe his world view to holocaust deniers. My removal was immediately reverted, so rather than edit-warr over it, I come here hoping that I am not the only one who thinks that it should be removed. This is the section I'm talking about: Juice Leskinen 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As is apparent to anyone who looks through the page history (which I assume any administrator taking action would do), Juice was very intent on keeping his name attached to this section (and apparently wanted his name at the top of the list of "Signatories" as well). —danhash (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Danhash, does that mean the section is appropriate for the talk page, per the talk page guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My statement was not that the section is appropriate for the talk page per the guidelines; my statement made no indication one way or the other as to the validity of the section. I was simply pointing out some facts for context's sake about Juice's apparently duplicitous actions. When involving previously uninvolved parties in an already-heated, lengthy discussion, it is often easy, at least at first, to see the first arguments you are presented with as reasonable and the opposite arguments as unreasonable. It is extremely obvious that Juice's actions were not in good faith to absolutely anyone who chooses to examine the editor (or even just the page history), but the page history is so long and is growing at such a rapid pace that I thought it would be helpful to make a comment bringing to light the fact that Juice was arguing against a section he fought very hard to (deceptively) include himself in. —danhash (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please would an uninvolved editor immediately remove section If you have DID and are editing this article or this Talk page - please read this as an obvious and unhelpful violation of WP:TPG, for example, as was done in this edit (which was immediately reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done it. Given the obnoxious comparison to holocaust denial, and the blatant soapboxing, it looks a slam-dunk violation of not only WP:TPG but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and basic common sense. REgardless of the righs and wrongs of the issue (of which I know relatively little), that isn't the way to achieve 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just need to hose down the talk page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Andy, who are you, and why should I not revert? I can see you have opinions, although I see no support for them. We've had a lot of that at the DID article. Not exactly impressive, and hardly defensible, either. If you're an admin., make that clear, so we (I) know what's going on. I came to the DID article some days ago, hoping to improve the article. I have found that to be utterly impossible. The ruling clique there have no interest in this, and they are getting away with it. Misplaced Pages's reputation is not exactly burnished by this fact.

As for achieving consensus, the DID deniers and POV pushers at the article, who are quite willing for the article NOT to present the actual view of my profession, have NO interest in any consensus but the one that results after they run off the vulnerable and those who actually work professionally with DID. I am such a person, and I do not have all day to disagree about single words, to type responses to endless digressions, and to generally wear every one out. Consensus is not about to occur at the DID article, not on anything important, I assure you. WLU alone will see to that.

Let me tell you a story. One of my DID clients was raped repeatedly by her father from ages 6 through about 11 (her memory strangely isn't very good for the exact ages of these rapes). She would fight back, but her father held her down and raped her, again and again - sometimes several times a week. If necessary, he beat her first. When she finally told her mother, she was beaten for lying. When she told people at the school she went to, the family left town - this happened several times. While you may not appreciate this, here is what I know: during the period of time her sense of self SHOULD have been developing, she was in effect carpet bombed by sustained periods of intense fear, as well as intense physical pain. Do you know what happens when a grown man rapes a young girl? Would you like me to paint a more graphic picture? No? Well, she had no such choice. Neither do I when I'm with her. This is about reality, not damned policy statements. No one came to her rescue. No one believed her, when she asked for help.

Her developing sense of self was blown into over a hundred pieces, and has stayed that way for a number of decades. She has parts of self today which show up in my consulting room and function more or less normally, and parts which simply cower and whimper as if they were being beaten, and parts that scream and cry about how it hurts "down there". Would you like to join me in my consulting room to watch this? If you did, you'd understand why I call this a "holocaust of the self". Are you beginning to get the picture? Maybe you also see why my description of some of the editors at the DID article as "personal holocaust deniers" is dead center correct. In point of fact, NO words I can come up will adequately convey the horror of this woman's story, much lise my disgust at encountering editors who glibly want to tell her (as one editor plainly has one editor with DID) that a therapist "manufactured" (my word) her DID. That's just obscene. This is what is happening while people here are fussing about my use of the word holocaust. That just defies credulity.

Ignorant people who argue that there DID such as hers can be faked, or created by someone (that's never been done, in truth), are exceptionally hurtful to people like this woman, who come to the DID article hoping for useful information, and hoping that their family might learn something useful about them which they are unable to impart - and finding a number of people quite willing to suggest to them that their daily pain is a fiction, an artifact of evil or unskilled therapists.

If you do not care about the two individuals with DID who managed to figure out how to contact me this past week, and who were gravely distressed because of the hostility and dishonesty on full display on the Talk page, concerning the reality of DID, be clear about it. Say "We have no place for such people at Misplaced Pages. We don't care for your pain. Take it somewhere else. We're serious Misplaced Pages editors. We don't have time for whiny women and their improbable stories."

I am sick to death of people who should know better, who at least should approach this subject with some humility, and maybe go through 1/10 of the effort I've gone through just to understand what in hell is happening with a person with DID, not to mention what to do with it. There should be no place at Misplaced Pages for them. None. This is freedom run amok.

There is a group of people editing the DID article who are quite obviously preventing constructive development of the article, and who are also manifestly hurting emotionally vulnerable individuals who SHOULD have access to the editorial process (THAT is the accessibility issue I have raised). Exactly what part of this do you not understand? If the damned rules say we cannot address this problem, and that there is no place at Misplaced Pages where we get conspicuously to care about these people, and to try to find a way to include them, then the damned rules are wrong. I shouldn't have to tell you this: the "rules" at Misplaced Pages are not that important; it's in the P&G, and you know that. Care to ask Sue Gardner which matters more - rules or people? She's female. She very likely gets it what it means to be a minority female in a male dominated world (that's the editorial world at Misplaced Pages I'm referring to). Go ahead - ask her. I never have, but I'm quite comfortable betting on her answer.

So what's it going to be? Exactly how big a man are you? You can support the people whose behavior is socipathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them), or you can work for a Misplaced Pages that is humane, and makes a place for all. What's it going to be? Rules or people? In my world, real men defend the weak, and make a place for all, knowing that diversity breeds strength. Ignorant people defend people whose behavior is quite correctly characterized as sociopathic.

If we don't take this issue up on the Talk page, where everyone actually IS, where do we take it up? Having removed my statement, we now have nothing to discuss. People won't see it. Now THAT's a sure fire consensus building method.

OK...you have the floor. Let's see what you can do.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. And neither have I defended 'sociopaths' (though as individuals with severe psychological disorders they surely deserve defending, in the same way that others do). What I have 'defended' is a basic principle from the distant past of Misplaced Pages - that it is possible to disagree fundamentally with another editor without implying that he or she is an agent of Beelzebub. If you are incapable of accepting this, you are probably best advised to pursue your cause elsewhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I just got home and read the DID page - and as usual, nothing is getting done. So many editors seem to be focused on deleting things on the talk page or correcting English or whatever, but those are minor issues. We have a major roadblock to overcome first - simply being allowed to edit the DID page without WLU reverting and stopping us. I am considered a new editor, even though I joined WP and edited a few things a few years ago ( think it was. I have not looked at the actual dates). My introduction to Misplaced Pages on the DID page has been a nightmare. I have been sworn at, bullied, looked up off Misplaced Pages and more. I don't know how anyone could stay and work in that environment - in fact not many have. One must agree with WLU, or nothing will get done. (Sorry, WLU, but it's true. I don't want to say these things, but I want to work on the article.) I want to thank Tom Cloyd for standing up for those of us that have DID. We really don't need to feel attacked just for trying to improve a WP article. It should not be so difficult to work on a page. ~ty (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Grump - I can see how this can be confusing, but this is how I read the problem addressed above: Mr. Cloyd said" "behavior is sociopathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them)" We all have some sociopathic tendencies, it's just how far we go on a scale measuring those tendencies. It is not antisocial personality disorder which is what I think you are calling a sociopath. We are getting off track again. This is far from our main issue on the DID page. ~ty (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the "why should I not revert?" question: because the section removed from the talk page is wholly inappropriate for a talk page at Misplaced Pages. The guideline is at WP:TPG but the stronger fact is that talk pages just do not do that. The removed section is visible in this permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To close a sort of a circle, I've raised the accessibility issue (i.e. if WP:ACCESSIBILITY covers emotionally hostile talk pages) at the project and pointed the discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Tom Cloyd

It is abundantly clear to me, in reading this section and the article's talk page, that Tom Cloyd is powerfully emotionally involved in the issue of DID, and that for exactly that reason, he is not equipped to edit collegially on the article or its talk page. It is not, and will never be, appropriate to use articles to POV push, to use talk pages to post partisan screeds, or to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to shout about how you feel one group is victimising another. That's simply not ok. Misplaced Pages is neither medical advice nor therapy, and we provide information about medical conditions, not encouragement to patients, or judgment about those who question/support the condition. It's apparent to me that Tom Cloyd is unable to accept these facts, and that he feels very strongly that our article and its talk should be a source of therapy or advocacy. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban for tomcloyd (talk · contribs) from Dissociative identity disorder and its talk page. Said ban may be lifted by the community upon Tom's convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Misplaced Pages may not be used for advocacy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You miss the Point Ms. Nutter - The whole problem is that no progress can be made on the DID page. WLU keeps us on the talk page, busy - not allowing progress and arguing every point. He would like the page to remain as it was before this group of new editors arrived and he is outstanding at this. Most humans would be frustrated and give up. Many, in fact, have ran from the page in frustration - stating this is the reason. Tom is simply, out of frustration with WLU, trying to find ways to allow those who would like to contribute to the page to do so. WLU is as strongly passionate about keeping the page as it was before this group came as Tom Cloyd is about helping those with DID to be able to edit the page without being so bullied. I think you are totally off base with this proposal. You have not dug in and watched the problem from the start like I have. You are ranting about something you have not looked into at all. You are just taking one thing from this page and making a blind judgement about the whole problem. I am sorry to argue with you, but please do not judge before looking into the entire matter.~ty (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best, Tylas, if you did not accuse other editors of "ranting" or making "blind judgments" without acquainting themselves with the case. These can be construed as personal attacks, and do not help convince anyone that the article is not being subjected to emotionally-charged, rather than neutral, editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Ms. Nutter. That was not my intent. :( ~ty (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather agree with Tylas' interpretation of your ban proposal. More below. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Tom Cloyd - After considerable thought, I'm at peace with my thinking about all this. I'm leaving Misplaced Pages. for those who have interest in my thoughts, you'll find them here. Tom Cloyd (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful piece Tom. Your enormous talents are lost here. There are so many better uses for them than spinning your wheels trying to make progress against those like WLU. Best of luck Sir! You have my utmost respect and admiration.~ty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This behavior is completely unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support When this was brought up at WP:FTN I came to the article to take a look, but the massive walls of text on the talk page as well as the intense emotional climate makes it difficult to even figure out what is going on. Some time away from the article to cool off would be ideal. eldamorie (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • An indef topic ban isn't necessary for a simple "cooling off period". —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See WhatamIdoing's comment below for a good explanation of why, in this case, an indef is actually the best way to create a "cooling off period." Blocking's not really necessary but there are behavioural issues. eldamorie (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - but emphasis support for the ban being repealed if Tom demonstrates an appreciation for how NPOV actually plays out. Despite numerous uninvolved editors providing comments, they are never good enough. Unlike everyone else on the talk page, whose behaviour appears to be improving, Tom's appears to be degrading. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As part of "everyone else" you forgot Juice, who should be one of the first to be blocked or banned if anyone at all is. You have seen just like everyone else his inappropriate behavior. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that given the gravity of this discussion, I've alerted Tom via talk page and e-mail about this new sub-section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I should have done that as soon as I started this section, but it slipped my mind. Apologies all around :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I give. You win WLU. I am gone. ~ty (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope you will give Tom ample time to formulate a response before indef topic banning him. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant support per 1) the obviously inappropriate and emotionally involved SOAPBOX post from Tom Cloyd at 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) above, 2) including his appeal to Sue Gardner (who isn't an experienced editor anyway, and he should have appealed to WP:MEDRS and WP:COI instead of the irrelevant authority of an inexperienced medical editor), and 3) the analysis by WhatamIdoing above at 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC). This appears to be a most unfortunate case of a "true believer" with a COI, unable to separate individual clients' experiences from the necessarily objective approach to encyclopedic editing based on reliable medical sources. WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here, and for the article to advance, the talk page needs to focus on sources, not people. I should disclose that I have previous experience working with WLU on medical articles, and I know he does that. The reason I'm "reluctant" is that it's unfortunate that very few psych articles on Misplaced Pages can advance, precisely for these reasons (psych professionals engage them, disregarding our policies, and using Misplaced Pages to further their own interests). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Tom seems to be the only current editor of the article who really has adequate experience and knowledge of the whole subject at hand. It would not be correct to just pop by the DID talk page, read up on the last few days, and then make a judgement that he is not fit for editing the article or talk page. He is knowledgeable about DID and has personal experience in dealing with it, of course he will have his own point of view—everyone else has their own point of view too. It seems as though most of the times he has made a substantive, thought out, well rounded post (which of course would be somewhat long; the length of his replies is entirely appropriate), others are quick to respond to one or two simple points that he has made, ignoring oftentimes the main point of his arguments. Tom has tried for quite a while now to combat the attitude held by some (seemingly at least 3) of the editors on the DID page of being oppositional for oppositional's sake, or else just plain biased. Tom has his point of view as does every editor, but he explains himself and is willing to engage in discussion—to the contrary of some of the editors with opposing viewpoints. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – I am walking away from WP and of course the DID page, but I wanted announce my strong, strong, strong, strong opposition to this motion. My reasons are listed in the above text.~ty (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It is not Tom who is keeping the page at a standstill - it is the lack of actually substantive edits and fighting about everything all at once instead of one thing at a time. I believe Tom, tylas, myself, WLU and most of the other editors just coming in or playing a more minor role can work together but this is not a battleground for sure and the fate of the world does not hinge on the DID article page. I agree that Tom needs to stop the soapboxing. But he knows a ton about the field and has good information and sources - it is a communication problem that can be worked out without blocking (and definitely not indefinite blocking) and Tom is not the only one who has been causing it. Takes two (or in this case many) to tango. This might stop the problem temporarily but at the same time will stop improvements to the article - and there have been a few things that have gotten done in the past few weeks even though no one can tell because of the insane talk page. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  But something to consider FF, is whether Tom is willing to abide by the policies and guidelines that underscore a successful editor on wikipedia and the project as a whole. That includes things like WP:CIVIL (which ), overall compliance with the P&G (, , , idiosyncratic understanding of issues such as the use of the accessbility tag , the role of WP:MEDRS , WP:MOS#ATTRIBUTION , WP:CONSENSUS , claims that specific policies don't apply such as WP:NOR , WP:NPOV , wikilawyering over the meaning of policies and of course the obvious misuse of the talk page that was my initial post here. Then there's generally irksom comments that others lacking postgraduate training are essentially too stupid to understand why his way is better , , or that because he treats DID he is correct on wikipedia . Keep in mind, I stopped looking January 24th, and these issues have gotten worse, not better, over the past two weeks. Everybody is bound by the P&G, you don't get to ignore them or pick your preferred version because you think you are right. Everybody thinks they are right, but they need to demonstrate it using reliable sources - and you don't get to discount a source because you disagree with it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think things are beyond salvageable. A lot of people have thrown insults around in the past week or two related to the article, accusations of bad faith and POV pushing and threats etc. Almost everyone involved has done some or all of these things in fact - including you, WLU, though I agree everyone's behavior is improving (but I'd include Tom in that). But I'm not arguing about any of that or trying to blame anyone - we are obviously all passionate about this topic - and I do think things need to change but I see hopes of it happening since the article was locked down earlier this week. Sticking with oppose. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support the ban at least for the article. I'm on the fence about the talk page, because to the extent that he has sources to support his POV, Misplaced Pages needs to know what those sources are. (Tom's promised to provide a list of sources he recommends, but hadn't done so last I checked.) The talk page behavior has been appalling (and, sadly, has been getting worse), but perhaps being limited to the talk page would help Tom remember how to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  You can all just quit. You have already run him off. Not everyone is into manipulation by collecting friends. WhatamIdoing. ~ty (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Tylas, let me suggest that you read meatball:GoodBye. It might help you understand why experienced editors don't normally believe people who make noisy claims about leaving. Threatening to leave is a well-known manipulative ruse regularly used by people who feel they are losing a dispute like this. Misplaced Pages probably sees a dozen such claims every day of the week. In the vast majority of cases, such people never actually leave. At most, they might stop editing for a couple of days, but in the end, their claims to be permanently departing are almost always just as factual as the fairytales parents read to little children at bedtime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  I can't speak for another and he has not said one word, yet you accuse him of that too. I for one would never come back to this place. It's very dysfunctional.~ty (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  So you keep telling us. However, I don't see any evidence that you are following through on your threat. My recommendation to you is that you either (1) stop publicly threatening to leave or (2) that you actually leave. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Also, read WP:DIVA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Apart from the issues correctly raised in the topic ban proposal, there is this comment (visible at the bottom of this section which includes "telling the truth IS what I do). If Tom works on some other articles he may come to understand why Misplaced Pages is organized the way it is, and why some people are not helpful as editors for some articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The editor just isn't getting it and this subject is clearly too personal to him. Colin° 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. While I agree that TomCloyd has broken WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I believe that an 'indefinite' topic ban is a gross over-reaction and will serve only to drive an expert away. The reason(s) that I think that an indefinite topic ban is an over-reaction, is that other less harsh measures have not been tried first, such as mentoring or even a transient 'cool-down' topic ban of 1 month. I do agree with TomCloyd, in his POV and concerns about wording and WP:WEIGHT given to 'dubious' minority viewpoints, that dissociative identity disorder is well established as a mental disorder arising out of prolonged/repeated severe (usually early age) childhood abuse; conversely I agree with people who are concerned, upset and angry with Tom's poor control of his emotions and his inability to separate strong feelings, from 'disinterested' policy and guideline based encylopedia editing. I would be happy to mentor TomCloyd and try to get him to see why some of his outbursts have been inappropriate even if the other person/side is 'wrong', i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe a voluntary topic ban of say a month or two and myself mentoring. If serious and repeated problems arise again, then I would support a more 'draconian' approach but only as a last resort. Lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've worked with LG before and would have no issue with Tom being mentored by him/her. The originally proposed ban was only to last until evidence that NPOV and BATTLE were understood in accordance with the community at large. If a month from now Tom indicates he sees what he did wrong, he's welcome back on the page as far as I'm concerned. The traumagenic position does need to be represented and I'm certainly not interested in reading up on it - but it can't be represented as the only, only important, or dominant opinion unless there is good evidence for it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate is because it might end up being much shorter than a stated-length ban. "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Indefinite bans can be reversed as soon as the underlying problem appears to have been addressed, in this case by Tom "convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Misplaced Pages may not be used for advocacy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page headers as dispute "resolution" venue instead of RfC/U participation

I note that today another user with a suspended RfC/U has returned. Shakehandsman has refused to engage with the RfC/U declared it harassment and disappeared from Misplaced Pages for a month. After his return, he vents on his talk page header with various accusations and gloating against other users. . Without prejudging the merit of the RfC/U on him, Shakehandsman's method of dispute "resolution" still seems inappropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've properly considered your own method of dispute resolution? If you have an issue with an editor the usual thing is to approach them directly about it on their user page. Exok (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I observed that as well, and I chose to discuss it with them personally. It's usually a good first step before proceeding to the drama boards. He has alrady modified he remarks somewhat as a result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wise words Exok, thanks. For the record there is no gloating nor any resolution, I've simply explained clearly my reasons for returning and stated my position, providing evidence that vindicates me. It's undeniable that I have been subject to significant harassment and various other unpleasantness on Misplaced Pages and despite there being no case to answer I did previously thoroughly engage with the RFC/U thoroughly debunking all 13 points of "evidence" that were provided (and i was even interupted in doing so by users posting in an area reserved exclusively for my comments). The header is simply a temporary update to my notice of departure and I'll move it lower down the page if it really offends people and I have already tweaked one sentence that I realise could potentially have been misinterpreted. TBH it would have been nice if a fraction of this level of concern had been given to the blatantly false comments and bad faith littered throughout the RFC/U - a page that must have had vastly more views than my talk.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on your engagement in the RfC/U. However, I don't think that this is enough to address the concern that you are using your talk page header inappropriately per WP:UP#POLEMIC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, here's the link to the previous AN discussion about said RfC/U: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230#RFC/U needs examining. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've re-opened the RFC per your request, let's take this and all related matters up there. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

Moved from ANI. Nobody Ent 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hit the wrong button and sent a bad edit summary-- I have reverted the premature close since new information just came to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of ongoing disruption from the user formerly known as User:Rlevse, including returning to the project apparently multiple times since exercising RTV under a cloud, continuing old grudges, abusing if not the letter then the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy, and apparently engaging in many other disruptions that have been kept secret from the community, I'm proposing a community ban for User:Vanished 6551232, formerly User:Rlevse. The other thread which details this abuse is here - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is moot as to Rlevse/Vanished 6551232/PumpkinSky/etc, which have been blocked, and is not ripe for discussion as to any future incarnation of Rlevse. Should he seek at some future time to return, that would be the time and place for such a discussion. This is supposed to be a forum for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (Emphasis added). There is no plausible basis for concluding that intervention is required at this time. Fladrif (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, he initiated RTV. He was not indefinitely blocked. There was nothing preventing him from ever coming back to Misplaced Pages. Alpha_Quadrant 16:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rlevse/Vanished account is blocked. The PumpkinSky account is blocked. Your are confusing blocks and bans. I never said he was banned. But it is a simple fact that those accounts are currently blocked (in the first instance because Rlevse requested courtesy RTV and then continued to edit from the Vanished account) and no-one has asked that they be unblocked.Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strong oppose No. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Absolutely not. There is no behavior warranting a community ban. I am so sick of this. Every time an issue like this comes up on AN/I, the very first "solution" is a community ban. Alpha_Quadrant 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Really? Every time? Seems like the previous solution was to allow him RTV, which he then abused multiple times. How else do you propose we prevent his continued returning and disrupting the project? Oh, let him vanish again, but this time he really will! Right. Just more typical Misplaced Pages bias, otherwise known as special rules for special people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? Nothing was done that deserves a community ban. One sockpuppet is not cause for a community ban—if that were the case, we'd better go ban several of our best editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ one sockpuppet. If that were all then I would never have proposed a ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why does Category:Suspected wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse turn up empty, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rlevse is a redlink, and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Rlevse only contains User:PumpkinSky? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody tagged the socks? Because admins want to hide his abuses? And did you miss the entire episode regarding his other abuses? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged what socks? You normally seem like a sensible editor, but claiming an admin conspiracy is a very poor substitute for providing diffs and actual evidence when you make a ban proposal. List these socks, or link to them, or something. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments copied from the previous thread:

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I saw. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The only other sockpuppet that Rlevse supposedly had (that I know of) was BarkingMoon (talk · contribs). However, no evidence was ever presented that BarkingMoon == Rlevse, so the sole accomplishment was that BarkingMoon left the project in disgust. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd be more inclined by a large margin to facilitate Rlevse's return to active editing under a failed RTV. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the negative history of Rlevse, just had good experiences with the user. But I saw nothing troubling enough for anything more than a warning wrt the Pking account. None of the diffs I looked at in the above discussion were overly troubling. If you're going to propose a ban, you need a lot more than waving at a discussion. Can someone provide diffs that they think justify this ban? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per My76Strat (ec), same inclination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Used to be an excellent user, not only doing good work but also encouraging others by handing out well designed awards. No justification for a perma ban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A serial plagiarist who keeps returning to perpetuate grudges against other editors? Very useful. This project is hopeless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I went into details about his plagiarism today, s. Paraphrase but how, there is danger for the project, he copied the line "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986", copied word-for-word from the source!!! (sarcasm intended), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• And a former ArbCom member! You have to have a sense of humor or this place will drive you crazy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, and the snow close is imminent. That's fine, close this then and I'll go back to my coffee and NPP. Beating one's head against walls give one headaches. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• My76Strat has the right idea: Rlevse clearly wants to still be here, he's failed at RTV several times, and he'd be better off to return to the Rlevse account, subject to some guidance, and staying away from DYK and FAC. He can learn to paraphrase, and if he checks his old grudges at the door, and stays away from his weak spot (which is DYK and its inherent copyvio problems) he should be able to return successfully-- there would be many eyes on him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, we don't need this. Enough. Keep him indeff'd at least. (That is now revdel'd-- it was an extensive post of private email. Anyone wonder who leaked the arb-list now?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per sandy --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was still trying to finish when the thread was moved :) I'd be more inclined to say that should Rlevse return, he should be under some guidance, and should be required to stay away from DYK and FAC until the community feels that he is able to understand correct paraphrasing and check his grudges at the door. Although requiring them never works, an apology from Rlevse to Raul654 would be a good start, too-- giving an indication that he understands where he went wrong and how much damaged that caused. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is a much better proposal. However, Rlevse should pick which account he wants to use and stick with that one, so that people can watch for any introduction of close paraphrasing. He does a lot of good work referencing and contributing to articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, whichever account he picks isn't an issue. But ... ummmm, well ... he also has problems recognizing and understanding reliable sources, which is one of the other reasons I'd prefer he not go back to DYK until he's gained a better understanding in that area as well. He wants to contribute and can make worthy contributions, but unfortunately, his personal weaknesses coincide with the general weaknesses at DYK, and he tends to become very forceful there, which helps preserve the status quo. On the other hand, if Montanabw and others can work with him on articles, he could improve in those areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck per this. Keep him indeff'd at least. Last chance too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rlevese has been a good, and long-time positive contributor. I support dealing with the concerning issues so he can return to productive editing.(olive (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose He's been a productive editor, we have too few, end of story. I agree with what Sandy said in her comment of 17:17--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. My76Strat has it about right, but the grudge matches do need to be left at the door. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose : Please check out the copyright investigation, which is proceeding quickly, and is finding practically nothing. My opinion: if the user wishes to return, he has to resume using his original account (the Rlevse account). --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Let him keep his new name, if he likes it better. Wasn't someone going to reach out to him last night?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  You are right; the name does not matter as long as everyone is aware. I will put a message on user talk:PumpkinSky right now. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps an admin could snow close this? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can give everyone involved a chance to weigh in, and be sure that consensus has formed? For example, do ya think Raul might have an opinion here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose per My76Strat and SandyGeorgia. — Ched :  ?  17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As long as the Rlevse history is attached to whatever account he intends using, I don't see a problem here. He chose to vanish and should be allowed to unvanish, if that's what he wants. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - BarkingMoon is PumkinSky, PSky was created two days after his BMoon account was exposed, and they are both sockpuppets of the serial copyright violator User:Rlevse. He had and has no intention of assisting in resolving those issues and his latest sockpuppet has now created a load more work - he returns and attacks users from previous disputes - There are additional issues with this user as Will Beback mentioned - I have an additional complaint that I will leave as historic. Arbcom know more than they are saying - any support for the user is misguided to say the least. I realise there are users against this but later I will be happy I said it. Youreallycan 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, since there are other issues (including one that is important to me, a failure to fully understand WP:V, a core policy), I haven't entered my comments here as either a Support or Oppose-- just a way forward if there is consensus for such. And if he were to return without some sort of guidance, restrictions, and oversight, I would certainly not be in favor. I-- finally-- have completely lost trust in the ability of some of our illustrious arbs to be impartial. Again, while apologies can't be required and are rarely helpful, in this case, one might give an indication that he understands all that he caused and won't do it again. Without that understanding, troubled editors rarely turn into productive ones, and just move into more and more problematic socking-- something we should seek to avoid here if we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck, having seen an extensive private email posted by Rlevse/PumpkinSky before it was revdel'd and oversighted-- no. Just no. Keep him indeff'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree and in choosing to support "facilitation" I do mean to imply incorporating everything else that is prudent. My76Strat (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Looking at the CCI, the problems there are a few close paraphrases (and not egregious ones either - he is trying to properly paraphrase. He mostly seems to miss the point about copying structure, which isn't always easy to grasp). A lot of quality gnomish edits are apparent in that report. I'm not sure that any of his recent stuff would meet the legal definition of "copyright violation". I'm mostly ignorant about the earlier account, I wasn't really around then. Re: YouReallyCan above: if there's something about past behaviour that isn't being mentioned, it probably should. There seems to be a consensus from the Featured people that his contribs to discussions there weren't helpful, he should probably stay away from that area. If he needs help properly paraphrasing things, he needs to ask for help. Lots of good writers at DYK/GA/FA who would be willing to rework drafts for him. The account-hopping wasn't right, and he needs to acknowledge that. The Interior (Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Make return conditional on helping with the CCIs. Per the recent measures against two other editors, the former Arb needs to pitch in to help solve the problems he created. There are now two CCIs: one for the original account and one for PumpkinSky. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grossly excessive. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Rlevse/PumpkinSky is a positive contributor, a good, solid editor, and once the CCI on the Pumpkin Sky account is done, he will be one of the most closely scrutinized editors ever. I'd challenge ANY other editor to not have the occasional close paraphrase in their collected contributions and have the nearly 800 articles analyzed that is happening at the CCI. (And to help when you have a hard time seeing close paraphrasing is a bit awk, don't you think?) Frankly, though this individual has some spats with other editors, it's just the usual wiki-drama and snark -- his tone is really small potatoes compared to some of the really nasty vicious bullying attacks I've seen from trolls that no one ever seems to block. I think that he gets dogpiled on because once things get to a certain point, he chooses to not engage any longer. Some people are that way, but it's not an admission of guilt, it's just a throwing up of hands. I say allow a quasi clean start with a new user name so the red flags don't immediately spring up -- though maybe with doppleganger notes on the other pages for those who care. The sockpuppeting was, IMHO, consistent with his personality, which clearly is to avoid certain types of engagement and given that the initial reason Rlevse left was over a tempest in a teapot, I'd say that the sockpuppet concerns should be viewed as a RTV gone awry, and tossed as Fruit of the poisonous tree provided that he henceforth edits openly. Raul, I don't know you and I am sure you are probably a nice person who just disagrees with Rlevse, and the disagreements are not comfortable, but what little I looked at was just the usual wiki-drama, I've personally endured much more vicious attacks on wiki from people no one ever blocked (wish they would have, but oh well...). Montanabw 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with you in spirit, but I do need to point out that you don't seem to have followed his entry into the FAC situation, which does not fit this description at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sandy said it well. I do not, however, subscribe to the storm-in-a-teapot metaphor, Montana. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; support indefinite block until editor has agreed to conditions and addressed past issues. --Rschen7754 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per Montanabw and further , WP:RTV issue is not yet resolved.Actually it is being discussed in Village Pump .There is no clear policy yet that a user who returns after WP:RTV under a new name will be blocked indef for socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If Rlevse is going to edit here he needs to do so transparently. My impression is that some editors here are unaware of the extent of deceitfulness and subterfuge in which Rlevse engaged under his original account. So long as Rlevse is retired/vanished/inactive there's no harm in allowing his positive contributions to be remembered foremost. But if he is active then the full history of his editing and bureaucratic activity needs to be discussed. I am very concerned that he may intend to regain positions of trust.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Will Beback here. There are appropriate second chances, and there are wise decisions that acknowledge second chances have been spent. I do not know the extent of Rlevse's copyvio problems, but the fact that he refused to address them, then lashed out at Wikipedians, leaving with a dramatic and immediate exit, instead of acknowledging there was some kind of issue to be dealt with is problematic. What's worse is that he created PumpkinSky to antagonize some editors and engage others, like Giano, for unknown reasons. This is an ex-ArbCom member who ruled on the impropriety of just this kind of behavior, ending in the blocks of others, so arguing that he didn't know what he was doing is ridiculous. If Rlevse wanted to return so he could edit articles of interest, he would have done so without calling so much attention to his abrasiveness and inability to communicate in a meaningful way. RTV is too often abused by editors with significant problems who return without addressing those problems. I keep seeing this Misplaced Pages-is-a-workplace argument for civility, but there is no real-life situation in which someone leaves a place of employment and can return without anyone else noticing, just to irritate the folks with whom he disagreed in the past. Surely the manager who allowed that would himself be fired. I don't have a problem with an editor returning if s/he intends to work not only on articles but his own issues that forced the RTV in the first place, but what's left to respect of Rlevse? How long until he regains his admin status and runs for ArbCom again with half of Misplaced Pages reminding all not to be so judgmental, and the other half righteously indignant or so far beyond caring about such a negligent system that creates this circumstance that they just are editing drunk all the time? --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the reasons for this are clear, and have been well-stated by others. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment as one of the people now working both CCIs, All I can say is that I want EVERY ONE OF YOU on this thread to please to go over there and help, seeing as how you started this in the first place. There are something like 1,800 articles now on the two lists and will be more if you add Barking Moon. If everyone agrees to review even one each of the major ones and 5-10 of the little ones, it would be a huge help. But please, also ask if your edits from five years ago were all perfect too, OK? We probably have 10 wiki-gnoming and cleanup edits to every substantive one. The stuff on Rlevse going back to 2005 or 2006 is simply a huge pain in the butt to review, many articles have changed substantially, other, smaller ones less so, and of the couple I've found that have some question, they are so close to the line that I can't see any way to phrase it all that differently, personally, and asked others to peek and see. Frankly, I'm starting to worry about editing anything myself -- I get jumped on for OR if I write stuff I know, then find sources, but if I read it first, how can my mind not be "contaminated" by the phrasing? At the level we are scrutinizing Rlevse on close paraphrasing (and still, few problems, probably no worse than most of us with a long edit history), we may wind up deleting half the encyclopedia if we applied it rigidly across the board to all articles -- heck 3/4 of the encyclopedia. Montanabw 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Curious, who are you referring to with "seeing as how you started this in the first place"? Amalthea started the CCI, knew about it before even the arbs, and actually, to date, none of us know how Amalthea came to realize that PumpkinSky was Rlevse. If you want to point at some who contributed to this, perhaps the people who should be doing the cleanup are all the DYk regulars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose but Rlevse needs to help clean up those CCI's. Steven Zhang 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — what a lynch mob. Alarbus (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per My76Strat. Begoon  05:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support indefinite block until issues are addressed, and support requiring him to help with CCI cleanups. Perhaps require mentorship for a time to help cut down on future infringement. If he can't learn to write in his own words after that, then this should be revisited. Kcowolf (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I closed this proposal per WP:SNOW after roughly 10 hours of discussion and overwhelming opposition. This was swiftly undone by SandyGeorgia on the basis that new information had come to light—presumably because she suspected that this new information would alter the course of this proposal. In the several hours since, however, opposition has continued to pile up. I respect that one must feel strongly about something to reverse a closing admin's decision while involved, but at this point, a SNOW closure looks virtually inevitable. Sandy, do you still feel this proposal needs to remain open? Swarm 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• You "closed this proposal per WP:SNOW" immediately after new evidence came to light, and immediately after I struck my previous position. Did you not notice that many subsequent !voters were "per SandyGeorgia" (and My76), hence if I had changed my position, that might be relevant? Does that not give you some clue that closing a discussion overnight, and not allowing for time differences and others to weigh in, might not be wise? I'm always amused at admins wanting to close off discussions at the speed of light, when this is the Internet and not everyone is on 24/7, and always think it curious that admins think their decisions are God-like. Yes, I always feel that discussions shouldn't be closed when half the world is still asleep, and closures like this do nothing to mitigate my suspicion that they sometimes result from the IRC crowd drumming up a freshly minted admin to close a controversial discussion off post-haste. There is plenty of conflicting information coming out here, with arbs and CUs not even caught up yet and on the same page-- what's the hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not this IRC crap again... You know, even not-so-freshly-minted admins close off controversial discussions from time to time without the "IRC crowd" drumming them up to do it. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let me go on record as opposing the ban as well. He needs to stop shooting himself in the foot, though. No more battling old foes or posting private correspondence, for starters. 28bytes (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't suppose I really need to pile on, but the proposed remedy is excessive. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User abused the RTV, sockpuppeted to return to former battlegrounds, and has apparently no intention of reforming. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since other non-admins are speaking up here, I will too. I was distressed when Rlevse left. I still find it hard to believe BarkingMoonPumpkinSky is the same person. But nothing I am aware of that either of them did justifies banning, and the use of e-mails to tell someone not to return strikes me as dirty pool. It would be best for the project if Rlevse returned; whatever people feel he must then answer for or help clean up can best be dealt with then. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I find it hard to believe that a one-time respected and respectable character - one who is an admin and gets elevated to arbcom - plagiarizes articles - gets caught - quits - and sneaks back in - pretending to be an enemy of the featured article project - and attacks other editors - and you want him back?...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban; the copyvio issues are minor in comparison to the disruption visited upon FAC by PumpkinSky. I've just had occasion to revisit an old thread on Cas's page, and the time that PumpkinSky wasted because of revising old grudges is absurd. All things considered, I don't think he can be rehabilitated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky emails

Pumpkinsky just a few minutes ago posted an email thread between himself and user:Will Beback. Beback wrote to Pumpkinsky asking if he planned to continued returning, in violation of RTV, and stating that if he did continue returning, Beback would post heretofore damaging information concerning Rleve's previous behavior involving user:jojo. The resonse (from Rleve) was both profane and suggested that the arbitration committee was aware of this, and actively suppressed it. Rlevse said he would not be intimidated, and that's why he was posting it. Mbisanz oversighted it shortly thereafter, on the pre-text that they violated Will's copyright. (And if you believe that's the real reason they were deleted, I have a bridge to sell you) I'm reconstructing the conversation entirely from memory, but that's teh gist of it. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the posts before they were oversighted revdeleted, and that's pretty much it. We don't need any more of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, Raul, it was User:JoJo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not oversight them nor did I suppress them. I rev-deleted them. Any administrator can still review them. Also, per WP:EMAILABUSE and that famous arbitration case involving GianoDurova, posting of other persons' emails on-wiki is forbidden as a copyright violation. Arbcom and any admins can still see the text there. MBisanz 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence: :Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." MBisanz 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page, I can confirm that the two edits corresponding to IDs 474620971 and 474680170 have been revdeleted and not suppressed and should be visible to any admin. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for creating confusion by saying they were oversighted-- since I'm not an admin, I didn't know. I have now struck and corrected to say they were revdeleted. At any rate, I can no longer see them (non-admin), but I did see them before they were revdel'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There are actually three processes, though we often refer to them as "oversight" as that was the first (hacky) technique used:

1. Revdeletion can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia admins (and technically oversighters, stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
2. Suppression can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia Oversighters (and technically stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
3. Oversight was the process used for the old method which did its hiding at the server level prior to the development of the revdelete extension, and all-but-completely removes the revision from history. This is essentially irreversible (it may require custom code from developers, and I'm not certain that would work). This is pretty much deprecated and has not been used since 2010.

Hope that clears some of this up. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns about copyrights, etc. I think that the privacy of emails should be maintained. That said, I did not say anything to Rlevse/PumpkinSky that I would be embarrassed for others to see. The key points, already expressed here, are that very disturbing behavior by Rlevse came to light after his RTV, which I chose not to make public at the time since it was moot. I did share it with the ArbCom so that it would be known. One of the senior ArbCom members agreed and said that the matter would be revisited if Rlevse returned. When I wrote to PumpkinSky I informed him that this material was being kept private only so long as he was inactive, but that if he might return then it should be made public. I asked for his assurance that he was not planning to return. The responses were very inflammatory.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my memory, that summarizes what I read before it was revdeleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Will. You've been very helpful. Now, given that we are discussing whether or not a community ban is in order, and given that his response suggests he is very likely to return, could you please go into details about that disturbing behavior on Rlevse's part? Raul654 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, some disclosure - I've known Rlevse for several years and I once considered him a friend and respected colleague. I've just read the correspondence in question, and I am utterly appalled at all of this. I simply cannot comprehend what sort of brain-snap has occurred in Rlevse that has led to this behaviour.

On a positive note, I wish to strongly applaud Will Beback for his thoroughly dignified and professional handling of this matter (and invite other editors to do the same). Manning (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't parse the above at face value. A thing that is private might best remain private if disclosure serves no other benefit beyond curiosity at the expense of a living person. To state "if he might return then it should be made public" would constitute a threat of reprisal against what would be otherwise proper. If the matter is of importance and directly pertinent to things the community should be aware, the agreement to keep it private could be a dis-service to the entire constituency. Without asking for details, can you explain the nature of the private information held? My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat

Here is what I wrote to the ArbCom in July 2011:

By mutual declaration, User:JoJo is Rlevse's wife. She is from Thailand and her written English is broken. She edited for a couple of years, most recently in June 2010. She has mostly worked on articles related to places in Thailand. Other than some work on Wikiproject Thailand, she has not edited any administrative page with two big exceptions. She has participated in over 60 RFAs and RFBs, including 28 in which Rlevse also voted or handled the closing. Some of those closures were discretionary and JoJo's vote made a noticeable difference in the percentage. I see no cases in which they showed a difference of opinion.

Most of JoJo's comments are brief and uninformative, but a couple of them show greater knowledge, including correcting a candidate on a policy interpretation and commenting on another editor's overall career. Her total lack of involvement with other project pages makes it hard to believe that she would be such an avid and informed voter without some input by Rlevse, at least. The best case is that JoJo heard her husband discussing these editors, and then made up her own mind even if unintentionally repeating what he'd told her. Another possibility is that she was his meatpuppet or proxy in RfAs and RfBs.

I think this may represent a serious violation of community trust. Regardless of other issues surrounding Rlevse and account blocks, I do not think that the user should be granted any special user rights that involve trust until these issues have been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Somehow this doesn't surprise me. One of the two tkses of JoJo was in a RfA vote . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. I would be interested to see the close calls Will mentions above, not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome, but with the goal of learning how we can better identify groups of !voters and attempt to find a way to discount groups we can clearly see are meatpuppets of each other. MBisanz 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cavalry and Panyd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Since my name has been brought up... a few comments: 1) Gingko and I often share perspectives/views---not always, but often, which is why we've been together for 15+ years. Thus, similarity in !voting is not uncommon. 2) One way to avoid meat puppets among spouses is having them be open. 3) In my case, my wife's being an admin was one of the reasons why I ran---as mentioned in her nomination statement, she wanted me to gain the tools so that I wouldn't ask her to do something when I saw it needed to be done. 4) Of bigger concern than spouses (as a general rule) are those who associate together on IRC or other mediums. I don't think spouses are a huge risk because they are often known. (Generally my wife and I won't get involved in disputes where the other is invovled. If we do, we generally disclose the fact that we are related in the specific discussion.)---Balloonman 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I do think it might be something to include in our WP:COI. If I saw a discussion which my wife was involved, I would not close that discussion as it might be perceived as a COI issue. That being said, as it wasn't part of the policy and it might be hard to notice every editor on an RfA, I wouldn't jump too fast at this. Also, what is the point of dredging this up now? Are we going to go back and ask all admins who were promoted by Rlvese to undergo a new RfA 2-3 years after the fact?---Balloonman 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome" I see it as a chance to learn and refine our policies, not re-run old elections. MBisanz 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't think that JoJo made those !votes independently, and it seems likely that she didn't make them at all. IOW, the account was used, at least occasionally, as a sock puppet and on other occasions as a meat puppet.

Second, this is being brought up now because it is necessary to review Rlevse's edit history if we are going to discuss his future editing here.

Third, there's no evidence that anyone was at fault in this matter besides Rlevse himself.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting element is the "fix count" shared edit summary between the JoJo and Rlevese accounts. Note that per analysis below, there aren't many overlaps in idiosyncratic edit summary usage between these two accounts; only a couple of tkses and one plain oops, but four "fix count" by JoJo in RfAs. Quite an interesting temporary focus on counting every vote in some RfAs she must have had. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Are we looking at the possibility that Rlevse used his wife's account to double vote (because they appear to be his edit summaries), or that he encouraged her to vote in a way that determined the outcome of certain RFAs, which he then closed? Also, can you (Will Beback) specify which close RFAs were affected by her one vote? I see that one was Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Franamax-- very close, closed by Rlevse, voted on by his wife with an edit summary that resembles his edit summaries, and entered within two minutes of him editing. Have I got that right? What are the other cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Franamax of this discussion. Also, I don't believe Jojo !voted in that RFA - only asked a question.  7  03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 7-- I hadn't gotten that far yet. I supported Franamax, so am relieved :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy notice User:7, ummm, what? I answered the questions I was asked in my RFA, mostly in the order they showed up, but I think a few took longer to think about. I think JoJHutton's question was among the last, or the last one. I got the impression later that there was a relation between that account and the closer of the RFA, but no-one would let me go back and rewrite history to suit my own affairs. ;) 'Tis all in history so far as I know, and I answered the way I would to anyone who asked then or would ask now, my honest response. I did interact with the vanished user previously, in a suspected (and resolved) sock-puppet case several years ago, but other than that have just been eating popcorn on this one. Is anything more needed? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few cash bribes and you'll be in the clear. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) It's a joke! We're in dire need of a few laughs, frankly :)

(ask Moni3 to bring the cocaine and hookers... Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

Goodness, Franamax, I don't see that anything was ever needed from you-- you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, has nothing to do with you, and as you know, I was a supporter anyway, so I don't see how this new information casts "anything" your direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a very good case has been made that there should be a after Rlevse's entry here. I've put in a query at WT:AC asking what the process is for this. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I should note that BarkingMoon was quite keen to get into voting on various things as soon as he registered: RfAs, RfBs, banning votes, ArbCom reform, etc. (I'll add some diffs per request if you can't find them.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have NOT been duped, and this is going entirely too far, SandyGeorgia. What in heaven's name would any arbitrator gain in trying to pull a stunt like that? We of all people know what "the community" does to users who get caught out, particularly those with advanced permissions or higher profiles. So, for that matter, do you: you've had that target on your back too. So please stop this. There was contradictory technical evidence, and it was reviewed and assessed by non-arbitrator checkusers. Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded at WT:ARBCOM. Much of this could have been avoided if we weren't getting conflicting information, and if the community is allowed to do what it is supposed to do in cases of inconclusive tecnical evidence. If we aren't allowed to do that, history will repeat in other similar instances. And yes, of all people, I do know what it feels like-- I'd like the same courtesy to be extended to me as is extended to those who abuse of RTV, Cleanstart, any other policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy - I appreciate that emotions may be running high right now, but Risker is right, there is no reason to accuse the arbs of anything, least of all a conspiracy. Firstly Arbcom have precious little reason to treat Rlevse with any form of favoritism. Secondly, the evidence was reviewed and was inconclusive. If they had acted without conclusive evidence then the outcry from the community would have been savage. (Hell, they get enough grief when there IS conclusive evidence.) Manning (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Risker. There's no one questioning that JoJo exists, and I don't think anyone questions that her edits to Thai articles are her own. There is a concern that some of the edits attributed to her name may not have been made by her, or were unduly influenced, but it is easy to imagine technical evidence for some edits clarifying that it wasn't a pure sockpuppet account. I assume (while understanding the danger of assuming) that identifying technical evidence indicating different people doesn't mean every single edit is by a different person, only that some edits can be so verified, therefore proving that the account is not a pure sockpuppet account.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(That said, I sympathize that SG has gone through a month or more of pure hell, tough enough on its face, and now it appears that a major portion of the hell was by a former trusted editor now abusing that trust. when the dust settles, we should be taking a hard community look at RTV, and CleanStart, and rethinking what we should allow.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the need to look at RTV and CLEANSTART is what this is all about (for me), and your sympathy about what kind of hell FAC has been through is noted and much appreciated. (My response to Risker was over at the ArbCom talk page, where much has now been clarified). I do hope we'll sort these cleanstart and RTV issues, because having reviewed some old threads just in the last few hours, the disruption and time wasted was absurd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I read the emails between Will Beback and Rlevse, and in them Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, he will publicly reveal the information about Rlevse's wife's editing. If not blackmail, this is unilateral, extra-judicial administrative action. I thought WP's administration didn't do things this way anymore. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The issue here is Rlevse. I haven't taken any administrative actions regarding him. Do you have a comment about the allegations here, or are you just taking potshots?   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you an administrator? Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife? And, did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the evidence is on-Wiki. In previous discussions with the ArbCom, et al, there was agreement that the information was moot so long as Rlevse was not editing on Misplaced Pages, and that it would be relevant if he returned to editing. If you think that it's OK for a bureaucrat to use his wife's account to affect the same RFAs that he closes then we have a fundamental disagreement over ethical behavior. But again, this isn't about you or me.   Will Beback  talk  04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will, I asked you three yes or no questions, which you have yet to answer. I will repeat them:

• Are you an administrator?
• Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
• Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Question number 1 looks like one you can answer on your own. Is this an interrogation of administrator Will Beback? ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 - I'll answer them for you as you seem to be having trouble gleaning the obvious answers yourself. 1 - Hold your mouse over Will's name. The 'sysop' tag is quite evident. 2 - No, he didn't, no-one has said he did, not even Rlevse. 3 - "Threaten" is misleading, he behaved as any admin would have behaved in the same circumstances. RTV is a contract, and Will simply pointed out the consequences of breaking that contract. Manning (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you all are affirming that Will Beback was acting as an administrator in this case. Now, can you point me to the administrative guidance or policy which recommends or encourages admins to threaten editors with publicly releasing privately-obtained information about their spouse's editing history unless they agree to stop editing Misplaced Pages? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does anyone besides you say this information was privately obtained? From what I can tell these are just diffs found on-wiki? AniMate 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "confidential info" is probably the better phrase. Will Beback kept the information to himself for future use. Now, again, is the way WP's administration works? Do we "get the goods" on other editors, keep the information in the bottom drawer, then bring it out and privately threaten the editor to "expose" them if they return to Misplaced Pages? Was Rlevse returning to wikipedia as a beauracrat, or just as an editor (small "e")? If so, why privately threaten him with it? Why not bring it out if he requests restoration of his admin privileges? Again, can you point me to the administrative guideline or policy which recommends that WP admins do things this way? Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If I was Will, I'd point you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)... Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Rlevse invoked RV. That "right" has consequences attached, specifically, that if one decides to return (in spite of a promise not to) that previously unresolved issues are now back on the table. Reminding Rlevse of the consequences of his actions is a prudent action; if not required, certainly a reasonable step. That doesn't make it a threat.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I informed PumpkinSky of this thread so that he could reply. His response is here:   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More of Cla689's questions for Will Beback

Another question for Will. You say that ArbCom was aware of all this and had said they would act on it if Rlevse returned. So, why were you involved now? Can you point to the diff or email in which ArbCom directed you to act on their behalf and authorized you to use a threatening tactic in an attempt to coerce Rlevse into leaving Misplaced Pages even though he isn't community banned? Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, can you answer a question for a change? Please comment on the issue of a bureaucrat's wife !voting in the same RfA that he closes, always voting the same way, and showing much greater knowledge of Misplaced Pages norms than she does in her other editing. Does that seem like acceptable behavior to you?   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate issue. This is the administrators noticeboard, right? So, let's make sure that we're following correct administrative procedures. In the emails, you said ArbCom (specifically NewYorkBrad) had said they would handle this Jojo stuff if Rlevse returned. Rlevse returned. So, did ArbCom handle it? Were you acting on their behalf? Were you authorized by them to handle it? Did you tell them in advance you were going to threaten Rlevse with proclaiming the information if he didn't banish himself? Could you say here which arbitrator delegated this administrative action to you after they had previously said they would handle it? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to comment here, even you. But I think your questions are getting a bit tendentious, and are increasingly off-topic. If you'd like to know what the ArbCom thinks then you should ask them. As for this thread, I get the feeling your trying to turn this into an attack on me, so I've split this out.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the time it took you to separate the sections, you could have made a good start on answering the questions. I will continue to wait for your responses. And, I have asked ArbCom for their side. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's questions reveal a misunderstanding so deep that explanations and answers are unlikely to be helpful. In brief, there is no admin misconduct by Will, and no threats in the tone suggested by the misguided questions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. AniMate 07:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Same agreement from me. I provided a thorough answer to the questions earlier. The answers were solely based on examination of the evidence, I have never discussed this issue with Will (or any other admin). This ongoing insistence indicates either incredible ignorance of how WP works, or just harassment for some personal reason. Manning (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 has a long-standing feud with Will, so I'd say both explanations are equally likely. Can we get the personality politics out of the way and get back to discussing useful things, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no feud with Will – and I actually think I've never interacted with either Will or Cla68 before – but I must say that email exchange made my skin crawl. I don't wish to minimise the gravity of Rlevse's actions, which should indeed be discussed, but Will's emails came across as threatening. A very sub-optimal way to handle the situation, in my opinion. Salvio 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's not appropriate. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

agree as well. — Ched :  ?  15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that instead of withholding his observations until now, Will Beback had released them while Rlevse was "vanished". I can immediately imagine the outcry over grave dancing and similar concerns in that hypothetical scenario. We routinely suspend RfC/Us when editors say they've departed for the same reasons. It seems a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choice. Again, I find the blame-the-messenger approach unconstructive. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Will did nothing wrong. This community's rush to accuse people of "grave dancing" and dismiss everything they say is significant, especially in cases involving longstanding contributors. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BarkingMoon sock tagging

Related to the above section about Rlevse, Gerda Arendt has pointed out to me that User:Raul654 has just tagged User:BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse. Has it been established that this is the case? 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there was some suspicions that he was, but there was no solid evidence. In his departure statement, BarkingMoon vehemently stated that he was not Rlvese. Alpha_Quadrant 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed it when they changed policy so that we just take a suspected sockpuppet's word that he's not a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That principle was established in 2010: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But see also here 94.196.92.63 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone that denies that BarkingMoon is not a quacking gaggle of quackers clearly does not want to accept the obvious for some unexplained reason - Youreallycan 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barkingmoon left and two days later Pumpkinsky (who admits he is Rlevse) appeared. That's hardly a coincidence. According to an arbitrator, Rlevse admitted that Barkingmoon was "associated" with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So file an wp:spi. Nobody Ent 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The people that know already know - its so obvious as to not need a SPI - Tag him or not - thats also by the bye. Youreallycan 19:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An SPI was already filed. The arbitration committee refused to comment on the Barkingmoon-Rlevse connection at the time. Asked about this today, they said the evidence was inconclusive (there was some supporting it and some against it) and that we should rely upon behavioral evidence, which (in this case) is pretty clear-cut. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already been an SPI; per that and the discussion at the arb page, I can't think of any logical reason to deny the tag correctly applied based on both. If Rlevse is ready to move forward and be rehabilitated, disputing the tagging seems counterproductive. In addition to the curious article overlap mentioned by Geometry guy: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? Some conduct is so obviously spawned by bias that credibility becomes victim. I've seen some of this and support it as detrimental. My76Strat (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The stalker tool is fun and all, but comparing the overlaps between PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky and me, and PumpkinSky and you, I'm not sure what it tells us exactly. 28bytes (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing anybody with me via the stalker tool is useless, since there's pretty much no place I haven't been, and my fingers have been in just about every article to ever be on the mainpage. I overlap with everyone who edits. It's more helpful to use the tool to look at the specific edits within the articles identified (for example, in my case, you discover I almost always did some sort of cleanup when the article was at FAC or DYK or on the mainpage). Then explain that overlap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? - that's only true if the horse is actually dead. Other people here seem ready to welcome him back with open arms, in which case I want every last bit of his misbehavior documented. At least then all the paperwork will be in good order the next time he takes a dump on our porch and then declares he's leaving wikipedia forever. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is are only 30 similar pages. All of them DYK related, or AN/BN related. Many editors overlap on these places. I don't really see an strong evidence here. Alpha_Quadrant 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

you can lead a horse to water ...

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=BarkingMoon&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&server=enwiki&max=
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=PumpkinSky&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&max=100&server=enwiki

Tools. Sample. Perhaps that will help. Now, look at any of my overlap with anyone, and you'll find in almost every case that my edits are explained by FAC, DYK or mainpage presence, and usually amount to cleanup only, not content addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Get the facts straight. BarkingMoon is not Rlevse, but is associated in some way; on the other hand, Rlevse admitted to being PumpkinSky. Therefore...BarkingMoon is probably not Rlevse. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some of us do have our facts straight. Some of us don't believe everything we read, particularly when there are no conclusive facts. There is evidence, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC x 3) What I find sad is that editors are warring to remove the sockpuppet tag from the Pumpkin Sky userpage even though checkuser confirmed it was Rlevse . Now what's that about bias and explanations for why the Rlevse sock categories weren't populated? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That as a good-faithed misunderstanding: the tag that was placed on the page claimed that the user was "blocked indefinitely" which hadn't been the case at the time. Amalthea 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the two accounts being two different persons is as probable as live brain cloning having been invented in Montana. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See also: and , both of which concern the BarkingMoon/Rlevse connection.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that someone spent a considerable amount of time studying Rlevse's mannerisms, topic interests, and grudges in order to impersonate him. I find that much less plausible than the alternative that he is simply Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the edit summaries

On talk pages in particular. High similarity between BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky in the terse style, and particularly the use of "start" as edit summary for talk page posts . I've not seen other editors do that insofar. Maybe there are some who do, but on top of all the other correlations, it's highly improbable for it to be just a coincidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's as blatant a duck as if it were Daffy himself dancing around and teasing Porky Pig. The denials and overt bias are just sad. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel my tendency in this regard quacks as loudly? My76Strat (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

False protagonist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Burpelson, the comments about "denial" and "bias" are completely unhelpful. What SandyGeorgia and ASCIIn2Bme are doing – providing evidence and analysis for us to look at – is helpful, and frankly pushing me in the direction of agreeing with the tagging. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a very small point, but they add up: My76Strat would fail as an obvious Rlevse impersonator on account of the frequent capital letters at the start of edit summaries, which none of the other accounts use. One would have to argue that this change was a deliberate deception... Geometry guy 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That and using full sentences like "Add comment to talk page". By the way, if anyone can imitate My76Strat's elaborate phrases on talk pages, I'd "buy" them a wiki-beer or two. I suspect User:Floquenbeam might succeed if they set their mind on the task, but few other have a snowball's change in hell of coming even close, no matter how hard they'd try. Some editors do have very distinctive on-wiki communication style. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another telling edit summary is "tks" used by both accounts. They also both refer to the DYK queues using the same notation e.g "q5", "q6" in the edit summaries . Another commonality is that both accounts use "ps" as edit summary when they append to an existing post . It's highly improbable that two random Wikipedians would exhibit all these commonalities. I'd very curious if anyone can find another account to match all these elements. That would take some database trawling, and I don't have a tool server account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Next, you start on these; it's not the number of articles where there is overlap (I overlap all over the place with everyone), it's the nature of the articles and the nature of the individual edits that you have to look at. There are some pretty obscure articles there that need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's enough to note that BarkingMoon also had an interest in obscure places from Montana: ; more. The interest of PumpkinSky in that is well established. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Keegan: Isn't it correct that CU is not pixie dust? My understanding is that it can prove two accounts are used by the same person, but that it cannot disprove sock puppetry. In light of this recent thread, I came across circumstantial evidence that user:PumpkinSky used a proxy. Rlevse had CU rights and presumably knew how to evade CU detection. If someone uses a proxy server (open or closed) and a different computer then CU can't find them -- right?   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Add BarkingMoon to CCI?

Looking at the list above led me to this:

William Temple Hornaday (a scouting article, Rlevse territory, also edited by Rlevse)

• Source:

• In 1885, President Theodore Roosevelt sensed that the buffalo would become extinct and sent Smithsonian taxidermist William Temple Hornaday to harvest buffalo specimens so that future generations of Americans may remember what the American buffalo looked like.

• Article:

• Hornaday, working for the Smithsonian Institution, harvested specimens from the region in 1886 so that future generations would know what the buffalo looked like.

Also, 1885 became 1886 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sandy, if the source says Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1885, I have certain issues with it. But as the next sentence in the source says "With the help of the U.S. Army, Hornaday got his skins to the rail head at Miles City in the nick of time to avoid the historic blizzards of 1886." I think that's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Per this, the blizzard most likely being spoken of happened in November 1886.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you caught the logical error and found additional info that explains it before I came 'round again. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

""That is a copyvio? Not. uses the same words. "Harvest" is the common term for game in those days so that is not of any special concern. And so I do not see the violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find a thorough read of this Dispatch helpful; copyvio is not just a matter of looking at one or two words. At any rate, since there is strong behavioral evidence that the BarkingMoon and Rlevse accounts are operated by the same persons, the question remains: should someone look at BarkingMoon's edits and should BM be added to the CCI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarities etc.

(work in progress)

• Edit summaries:

  "tks" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "ps" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "q#" –

  Rlevse:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

• BarkingMoon:

1

• PumpkinSky:

1 2 3

• Page editing overlaps:

  Rlevse and BarkingMoon

  Rlevse and PumpkinSky

  BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky

  The three together

More to come. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Without tools: it's not so surprising that PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon overlap on Noel F. Parrish, after the former was asked to help improving the latter's article and then helped bringing it to GA. Abbreviations: I use "tks" and "appr" myself. You use what you see and like, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but look who asked him, user:Ched Davis. BarkingMoon said he confided his real identity to the only admin he trusted, Ched. In that light, the thread about Parrish does more to confirm that they are all the same user.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Which begets the question what Ched knew all along about the three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And you think he would ask male or female then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible he shared the newer account(s) with relatives/friends in order to confuse potential investigations. But clearly a subset of edits by all three accounts were performed by the same person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying that possibility. If a subset, which subset? Aren't the individual accounts at least as coherent within themselves as they are with each other? That suggests at most one editor (or main editor, but exceptional edits need to be identified as such) per account. The question is whether those three (main) editors were three different people: so far, we know that two were the same person, which is a huge clue towards understanding the third. Geometry guy 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd best address that question to people who introduce evidence that subsets are strict. I have no such evidence. According to Raul654, John Vandenberg (speaking for the whole Arbitration Committee) said that BarkingMoon might be someone else because he seemed to know German and had a "completely different focus". Furthermore, Arbitrator Risker said that "there was also some contradictory and pretty-well-impossible-to-fake technical evidence against" BarkingMoon being the same as Rlevse . So ask ArbCom what contradictory evidence they have. Although I have presented evidence which indicates that at least some of the edits of BarkingMoon are very similar to those of Rlevse, I make no claim to have exhaustively checked all edits of BarkingMoon against those of Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The thread makes for very interesting reading with the benefit of hindsight (e.g., "Someone put a lot of work into that. Sorry about your friend." and "I'd rather people on the 'net know as little about me as possible."). Note also that Ched spotted PumpkinSky for working on a similar article to his departed friend, BarkingMoon. However this thread does not suggest that Ched thought PumpkinSky was BarkingMoon (unless they were both acting out a script, an assertion impossible to prove), and at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#stopping by, Ched has stated that to the best of his knowledge, BarkingMoon was "a former IP who registered". On the other hand Rlevse told Arbcom that BarkingMoon was related to him in some way. At the very least there is some economy with the truth going on here somewhere, if not outright lies. So far, it seems more likely to me that Ched was among the deceived, not the deceivers. Geometry guy 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to the "coincidences" copious uses of just "oops" as edit summary . And also "ref seq" . BarkingMoon and Rlevese also used "punct bef ref" and "recycle" in conjunction with "ref" The fanbois need to call it quits at this point. I've found a few more rare and interesting ones, but I'm stopping here per WP:BEANS, in case he creates a new account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add one more smoking gun to the evidence. BarkingMoon's 24th edit (as an obviously experienced editor) was this contribution to an ANI (!) thread about User:Damiens.rf where he commented "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped."

Of course BarkingMoon couldn't stop Damiens.rf without help, but Rlevse certainly did. Geometry guy 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which number the ANI edit was is even less impressive than the fact that it was made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created. I think the wiki-phrase for that is "obvious sock is obvious". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have looked through the user talk history of Damiens.rf for some "Former IP" who might have been as interested in this as Rlevse was, but have failed to find a convincing match.

My opinion (based on my understanding to date) is that Rlevse created and edited the BarkingMoon account, but somewhere along the way he became trapped in one of his own lies. He could not come clean because it would undermine a lie that would be very damaging/embarrassing to him. So he dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole as BarkingMoon (explaining the very insistent denials towards the end) and had to quit. When he came back as PumpkinSky, he had learned a lesson: to keep the lies under control. Consequently, when challenged, he was able to admit to the lie, and did.

As ASCIIn2Bme notes, he may find these discussions rather informative, should he try to give it another go with a new account. Handling that possibility is the next challenge the community needs to face. Geometry guy 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, isn't it correct that Checkuser is not Pixie dust? My impression is that it can prove someone is a sockpuppet, but it cannot prove they aren't. Rlevse formerly had CU rights so he was aware of how to avoid being caught by it. Just today, in light of this discussion, I came across circumstantial evidence that PumpkinSky used a proxy at one time. Isn't it possible that BarkingMoon may have also been masked through the use of proxies, different computer agents, etc?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about all of these questions. We're account specific here, so there's only so much I can say about technical details. What I can say is that the technical details returned from CheckUser make it highly unlikely that this was use of a proxy or a false useragent return. I'm very, very comfortable in saying that this is two different users editing from unique computers without even a veil of shade. I'm confident that BarkingMoon is a different individual from Rlevse. They may share an off-line or off-wiki connection and Rlevse may have educated the user on Misplaced Pages, but several other CheckUsers and myself found no probability that they are the same user based on the information we can gather, and this matter was extensively discussed when it occurred. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again without tools, and from someone who joined only in 2009, so has no memory of old stories: Rlevse is on my talk 31 times, 30 of those were the signature of a DYK, the only other (and last) was pointing out that there was a question raised on DYK, you don't have to look it up, the question was if I really wanted a Bach cantata DYK among the Halloween ones. BarkingMoon entered my talk with a wordy lengthy greeting which I keep on top because it still keeps me going. It feels different. Rlevse signed "Peace", BarkingMoon didn't. Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As said above, it is not impossible that the account was shared, so that some edits were made by someone else. But other edits surely do have the Rlevse signature: topic interests (Montana places, railroad pics of Rlevese, immediate desire to vote in RfA/RfB/ban discussion on positions matching Rlevse's), tons of edit identical obscure summaries (plase find another editor matching all those discussed here, or just "punct bef ref") these can't all be argued away because he no longer signed with "Peace". That's extremely myopic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It beggars belief that different people using completely different computers as you say can produce identical obscure abbreviations in such large numbers. Or that they hold the same rapport relative of a number of other users. Different computer does not necessarily imply different person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Mantamoreland use a similar method of having a "completely unrelated" DSL line in another city for his socks after his proxy editing was discovered? I find it very interesting that technical evidence is taken to be an absolute proof of innocence in the Rlevse case. Keegan, you will have to be somewhat more explicit as to what makes the evidence so exculpatory because the behavioral overlaps are similar in nature to those from the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke. There are in fact more dimensions of correlation here than were presented there. We can even tell apart Rlevse from his wife by just analyzing the edit summaries, never mind topic interests. And I'm sure technical evidence would have the two confounded. I do have the nagging feeling that functionaries are not acting in an unbiased fashion here, and that old friendships are acting as a distorting lens. You can't comment on the behavioral evidence? Seriously? Is that never used in SPIs? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Threatening"? Seriously, what the fuck? I've watched this whole Rlevse issue for a couple of days now, and I consider myself quite apathetic as to who's right and who's wrong here, but both you and Raul have repeatedly misinterpreted comments from various editors disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with you to an absurd degree. Please, stop that. There was no threat involved in any comments above. None whatsoever. Saying that there was is just.. weird, quite frankly. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly Conti, since you're an admin, you might not be as acutely aware of how statements like "do not continue down this line of thought" are aimed at non-admins. They generally translate to: if you continue this line of thought, you will be blocked for disruption. Happens all the time, everywhere, particularly at the AN and ANI noticeboards, where non-admins don't have the same right to speak as admins. Yes, it's a threat, because that's how it's often used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you missed the part that says "...without taking that into consideration". I think it's pretty fair to take the results of CU's into consideration, and I think that's all that sentence meant. You are, of course, still free to disregard that (You cannot prove the negative, after all, and with enough effort it is always possible to avoid a checkuser), but I think it's certainly worth noting. Anyhow, I am perfectly sure no threat was intended here, and if you are blocked for saying that you think the above mentioned account is a sockpuppet of Rlevse, I will personally unblock you myself. --Conti|✉ 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned response, Conti-- I've been threatened many times, so I probably see it differently than you do, and I remain concerned that Keegan's statements here were strong enough to stifle any remaining investigation and discussion (which is still needed). For the record, I have little doubt that some cowboy freshly minted admin will be drummed up on IRC to block me over this whole matter, I could care less, and I do not EVER want another admin to unblock me when I'm unfairly blocked. If someone unblocks me, that will prevent me from going to the arbs lest they also came under fire. If/when some cowboy IRC admin blocks me for trying to get to the bottom of this, I want to stay blocked, so there's a clean case, no wheel warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I remain quite doubtful that you will be blocked over this in the first place. :) Time will tell, I suppose. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your statement is a detriment to you. It brings concerns of baiting and pointy editing directly to the fore. That is the danger of overzealous motives, which you seem to have identified. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, baloney-- that I get unfairly threatened based on zero evidence or policy or reason all the time-- because I'm a high profile editor-- is fact. Nothing baity or pointy at all in stating the fact for the record, so that someone won't unblock me if it ever happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More: "u r": , "hey" , "rofl" , "brit" and "yank" , "avoid redir" , "after punct" . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence is extremely strong, really. If it's not Rlevse then it's someone who has closely studied and is deliberately copying his editing habits, which seems extremely unlikely. There are many ways to produce false technical evidence to throw off checkusers. I could give all kinds of examples here, but WP:BEANS. Checkuser evidence can't establish completely that an account is NOT a sock of someone else and every time it's a judgement call in reading the results and interpreting them. In the face of obvious behavioral evidence, it is illogical to keep saying that checkuser technical evidence cleared him because that's not possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests

1. Can someone check if the Rlevse account edited articles of Playboy centerfolds? Because the BarkingMoon account surely was interested in that too. Alas, if you hit me with a list of Playboy model names, I wouldn't be able to recognize one in a hundred off the top of my head, so this sleuthing job is for someone else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Does anyone know anything about the relationships between Rlevse Δ/Betacommand and Damiens.rf? I'm asking because of this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did randomly spot a nude model edit from 2008 but I only see one edit mentioning Playboy by name, and it's not about a centerfold. Checking the actual centerfold names is hard because they're generally not articles. I don't see many likely ones in the edit comments but I didn't look closely. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way

Since we've been introduced to User:JoJo as the spouse of Rlevse, it's interesting to note that although she tks'd a couple of times and also oopsed twice (although one of those was an oopsy something that Rlevse never used despite using oops more times than I can count), she never ps-ed (same link as before) or "recycled" refs (in the edit summaries). So, even in the family, the edit summary patterns are different between JoJo and the other three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary addressing concerns over specificity

I understand the concerns that "this could be anyone" raised by Gerda Arendt. Granted a single correlation proves little if anything. But have look at the multidimensional one considering Gerda Arendt's edits as the witness:

Brought to you by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Is it really necessary to edit-war on User:BarkingMoon while this discussion is ongoing? 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest someone protects the wrong version. Geometry guy 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI

This investigation should be moved to SPI, I think. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? So, some Checkuser/Arbitrator can close it again as "disproved" by technical evidence? That was done once before, so no thanks. Let's establish the community consensus on this, after the evidence is presented. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with ASCIIn2Bme. This was already moved here from AN/I per WP:CBAN, moving it again is just going to confuse people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ASCIIn2Bme. Too much conflicting information from checkusers, arbs, everyone involved-- CUs asserting as *fact* things that can't be conclusively known, arbs saying when CU evidence isn't clear to let the community decide on behavioral evidence, which is what is happening here. No, keep this open, let the folks examine the evidence (and let admins stop trying to close this off within minutes of new evidence coming to light). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENT notification

Hi - I thought the community should have a notification about what imo is a quite important RFC about the spreadingsantorum website and whether or not we should be linking to it from en wikipedia articles and I added it to WP:CENT - it was quickly removed diff - is it wrong or objectionable to attempt to attract community comments to this RFC using a link from WP:CENT? If so , please advise how to raise the profile of this RFC. User:Nomoskedasticity has removed it again after another user replaced it, Centralized discussion revision history - claiming its only a content dispute, but the main objections are WP:BLP and that it is an attack site created to demean a single living person. Is it a discussion of enough president to warrant centralized notification? thanks - Youreallycan 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My god this has gotten out of hand. Can we gat some non-American or politically neutral American admins to watch this a bit closer? We've had two bitterly worded RfCs on this in the past week, the page itself is on lockdown, I'm just not sure what else can be done... Sven Manguard Wha? 20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC

@Sven - Your comments are nothing at all to do with my question. Youreallycan 20:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CENTNOT is fairly clear about what issues do not go in the CENT template, and content disputes are among them. There are elements of BLP and ATTACK, certainly, but the disagreement at its core is whether the site can be discussed or linked without violating those policies. And that's a content dispute. If you're looking for somewhere to post notices regarding the RFC, you might post a note at the BLP noticeboard, or at the Administrator's Noticeboard in the context of "This is gonna get heated, please keep an eye out". UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like a couple of other admin opinions as to this issue - It seems quite reasonable to me to bring such a discussion via WP:CENT guidelines, to a wider community audience as per - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person. - Youreallycan 21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• CENT might be appropriate if there were a proposal to change a policy of some sort. The issue in this RfC is only the interpretation of policy as it applies to a single article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - User:Nomoskedasticity, what are your objections to the usual benefits to be expected from the wider community opining on this issue? Youreallycan 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Admin opinion -- content dispute, not suitable for centralized discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another admin opinion (Disclaimer: very involved): Discussion is ranging into the realm of whether WP:BLP or WP:ELOFFICIAL is more worthy of upholding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Virtually every content dispute is about the proper application of some policy or guideline to a content question. By your logic they would all belong on CENT: they obviously do not, or CENT would lose all its usefulness. That clause means discussion about existing policies etc. as such, not as applied to a particular content question. T. Canens (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly a policy clarification that is worthy of WP:CENT publication - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person. - Youreallycan 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I noticed that in the past disputes on that page were tagged with {{rfctag|policy}}—another misunderstanding of what that other venue is for, which probably stemmed from the same confusion that T. Canens dissected above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think WP:IAR should be invoked to use CENT for the spreadingsantorum linking issue because it is more than just another content matter. The issue concerns whether there should be a clickable link to an attack site—a link that would never normally be considered except for the fact that it is an outrageous and novel form of attack, and the target has a certain ability to incite such attacks. The wider community needs to be involved to determine whether WP:BLP is relevant to a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• But the instant you use it for this content dispute, the next one has a precedent, IAR or no. CENT is useful only because it is used sparingly, which is why CENTNOT exists. This is not a fundamental change in policy (or any change in policy at all), nor is it a wide-ranging conduct issue, and so it does not need to be on CENT. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• If someone wanted to start an actual policy discussion, that would be CENT-worthy, but it would need to be somewhere appropriate like WT:BLP and would need to consider why it's ok to link to the godhatesfags website twice from the Westboro Baptist Church page (a website that attacks a large group of living people), to David Duke's website twice from his article (despite its vile anti-semitism), to the website of white supremacist website from the Stormfront (website) page (a websit attacking living people on racial grounds). Oddly none of these links is the subject of massive debate like the santorum case... why does there seem to be far greater concern about an attack on Santorum than by attacks on homosexuals, blacks, Jews, or other minorities? If you want to continue to focus solely on Santorum then I suggest you keep it and the other endless debates on the campaign page (or whatever it is titled next). EdChem (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Yes, I find the interminable debates around this neologism that continue to downplay or ignore Santorum's homophobia and portray him as a helpless victim and ignore the harm he did that led to his being attacked very irritating.

I've updated the RFC advice to link to CENTNOT. Yes, this dispute is a big mess. No, CENT is not the right venue for advertising it. But you can and IMO should use all of the other recommended options, such as issuing {{Please see}} messages to all of the connected WikiProjects and BLPN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Of note I also placed (a month or so ago), what was interpreted by some as a single page content, a dispute that had already made rounds at a RfC and DRN and was in the process of a second RfC to help gain further community viewpoints. Because it was less with the individual page dispute and more a discussion of applying statistical means to a collection of various data qualified as Original Research that Misplaced Pages did and had the implication of affecting other "List of XXX by usage" articles I listed the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Acheron, Victoria

Hello,I would like to bring to your attention the article Acheron, Victoria, that IMHO should be checked. From august (this was the situation), it was really enlarged by the contributions of some anons and new users. The problem is that most of this contribs are unverified/unsourced, lots of sections are biographies, other are unclear or possibly not notable for an encyclopedia (an example), and other sects (and subsects) are empty. I'm also checking if all the content is free or a copyvio. Note: "Acheron History Project" (instead of "History") as section title sounds very strange, as a way to intend the article as a sort of AcheronWiki.org main page. I hope that this is the right place to request a "check" for an article. Sorry for eventual mistake and thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like one person - and IP's, but that's probably the same person before they got a user account - needs to learn about referencing. I've reverted their most recent additions and left them a note .

The article needs work to fix it up; any unreferenced info can be removed by anyone - and some of it should be removed. Other parts could possibly be referenced.

I can't see any need for admin intervention. DerBorg, for this type of issue, it'd be best to first contact the person adding the material, and ask them. For help, you're probably best asking on help desk, and/or a wikiproject (Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians' notice board). I've added a request on the latter .  Chzz  ►  01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for checking the article. Effectively, I've first supposed to "call" WP:HD but I didn't know the "how-to" in cases as this one. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New file upload wizard

I'd like to present an idea I've been working on, about a new file upload wizard. I have written a working draft that is currently at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. To test it, you will need to activate the Javascript, by adding

importScript('User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/uploadscript.js');

to your personal .js page (Special:Mypage/vector.js).

The idea is to have a wizard-style dialogue that guides the user through all the necessary decisions about copyright, sourcing and fair-use issues. Ideally, it could be deployed as a Gadget, or through site-wide js, once it's in a stable working state.

All help in further developing, bugfixing, testing and feedback will be greatly appreciated. I suggest discussion to be held at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Call for Beta Testers - new unblock tool

Hello administrators! User:TParis, User:DeltaQuad, User:Thehelpfulone, and I have been working recently on a new web application to assist with reviewing unblock requests. Currently, the general unblock process is to make your appeal on your user talk page, then email unblock-en-l AT lists.wikimedia.org if that doesn't work, then make a final appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee should that fail. Unfortunately, the mailing list has a number of problems associated with it. It's easy for appeals to get forgotten, prone to more than one person replying to the same request at the same time, and in past months it's frequently been the case that only a very small number of administrators have been handling all requests coming to the list (often more than a dozen or so daily). We have developed the Unblock Ticket Request System, or UTRS, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, to alleviate these issues and make the unblock experience much easier for both administrators and blocked users.

Before we officially launch this tool, however, we are looking for administrators to help beta test the tool. No prior experience in reviewing unblock requests is necessary, however we do require that you currently hold the sysop flag in order to have an account on UTRS. Interested administrators should apply for an account at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/register.php ; once your account is approved, you will receive further information via email about how the test will be conducted. Testers will also be asked to complete a survey after the test to document their experience with the tool.

If you have questions about UTRS or the beta test, please feel free to ask myself, User:TParis, User:DeltaQuad, User:Thehelpfulone. You can also email the development team at unblocktoolserver.org - all of us will receive the email. I'll also try to keep an eye on this page should any questions be asked here. Thanks to everyone who can assist with the beta test! Hersfold 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any on-wiki pages I can point WP:UTRS at? MBisanz 05:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, most of the discussion that led to the development of the tool took place on the unblock mailing list. I'd rather we not have too many references to it on-wiki just yet either; as we're just starting the beta test, it's probably best if people that are actually looking to be unblocked not accidentally end up there. Hersfold 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CalTech: Rankmaniac 2012

More of a heads up, but CalTech is running a program 'Rankmaniac 2012‎', where students are invited to optimize the Google ranking of a page on Misplaced Pages. I noticed this morning that XLinkBot is on it's 3RR limit for that page due to persistent spamming of links to that page, edit warring to get a link in/out etc. I have therefore semi-protected Rankmaniac 2012‎, and blocked all the involved accounts (logged in users indef, IPs for a month, the latter because I don't know how long the project will take, expecting that one month should be sufficient). I also went forward and blacklist the links. As Misplaced Pages is a sitting duck for spammers, I'd think to bring this notice to a wider public, this may not be over. --Dirk Beetstra 08:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugly, and totally agree. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a notice, I think it is rather ashaming that an institution like CalTech is using such programs in their teaching. It is all rather innocent, but it does result in their students getting a name as spammers, which, by the collective memory of the internet, may hunt them in years to come. --Dirk Beetstra 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but if you feel this way, you should tell them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, not sure if that is my responsibility (actually, that is CalTech's responsibility). It would be nice to tell every spammer on Misplaced Pages that they are not being very responsible in their actions, and that their actions can have severe side effects (in a way, we do warn them, and some of the editors here were warned for that as well), but that is quite a huge task. However, I do believe that it is our task to protect Misplaced Pages from abuse. --Dirk Beetstra 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope they know that wp pages are all served with rel=nofollow so none of those spam links get page rank. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the page. Even though the wording was not ultra-spammy, the sole purpose was search engine optimization, which falls under G11. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And salted for a month. Feel free to unsalt if you believe I overreacted. Salvio 13:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good call IMO. Manning (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock template - user friendly?

Am I the only one that thinks this isn't user friendly? I know that I occasionally stumble upon someone who hasn't been able to make it work and always have to find an example before I can fix it. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're not :) I've often found that especially for new users unfamiliar with wiki-markup as well as site policy (perhaps explaining their block) the unblock request is malformed. I'd be amazed if we haven't missed a significant number of unblock requests simply because the template has been used incorrectly or not at all. What the solution would be I don't know - maybe a preload template and a button to create the appropriate edit section in block notices? EyeSerene 11:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Like what we have to contest speedy deletions? That might work. And I may be the dumbest admin around, but I have a hard time responding to unblock requests. Maybe I don't do it often enough, but I have to reread and relearn the instructions every time. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be the dumbest admin around  Chzz  ►  19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with my user page & Admin dashboard

While looking for a list of unblock requests so I could fix a broken one, I discovered that not only could I not find it on my userpage where I thought I had it, but that my userpage isn't displaying properly anymore. Can anyone recomment a better Admin dashboard for me? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You could take a look at mine for a smaller example. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I use a simple one on my main user page, but it's more shortcuts than content. I do keep counts of the categories, though, and have a toggle if Snotbot finds bad AFDs. User:Ultraexactzz/usefulitemstemplate. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I stole it, Ultra--I hope that's OK. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

Noel Ashman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is SALTed, presumably due to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman; we now have Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Noel Ashman.

In light of the AfD/deletion log/SALT, I ask admins to check it out, decide if it's acceptable, and please let the AFC creator know (Noel Ashman (talk · contribs)

Not *quite* sure this is the best place to ask, but due to SALT I thought it might be; wasn't sure where else. Thx,  Chzz  ►  17:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a userfied copy of a deleted version that's had some edits at . Some of the references in the AFC version are pretty bare but the details can be pulled from the user copy. No clue on if it's viable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. Input required - we could discuss it right here. Presumably, it's WP:AUTO but still... an article is an article.

Or if someone wants to BOLDly make a decision - go for it. I guess, if it's 'accepted' (ie moved live), it could always go to AfD again.

Equally, if someone chooses to 'decline' it and tell 'em why, is fine by me.

I can't make the call regardless, 'coz of lack of the bit.

Incidentally, I have not alerted the user to this discussion; wasn't sure that'd be necessary/helpful in this inst, but if someone thinks it is, go for it.

TLDR is: "I can't 'accept' it anyway, due to SALT, so that's an admin thing. Someone make the call".  Chzz  ►  19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog