Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209

Administrator user page message

This is now at RFAR and there was no consensus to sanction the admin Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Anyone who knows this administrator, please look into this. (Note: The above edit took place after [removed link/topic deleted] an exchange on Talk:Jimbo Wales] took an unexpected turn/tone.) Someone who knows this administrator's history can perhaps interpret the situation appropriately as to response. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe you could apologize? Just a thought. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) We can examine the rhetorical dynamics of the exchange later — the concern now is the interpretation of the reaction, and whether any steps should be taken regarding any implications. Proofreader77 (interact) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC) There are no steps to take, in my opinion. The user is pissed off, and according to their talk page they'll likely be back after some time and some sleep. Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) Agreed, better safe than sorry. Let sleeping dogs lie. Outback the koala (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) @Equazcion You are looking at a message from 2 days ago on the talk page. (Not the responses today). Proofreader77 (interact) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I don't know why you think it's unexpected after your comment here [1]. Your comments were pretty unhelpful. He has plenty of latitude on his own talk page so I wouldn't worry about his edits. RxS (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)You're right. Still, I'd venture to guess the user is still simply pissed off. Nothing needs to be done as it's pretty clear he's still alive. Let's wait and see if he comes around. In the meantime, to facilitate that, it might be nice if you'd apologize, regardless of whether you feel you should need to. Rod seems to have been through some bad crap and your comments seem to have pushed him a bit hard. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) Mischaracterization, Equazcion, frequently rises to the level of standard operating procedure in this realm (and in our public culture in general) ... and if I called bullshit on all of it, my time would be completely consumed with repetition of that one word.... yada yada yada Now, as for the situation at hand, if editors who know this administrator's history and general patterns of behavior believe the situation requires no special action, then let this topic be closed, perhaps hat/hab collapsed. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Proofreader, your philosophies aside, it would nevertheless be nice if you apologized to Rod. He seems pretty hurt by what you said, and again, he seems to have already been through some bad stuff. If only to keep him from perhaps doing something foolish, you could take it upon yourself to make a gesture that you don't rightly feel you should justifiably need to make. Equazcion (talk) 04:10, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) Honestly, your initial comment to Rod was a completely gratuitous jab apparently made to give you a chuckle, which is keeping with almost every comment of yours I've ever seen on en.wikipedia. Then, after his obviously distressed reply, for you to go and say this is just gross. Treating fellow contributors with a modicum of respect is pretty essential to this project, and you were several light years away from doing that (starting this thread only compounded your original thoughtlessness). Personally I don't think people with you attitude belong here, and I'm disgusted enough by your actions to support banning you outright, particularly seeing as this is just one case and there seem to be a number of earlier troubling incidents. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) New users are regularly in the receiving end of such comments, and nobody cares when they say they will leave wikipedia. Sole Soul (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (12 hours later) the admin reverted their message Now that the message has been clarified as a virtual message rather than a real emergency, an analysis of the situation can proceed if one is desired. (An administrator replacing their their user page with "{{Deceased}}" for 12 hours in response to an interaction is a serious matter.) Note: I have prepared a first draft of diffs and analysis in a sandbox, should it appear they will be useful. Proofreader77 (interact) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Proofreader77, what do you suggest be done to Rod? Can you be more clear? Sole Soul (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. I know because I used to talk like this too, before I decided to join the rest of humanity. There isn't much to analyze, and yes I took a look over your sandbox notes. Regardless of the administrator's overall editing history (which you could take up at RFC/U or ArbCom if you really feel he should be de-opped), you were acting like a dick (which as Bigtimepeace points out is not out-of-the-ordinary for you). No amount of clinical analysis of the past is going to change that. Equazcion (talk) 19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Sole Soul I brought the message here initially because I did not have sufficient knowledge of the administrator's history to interpret that action (was it an emergency?). I believe the most popular issue is now, not what to do about Rod's message ... but what to do with Proofreader77. :-) With respect to this situation, we can address both at once — but as for previous matters, I suggest all interested in expressing outrage regarding Proofreader77 wait for the RfAR regarding "Three bad blocks." --Proofreader77 (interact) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) En attendant Godot ? Mathsci (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Proofreader, this thread should have been closed before Bigtimepeace decided to bring his grudge here. Just ignore them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) DuncanHill I assure you I have no "grudge" against Proofreader77 whatsoever. The only interaction I ever had with that editor previously was a lighthearted one (see for example the top of my talk page). Nonetheless I'm quite bothered by their interaction with Rodhullandemu, and there are clearly past examples of similar problematic behavior, hence several blocks. Surely you realize it's possible for one editor to have a problem with another's behavior without there being some sort of "grudge" involved, and I have no idea where you are getting that from. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Documentation for ArbCom: Current revision as of 20:06, 14 February 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (→Administrator user page message: warning) Allegation/aspersion of "trolling" for bringing serious matter to AN regarding administrator behavior. Proofreader77 (interact) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the warning was regarding comments made before and after you brought the serious matter here, Proofreader. ArbCom isn't so stupid as to treat the heading of a section as a wholesale representation of the entire discussion. Equazcion (talk) 20:16, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) Proofreader's comments were pretty innocuous, and certainly didn't deserve the over the top response from Rod. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) In your opinion. I'd gladly swap lives with you, but I'm not sure you'd have the fortitude to resist the slings and arrows... etc. Rodhullandemu 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) There isn't really any objective way to look at it. Comments are as innocuous as anyone feels they are. They clearly bothered Rod significantly though, and once that was clear, they shouldn't have been repeated, so long as they were part of an exchange that had no bearing on any Wikipedia process. That's part of what being a dick is all about -- doing things you know are bothering people, in the pursuit of nothing else in particular. Equazcion (talk) 20:23, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) Appearing to threaten suicide over a jibe about Monty Python is pretty dickish in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC) There's only one editor acting like a dick here and it's Proofreader. I cannot believe anyone is spending a split second defending him. RxS (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed. I fully agree with Bigtimepeace's analysis above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC) If you've ever been sufficiently upset to make that kind of statement, you'd know that Rod's and Proofreader's respective intents were very different. One was making statements he knew were pissing someone off, while the other was reacting to those taunts by being frustrated and irrational. There's only one clear dick in that scenario, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) DuncanHill your tone-deafness here is pretty mind-boggling. Rod obviously had some serious real-life difficulties of late (did you maybe miss that?), pointed that out after Proofreader made a snarky and utterly gratuitous comment about him, and then Proofreader continued the snark, before starting a thread here about the whole matter. Like RxS I can't see how on earth anyone can defend that. It's not an official rule around here as far as I know, but one would think that it's common sense to treat each another like human beings. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) We usually block editors who make suicide threats, and quote "Wikipedia is not therapy" at those who use their real-world troubles to excuse outbursts on Wikipedia. Plenty of editors have very grave real-world matters affecting them but manage not to bring them onto Wikipedia. My advice to Proofreader is that the next time he sees an admin threaten suicide he keeps quiet and lets them get on with it, instead of coming here to ask if anyone can help. This thread should have been closed as soon as we saw that Rod was alive and editing normally again, it is a shame that Bigtimepeace chose to re-ignite it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) As for the outburst policy, I don't really see an outburst, just a tag in userspace, which isn't something I'd call disruptive. And, threads often begin about one thing and become about something else, ie. WP:PLAXICO. Proofreader did the right thing coming here, but that doesn't excuse his prior behavior, which partially led to him even having anything to report. If you stab a guy in the leg and then call the cops when he threatens to jump off a building, you still get charged. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) It's worth pointing out for the record that, after some disruptive postings to this thread which were reverted, Proofreader77 was blocked for 48 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This led to further posts by Proofreader77 on their talk page, and now User:Gwen Gale has blocked indefinitely. If this block needs any discussion I suppose this is as good a place as any to do it. Personally I support the block given Proofreader77's history and this latest incident. If there was an indication that the editor understood why their behavior was problematic I'd probably feel differently, but so far there's no evidence of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion is occuring currently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Proofreader77_Indef_Block_consensus_review. Probably best to keep the feedback over the indef in one place. --Taelus (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) My broadband went down last night (presumably under the weight of Valentine messages) so I never got to add - why on earth does anyone think "go away, I'm dead!" was a suicide threat in the first place. Given the editor in question. Or perhaps its just not appreciating English (very)black humour? As for Proofreader77, I'll add my comments in the other place, but I won't miss him if he's gone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Members Church of God International

I would highly appreciate monitoring the neutrality of this article as well as the article of its rival organization: Iglesia Ni Kristo. As a background, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Catholic. These two are independent Christian Denominations. Note that both being 'Christian ' is in Dispute. Both are accused of being 'cults'. What ever the wiki guidelines are, my definition of a cult is an alleged 'religious or 'spiritual organization that engages in physical or psychological harrassment to control, done to an individual or society, or engages in financial scams or condones sex with minors or violence. These two don't. I 've currently blocked the article but will be unblocking in a week or two.Thank you in advance.--Jondel (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't look like a full page protection was necessary. Not even convinced semi-protection would have been needed, and it seems like you are involved? I don't know the full background, so forgive me, but this seems like a questionable admin action.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will at least put it to as minimum protection as possible. I'm very sure though that a paragraph stating it being a cult will be inserted as [ soon as the protections is removed]possible. My only involvement is trying to maintain neutrality. --Jondel (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected from unregistered and new users for 1 month. I think this is appropriate.--Jondel (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

We have a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD. I am unable to close most of them due to COI. I would be happy to help with any cleanup issues after closing. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC needs more input

I started a Request for Comments a week ago, but so far only six people have participated in it, although the result would have an impact on thousands of articles, either by removing a template from many, or by allowing the addition of it to many others. More input from experienced editors (admins and non admns) can perhaps get the discussion rolling again and help us develop a consensus one way or the other. The RfC is Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My alternative account

Just a short announcement to say that I have created an alternative account at User:Mjroots2 for use at public terminals and when I may be away from my own computer and not in need of the use of Admin tools. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Major backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Backlog at WP:SFD is pretty big (going back to December 11). Can someone please help close the discussions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Question About Starting An Article

What would the chance of deletion be for starting an article about 2010 New England town meetings, there seems to be some precedent for municipal elections, but in New Hampshire, and I assume other New England states, the town meeting doubles as a municipal election and a congress of the town's legislative body (local boards are legally only considered administrative caretakers for the direct democracy of the voters). Doc Quintana (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask the Help Desk or VP. Some admins hate it when this board is not used for issues like asking administrators to block others. See your talk page for advice. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Update Template:Table cell templates?

The common code of Template:Table cell templates was updated about a month ago (mostly to center cell text), and all of the unprotected cell templates were likewise changed for consistency. But the templates: {{yes}}, {{yes2}}, {{no}}, {{no2}} and {{rh}} all have permanent protection and cannot be changed by non-administrators. Could someone please update those templates, or in some way make all the table cells consistent? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith (towards Peter Damian)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent PD socks I am aware of:

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

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

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

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

Tarc, please don't even think about suggesting ban evasion isn't a good reason the block the accounts - I support an unblock, but please don't go down that route. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you think it's a good idea making a comment like that when you've just come off a block for incivility? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• I would like to see Peter unblocked. He does good work, and the current situation is that it's being deleted because he's banned. There's a philosophy article he wrote recently, Illuminationism, which was deleted by Fram, who also redirected the title to a different topic. I asked Fram to consider undeleting, but she said I'd have to take responsibility for the contents. [3] That's an awkward thing to ask, because the sources aren't online so it would involve quite a lot of work to check them, though I see it has now been reproduced by Child of Midnight. [4] I'd support an unblock for him to work only on articles and article talk, plus no interaction with editors he's had problems with in the past. If things work out—after, say, a year of editing with no problems—he can ask to be allowed to post in other areas too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And how can we have any confidence at all that he would abide by those restrictions? He is banned and restricted from socking, yet he's doing that. He was banned for failing to abide by restrictions. How many times must he be caught with his hand in the cookie jar before we grow a collective brain and move the cookie jar out of reach? → ROUX ₪ 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with ChildofMidnight, Slimvirgin et al that it would be a good idea to unblock Peter Damian: when sets his mind to it, he can be an excellent editor. Just my two centimes worth :) Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not redirect it to a different topic, I reverted it back to the situation it was before PD came in: someone else had created the redirect to that topic, not me. As for the "awkward thing to ask", namely that you take responsability for the edits, this is not awkward at all, but comes straight from our WP:BAN policy page: "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." It is in general useful, when discussing things like unbanning a prolific sockpuppeteer, to actually check the relevant policies, instead of making unwarranted sweeps at another editor. Fram (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reinserting thread archived by MiszaBot. —Soap— 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ease of editing break

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

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

Several people have said they'd like to see Peter Damian unblocked. So would many of us, myself included. The problem in the larger picture is that we ask people to refrain from socking. How can we expect banned users to take that message seriously if socking can prompt a discussion that ends their ban the next day? Peter has plenty of talents that he's welcome to put to use right now at other WMF sites. If he does so for three months without socking here, I'll initiate an unban discussion for him myself (see WP:SO for details). That's a fair offer. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Slightly more than one year ago Peter Damian was granted an unban on the heels of a socking episode; the result did not turn out well. Wikipedia:Standard offer usually works; am not aware of that Mutawandi example and would have made the same offer there. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Call it a difference of wikiphilosophy, then. This website does not have a good track record at dealing with editors who contribute worthwhile content in article space while being disruptive elsewhere. The question is whether an individual willing to abide by the same standards the rest of us observe. Does content work amount to an exemption from behavioral policies? We've allowed case-by-case discussions on that point to consume inordinate amounts of volunteer energy. Refraining from socking is a minimal demonstration of respect for policy. Those who wait for several months are more likely to make a successful return. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

One of his socks tried twice to whitewash the Think of the children fallacious argument[5][6], and then used that same argument on Jimbo. That was 10 days ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's called gaming the system. PD is banned for good reasons, he is following a route taken by other banned users of socking to create some uncontentious content which can then be exploited to divide the community based on the quality of that content, in an attempt to obscure or distract from the documented fact that the user is banned for good reasons. It's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and we don't need it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Per Guy. There isn't a good answer to this problem, but it is worth remembering that Peter Damien has previously expressed a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach with these: he argued that he would deliberately create articles as a sock of a banned user, and, if the content remained, he claimed a win, arguing that WP permits him to edit in spite of his banning. If the content was removed, and/or if the sock was blocked, he argued that he had won, because it showed that WP is more concerned with punishing editors than building an encyclopedia, and he could take this evidence to donors. It's an odd game, that I could never see as carrying much weight, but it's probably worth keeping in mind in relation to current actions. Alternatively, maybe he does just really want to create articles. - Bilby (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the links. Per Bilby's – an odd game indeed, but admins who oblige with a block when PD blows his cover are playing into it. Anyone here can edit under any number of names. Abusers are reasonably banned, as far as I can see, for what they do on particular pages or a whole series of pages – less reasonably, I believe, for who they are, who they later claim to be, or even their admission of ulterior motive in offering positive contributions. A review of banning and blocking policies might be in order. Haploidavey (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is silly to say that by blocking sockpuppets of banned users we are in some way playing into their hands. It's just a housekeeping job. We don't have the concept of a little bit banned, if someone is banned it's because they are a net drain on the project, and this thread is a perfect example of a drain on the project which costs PD virtually nothing. If he wants to appeal the ban he can do it in the orthodox way by contacting the ban appeal subcommittee. If he is so very confident of his case this should be a straightforward process. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also fail to see how we are playing into his hands when he is wasting hours of his time, and we could be done with it in only a few minutes. Just make it obvious to him that none of his contributions, no matter if they are good or bad, are welcome here, since he is a banned user who is during his bans creating and using good hand - bad hand accounts to avoid scrutiny of all his edits. I don't understand the people who feel that content is more important than anything else, and believe that they are the sole people playing into his hand and making his socking and siruption worthwhile to him. I'll continue to block his socks and delete his contributions, and ignore him otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked the main account without talk page access, since he is not interested in unbanning, but just in soapboxing. He has enough other outlets where he can do this, he blew his chance here when he created problematic socks again. Fram (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, PD emailed me about this, I am not sure how much of this thread is the result of email and other offsite comments by PD to other people. My advice to him was the same as I said above: we have a ban appeals subcommittee and an arbitration committee, that is the proper route for appealing this ban if he wants to continue editing Wikipedia. Otherwise he should simply find himself another hobby. The regularity with which his socks are discovered argues against his assertion that his editing is uncontroversial and indistinguishable form that of any other editor interested in collecting the sum of human knowledge. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChildOfMidnight and Slim, and especially with WBJScribe: Peter Damian has been treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. There was indeed something wrong with the ban to begin with. The question is whether this editor has been treated so badly by Wikipedia that he now hates it too much to work in good faith here. Things like that happen, unfortunately. It seems unnecessarily cynical to keep PD blocked for such a reason, though. Can he do a lot of harm? No. Can he do good, by using his editing skills and knowledge? Yes. As for re-locking his talkpage when this discussion is over, I request that you don't do that, Fram. (The page is unprotected at this moment.) Allowing a blocked or banned user to use his talkpage is the normal option. The reason you give for locking it, "Page should only be used to ask for an unblock so this is misuse,"[7] is quite a new rule, as far as I know. If you don't want to see what he says, can't you just not go look? Admins (and, a fortiori, arbitrators) should think twice before throwing their power around. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

• Hey? I inserted the "Ease of editing break" above because the Peter Damian thread was so frigging long. No sooner had I done that than the top half of the thread disappeared. WTF? Somebody find it and put it back, please? That thread was by no means ready for archiving. And as for archiving half of it... Come on, could somebody fix this? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

I've just restored the parts that I believe you were speaking of. —Soap— 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on this ban appear to be rather mixed. I'm not sure in such circumstances that keeping the ban makes sense. Community bans are a product of community consensus. If that consensus no longer exists, I don't see how the ban can outlast it. Requiring PD to "plead his case" seems rather unnecessary. Surely we are capable of just admitting that we may have gotten it wrong (or at least being open to the possibility). I propose that we simply unblock Peter Damian (talk · contribs) and leave the next step up to him. Let him know that he is welcome to resume contributing, if he so wishes. If he chooses to do so (and per Bish, I can see why he might not want to), then lets deal with any problems that arise then. A lot has been made in this thread of the fact that PD is "evading his ban" but little to say that the ban was justified in the place. Without wanting to reopen old wounds, we (including I) could have handled this much better back in 2007/2008. There is no real risk to welcoming PD back as against keeping the status quo. WJBscribe (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree here. A strong consensus was established in the last ban discussion to ban Peter Damian, as people felt he was a net negative drain on the time of the Community. Keeping him banned is the status quo. There is most certainly no consensus to lift the ban, and I would strongly object to doing so based on the above discussion. If Peter Damian wants to be formally welcomed back into the Community, I would certainly want to see some restrictions placed on him to avoid the debacle of last time, probably along the lines of what Ryan mentioned above. NW (Talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And the first step has to be a formal request, rather than continual ban evasion. Ban evasion is self-fulfilling, since it is itself grounds for banning. I don't know whether I'm in favour of the original ban or not, but we have a process and if he wants to edit Wikipedia he needs to follow it. The assertion that his edits are unproblematic is, to my mind, countered by the obvious fact that he keeps being found out. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

...and that two of his socks were blocked in December and January without the blocker even knowing that the account was a PD sock, but only on the basis of the actual edits. Fram (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Salting request

I'm not sure if this is the right place to request it, but four iterations of a persistently recreated article title need to be salted - Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gore effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Gore effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This has been the subject of two AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect) and three speedy deletions. It was re-created earlier today in an attempt to disruptively make a point but has since been speedied yet again. To avoid yet more disruption, could the titles please be salted? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Not that I mind at all doing it, but in the future we do have a dedicated noticeboard for this at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I didn't know that RFPP also dealt with salting. Noted for future reference. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By way of explanation - salting is a form of page protection. Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Salting is page protection; there's no technical difference. It's simply protecting a non-existent page so that it cannot be created. Tan | 39 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Thanks for being precise. Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

I'm not seeing much recent progress with white-list requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Ultimately it's an admin only task so, err, on you go, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. MER-C 07:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a serious problem. We could really use some more administrators active on both lists! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a great way to get trolled mercilessly :-) Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic/interaction ban of User:Tbsdy lives

Resolved

 – No consensus for topic ban. Take it to RFC if necessary. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus for enact this and anything else is just needless drama. I'm sure you can find RFC/U if the problems continue Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposal Based on his treatment of User:GiacomoReturned at Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise and this ANI thread, I propose a topic ban be imposed for User:Tbsdy lives for the article Blenheim Palace, and an interaction ban imposed on both users from interaction with, or comments regarding, each other. Tbsdy has shown an inflammatory attitude towards Giano that has grown into a volatile situation. Against all recommendations both at the aforementioned ANI thread and at the article talk page, Tbsdy insists on continuing to scrutinize Giano's edits. Specifically, Giano has, in response to difficulties at the Blenheim Palace article, announced that he's preparing a userspace draft. Tbsdy announced in response that he'd be scrutinizing that draft once it's placed into mainspace, which further inflamed the situation. There also seems to be some further history regarding some alleged hounding, harassment, and/or deliberate baiting by Tbsdy of Giano. The myriad of ANI threads posted by Tbsdy regarding Giano have been pointed out, along with some other pages and comments: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano" ANI thread ANI thread ANI thread ANI thread Talk page comment Talk page comment Talk page comment Tbsdy was told by several editors that it would be best if he laid off the article for a while, and ceased interaction with Giano. He's nevertheless made it clear that he intends to do the opposite. His subsequent interactions with users at the article talk page, and in multiple frivolous ANI postings, have been tendentious and unyielding. Therefore I think it would be prudent to solidify the aforementioned suggestions into a topic and interaction ban, so as to avoid further unpleasantness. Giano is probably not entirely innocent in all of this. However, Tbsdy's attitude regarding Giano has escalated to the point that he doesn't seem to be seeking any sort of resolution, as he tends to further inflame the situation at every opportunity. I feel Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise offers a somewhat adequate picture of this. I'm coming at this from an entirely uninvolved standpoint, as before my interaction with Tbsdy on Talk:Blenheim Palace, I've had no significant previous interaction with either editor, so far as I can remember. I propose the following: User:Tbsdy lives is banned from editing Blenheim Palace and Talk:Blenheim Palace for a period of 3 months. User:Tbsdy lives is banned from interacting with, or commenting about User:GiacomoReturned, for a period of 6 months. User:GiacomoReturned is banned from interacting with, or commenting about User:Tbsdy lives, for a period of 6 months. On Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks, a page on which both users have been participating, the users are banned from responding directly to each other's comments, or from speaking about each other, for a period of 6 months. All the specifics are of course up for discussion if there is disagreement over appropriate time periods or whatnot. Equazcion (talk) 01:16, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Response from Tbsdy I am disturbed by the assumption that I have been either trolling or baiting Giano. Others may make their own opinion, but as this has been raised before I would ask the following: Have I ever been incivil or rude to Giano on the talk page in question? Have I ever displayed trollish or baiting tendencies before - am I such an editor? I don't believe I have been accused of this before, and I don't agree that is what I am doing now. Have I ever made personal comments about Giano or asserted article ownership on the talk page of that article? Was my attempt at a compromise acceptable, and if not why not? I made this attempt in good conscience. I note that compromise is a two way street, I said that I was willing to leave the article alone, but that I would research the topic and when Giano was finished I would be happy to copyedit and provide references to improve the article in an attempt to get it to FA status. Now given that I was trying to find a compromise, isn't this article ban discussion a little premature? There are also a number of questions I think we should be asking about other parties that are involved in this ban discussion. Specifically I ask the following: Has Giano been rude or has he ever tried to intimidate myself or other editors on that article? I believe that he has, and there is evidence of baiting and hounding of Labattblueboy who has since disengaged from the article entirely, simply because of feeling under attack by this one editor. There were issues where a bounty board template was repeatedly removed. I filed an ANI case about this as the one reverting refused to discuss the matter (the editor is Unitanode). Unitanode originally filed the initial ban, yet he was in the process of edit warring. Is this proper, and was it proper for him to have asked for an interaction ban as well as an article ban on an article talk page? I have asked this a few times in the previous discussion, this was never answered. Has the nominator of this ban ever communicated via email or any means off the wiki in an attempt to coordinate a ban of me from this article with any other editor? Why did the nominator canvas all those who supported my ban last time, but not Ludwigs2 et al., who did not support the ban? I will refrain from commenting further on this topic (unless I am asked directly about something) and I bow to the consensus of the community. My only ask is that this discussion be allowed to go for sufficent time that a number of editors can give feedback. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to note that I have a long-winded and extended summary of what I believe has happened to me in the past few days. It was written while I was exhausted, so hopefully it makes a reasonable amount of sense. It can be found here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy, implied allegations against the nominator in the form of questions are unhelpful. Please desist from them. If you have any reason to think Equazcion has been conspiring to get you banned by means of off-wiki spamming, it's better to come out and say so. Bishonen | talk. I suspect this to be the case. User talk:Unitanode#Ping and User talk:Unitanode#Ping again are the reasons. I would like them to confirm or deny this. If they don't want to, fine I suppose. If they want to deny it, then my question is answered. I leave it to their own conscience to tell the truth. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It sounds like a good question to me. I wonder what the answer is. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC) My answer is on Chillum's talk page for whoever is interested. Equazcion (talk) 15:25, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) So the answer is yes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Respond to my answer on Chillum's talk page. I'll be glad to either confirm or deny or provide an explanation for whatever your question is there. Equazcion (talk) 15:54, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I find it odd that you are responding to my question on Chillum's page. You brought this thread into being. Why not just respond here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I've answered that question on Chillum's talk page as well. Equazcion (talk) 16:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) The above accusations of bad-faith are simply more examples of problematic behavior from Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You were one of the ones doing the emailing. There is evidence you don't like me, you called me a "master-baiter", and when you were pinged on it you got very upset. I found the comment amusing, but many others did not. I can only assume you were trying to get me mad and get a reaction out of me. In other words, you did what you have accused me of doing, time and time again - baiting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oh stop. You're just trying to muddy the waters some more. As for "doing the emailing", it was little more than, "Do you want to help me redraft the proposal?" "No, but ping me when you've done so." "Okay, will do." That's obviously a paraphrase, but there was nothing nefarious. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You said I was a "master-baiter". Later on you admitted you meant it as a pun. You were trying to needle me. Are you saying otherwise? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'd say it's pretty clear he doesn't like you, Tb :) And yes he was one of the ones doing the emailing. Emailing is allowed around here, Tb. Don't assume bad faith, that the emails must have been a part of the perpetration of some violation. Equazcion (talk) 16:19, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Now why would that be something to smile about? Emailing is allowed, but not to coordinate a ban discussion. I don't know if you recall, but it's very bad form to make admin decisions on the IRC channel. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You've been told what the substance of the conversation was. You're choosing to willfully misrepresent (read: lie) about it now. You need to stop doing that right now. It's wildly inappropriate. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Emailing isn't allowed to coordinate a ban discussion? If you point me to that policy I'll concede that it was poor form and apologize. And I'm not an admin. Equazcion (talk) 18:18, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I know you aren't. I see you archiving threads all the time on here and ANI, even when the party who brings the thread says that the issue is not resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion I find this a tad unsatisfying. Tsby might have some issues with Giano, but he's frankly quite right that Giano has ownership issues over his article; the drafting of a userspace draft is unhelpful and uncollaborative in any respect, and I find it disturbing that the solution some propose is "there's plenty of articles, let Giano have this one". That's avoiding the underlying issue in part; what happens when other editors make the mistake of blundering into Giano's articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Giano decided on the userspace draft only after his {{inuse}} tag was removed (not by Tbsdy), allegedly because it was seen as an assertion of ownership. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) What about this comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yes please. TBSDY needs to leave Giano alone. TBSDY is either being disigenuous about his actions or he is completely unable to understand correct behavior (I suspect both). Giano is not blameless here, but TBSDY is absolutely the root of this problem; his baiting and antagonizing of Giano is unacceptable. ÷seresin 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support, as Tbsdy has shown a propensity to drag disputes with people he dislikes to completely unrelated pages, and to open unactionable ANI threads regarding the same people. Additionally, he has indicated that he will completely ignore the unanimous opinion of those who commented at Talk:Blenheim Palace that he refrain from editing that article, and leave Giano alone. If he won't honor that unanimous request, then it needs to be formalized in this manner. His harassing and baiting of Giano is unacceptable. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) support as a practical way of dealing with it. I expect that 6 months from now both editors will be otherwise engaged DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose. It looks as though this issue has gone away of its own accord; no need to stir things up again with a topic ban. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy has promised that once Giano enacts his draft in mainspace that he'll "poor (sic) over it with a fine tooth comb". He's also stated that he "watches him ([Giano]) with interest". So although the arguing has died down in the past day, I don't think that's an indication that it's over, and there's a good chance it'll flair up again once Giano enacts the draft. Equazcion (talk) 00:39, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I have already stated that was just poor wording and that I was only saying this because of the high standards of FAC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Those aren't recent diffs, E. I think this proposal just stirs up the drama again. Sorry. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) They're from yesterday. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) They're from over 30 hours ago, from before the dispute appears to have ended. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) That's a bit ludicrous. Tbsdy has made it clear he's going to keep hounding Giano, and the only reason he stopped was because NW basically demanded that he do so for 24 hours, with the understanding that this discussion would open after that point. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I have never said this or even expressed such an opinion. For the record, I have never had nor do I have any intention of trolling, baiting or insulting Giano. I have previously expressed the opinion that I believe him to be corrosive and nasty, it was unwise of me to express these private opinions in a public setting and I have already apologised to him for this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) (to SlimVirgin): I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think this particular day-long break in the fight is an indication that it's over. The dispute seemingly "ended" a little over 24 hours ago only because User:NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break from it. See the thread on his talk page. Equazcion (talk) 01:00, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) My thinking is that once people have slept on an issue, they often decide not to revisit it—so long as it's left alone by others too. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's very encouraging, though, that when NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break, they did. – ClockworkSoul 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed, as he requested this, that is what I did. I find it interesting that this has been raised again, I am also quite concerned that this was raised on the article talk page with the attitude that it there was a predetermined conclusion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think you did. This is from after the request was made... and after you agreed to it. Plus, the comment made to me (there are two comments in that diff) seemed like a baiting attempt. I said I was willing to wait 24 hours before resuming, to which you said "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, huh?" If you agree to wait, you're not supposed to make a comment that's likely to invite more argument. I don't see how that was constructive at all, and it's that kind of behavior that has me worried for the future of this dispute. Equazcion (talk) 03:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I think resolution is better than control and wonder if control like this will stop the issue being resolved naturally. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed. It seems to me that the past 24 hours at least suggests that both parties are not entirely unreasonable, and therefore probably capable of resolving the issue without administrative action. – ClockworkSoul 01:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I support Equazcion's proposal. It doesn't matter which of the editors is most at fault; WP:HOUND is policy, and tbsdy is bound to follow it. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC). I'll support this with the durations as written. Tbsdy had the option to actually write revised text and show it out for consideration, whichever space it was in. That would have been an actual challenge. Instead they chose to just keep talking about what might happen next weekend, to no great purpose. Send 'em off to separate corners sez I. Franamax (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I think something needs sorting here. I've discussed this with tbsdy and know that he was stressed due to being up too long. I'm hopeful that he will voluntarily agree to, ah, change tack. Giano's away for a few days, so the timing here is not best. I may revisit this tomorrow. Jack Merridew 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose – While I would have expected better behavior form such experienced and respected editors, every single one of us has, at some time or another, been caught in the moment and taken things too far. As each of us also knows (or should know), administrative solutions like the one proposed tend to have unintended negative consequences; doubly so for bans with such long durations. It seems to me that reasonable persons might be "scare straight" seeing the discussion here, and as such I strongly recommend – for now – a stern community warning, which can also lay the groundwork for swift action if things don't quickly improve. I would hate to see yet more otherwise good, productive editors be driven from the project by either conflicts or their solutions. – ClockworkSoul 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment Regarding the suggestion that it might die down on its own since people have had time to sleep, and because they responded well to the request to take a 24-hour break: NW's request wasn't heeded initially. NW had to lock his talk page to get the dispute to stop. Also, this problem has been ongoing since at least 5 days ago, so presumably people have been sleeping during that time on occasion, and yet it has continued. Just pointing that out. Equazcion (talk) 01:52, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Could NW comment on this please? Was this due to any one participant? The comment above implies it was locked due to a particular party - was this the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I locked my talk page because all three participants (Tbsdy, Equazcion, Unitanode) were continuing to engage each other after I requested that they stop. This is the relevant diff. NW (Talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) All due respect, but my only comment following the request was to say I was willing to heed it. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Err, you are probably right. I didn't exactly look too hard at what each of you was saying; I had just started to get annoyed that I was getting orange-barred every few minutes after I had explicitly requested that you guys cease your argument. Still, I think that it was a positive sign that the discussion ended after my 15 minute page protection. NW (Talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'll have to apologise here, I didn't see the warning that you didn't want to discuss the matter any further. I never actually noticed you'd protected the page as I'd stopped responding there (I think I went to sleep, not sure of the exact timing of things, I was pretty tired). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose No real basis for such an action. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose without prejudice pending actual dispute resolution. A couple of days' flurry of talk page threads and (mostly misfiled) admin board complaints are not the type of thing that should result in a sanction unless a substantial prior history of problems is demonstrable. Try WP:RFC, please. Preferably regarding the content, or resort to conduct if that fails. Mediation is another option. Durova409 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm sorry it had to come to this for Tbsdy. But it seems that history keeps repeating itself. Giano somehow acts as a magnet for weird occurences. The cummulative effect of this, the latest series of unfortunate events, is that the venerable Blenheim palace has now morphed into the O.K. Corral of editing decorated not by baroque-style ornaments but by silly pirate cartoons with birds on their shoulders announcing bounties custom-made for Giano as if he were not the Wikipedia editor he is, but Billy Clanton with Wyatt Earp on his trail. Obviously this nonsense has to stop, hopefully by mutual agreement and not by the use of the banhammer. However recent history, if it is any guide, is not very encouraging in that regard. But even the not-so-recent history involving Giano points generally in the same unfortunate direction. Unless cooler heads prevail, a showdown is inevitable followed by the usual drama of bans, retirements etc. I hope it will not be déjà vu all over again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sigh I am hoping that this settles down.....hopefully this won't be needed. I am undecided about the need for this but the next few days will be enlightening hopefully. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose. This is a very small amount of activity to warrant imposing such bans, and in any event, the fireworks seem to have guttered out. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Other methods of disupute resolution have not been exhausted, and I don't see evidence of a long history of problems that would indicate that these recent incidents warrant this level of sanctioning. Hand out a few trouts, suggest nicely that both users retreat to a neutral corner for a few days, and lets see if this doesn't blow over on its own. Seeking proper dispute resolution should be a step in here, and we shouldn't jump to interaction and topic bans at the first sign of trouble. --Jayron32 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support, tentatively. I'm a long-time reader, first-time editor, so my opinion may be worth little, however, I once observed this interaction between the admin in question and another contributor which seems eerily reminiscent of this current one. This type of aggressive interaction with editors seems to be the modus operandi of the admin in question. This was followed by a knock-down, drag-out combat with another admin in which the admin in question really became completely unhinged. There seems to be something not quite right here. The admin in question seems to feel a high-degree of ownership over wikipedia, which is great, but is being taken way too far and too often. I voted support but I would be fine to see some alternate arrangement if the admin in question agreed to some type of anger management counseling. Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (stricken sock vote -tarc) As I suspected, this is a currently blocked editor. This has now been confirmed as Nothughthomas. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor for more info. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) support the admin has a history of these sorts of behaviors if you look at his old account. hard to believe he was allowed to regain admin status. typical of wikipedia though. --- 69.211.3.12 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You know, I was an ass for doing that, I can't disagree. It was an incredibly poor display of judgment, and definitely a violation of WP:POINT. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Tbsdy isn't the problem here. Jeni (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support. Any Admin. caught up in this sort of strife is wholly unacceptable to me – regardless of provocation. Leaky Caldron 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose – I don't think such drastic action is necessary. Restraint can be exercised without the formality of a ban here. XXX antiuser eh? 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose- I would rather see them work it out without the need for control . Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose: - I have some insight here that's rather recent. Tbsdy's tenacity is both commendable and frustrating (if you're on the other side). However, I don't think sanctions are necessary as they were not necessary in my entanglement with Tbsdy. We were able to take a break and resolve things quite amicably and I have no doubt that similar results could be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose, -- i.e., support no action, since this has obviously become a poll. I oppose because four proposals were made and polls are therefore misleading if most arguments center on one of them. I see no sign that Tbsdy is unresponsive, requiring community action, but if there is going to be action based on consensus, let it be clear what single action is being supported or opposed. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose WP:DR is thisaway, and WP:RFC is way off thataway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: Herein lies the problem with bringing this discussion here. There are people commenting, who clearly haven't bothered to read the Blenheim Palace talkpage, and the surrounding problems that Tbsdy has caused in regard to Giano particularly. I knew this would happen, and that's why I thought the discussion should be limited to those who were participating at the page from which Tbsdy should be banned. Of those people, I can't think of more than 1 or 2 that expressed any support for Tbsdy's methods and antagonism of Giano. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I can only speak for myself, of course, but I've read the talk page and a few of the other pages this discussion branched out to. As far as the Blenheim article and Tbsdy's interactions with other editors on its talk page go, there seems to be a fair degree of overreacting and drama going on, but that's not solely from Tbsdy's part. I don't think we need to go through the formality/harshness of a topic ban in order to resolve this matter. Of course, I might be wrong. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I can actually understand the opposition due to the duration of the problem. Many of those familiar with the situation do support it though, and I think to some degree the opposition is coming from people who aren't entirely privy to it. It's my belief that this situation won't solve itself. Tbsdy has IMO shown a personality type that won't allow it. Nevertheless if this proposal is defeated I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I have been reading Talk:Blenheim Palace because its on my watchlist, and all this drama (caused by Giano and his ownership issues) has been filling up said watchlist. Jeni (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Your "take" on this is unique to you, and doesn't seem to have much support (outside of from Tbsdy) at the BP talkpage. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC) She's entitled to her take, unique or not. Please don't hassle the opposers. Equazcion (talk) 00:13, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) How is it "hassl[ing] the opposers" to point out that Jeni's take on the issue is unique amongst people who have actually read the talkpage? That's a bit confusing. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Answering on your talk page. Equazcion (talk) 00:19, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) Also, this is a discussion, and this is a sub-section of that discussion, in which Jeni made assertions that weren't representative of most people who have read the talkpage. Pointing that out is in now way untoward. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I distinctly remember NW telling you not to add sections to the next ban thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I don't remember that. Where did he say that? Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't see it anywhere. Please point it out. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) Go into Firefox, Internet Explorer or whatever browser you are using, and search for the text on the current page for the following: "On my own initiative, I am archiving this thread. I hope any similar threads will be archived as well. Tbsdy has indicated that he is heading off for the night; hopefully when he comes back online tomorrow, things will be more rational. If a new thread is started tomorrow, could it please be held here, on the Administrators' noticeboard, with no subheadings? Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions" I'm sure you will be able to find this text. You have shown remarkably poor judgment so far, and I again point out that you are not an admin. Why are you making admin decisions here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Ah, thanks for pointing it out. Equazcion (talk) 01:36, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) If you didn't know about that, then I suggest you are not across the full situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed. That said, it seems all of the drama today is being generated by those not of the original dispute. If the two users themselves appear to have disengaged for now, perhaps it would also be beneficial if their watchers do also. Resolute 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) A little site history might be helpful here. When the disruptive editing guideline was drafted in 2006, a primary concern was to develop a model that was flexible enough to enact community sanctions without allowing small groups of editors to silence dissent. Suppose ten Baptists page banned a Catholic from a theology article? Suppose ten Croats banned a Serb from politics? Sanctions discussions take place at the main admin boards because fresh eyes help ensure fairness. Durova412 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Good point, and agreed. Equazcion (talk) 00:41, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) Yes, so now you can see that my original complaint that it was inappropriate to bring the original ban discussion to the talk page of that article was not wrong. When I posted to AN and ANI, I was accused of forum shopping, and the nominator (Unitanode) strongly opposed it being brought to the admin noticeboards as they were "drama pits". I originally started AN for the express purposes of wide community and admin review of decisions and coordination. It was agreed that this was a very good idea, and the noticeboards are what you see today. That I am being accused of misusing the boards is, frankly, ironic given that I am probably best placed to understand the original basis for the boards. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk For the record I personally never said you were wrong for wanting it moved here. That seemed a rather reasonable request and I was leaning that way myself. Equazcion (talk) 01:44, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) Actually, that's true. Apologies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose - this is a functionless waste of time based on misrepresentations and shoddy foundations. haven't you guys got lives? yeesh...--Ludwigs2 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't be so bold as to give a yes or no to this. Let's just say it's debatable :) Equazcion (talk) 05:34, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC) Oppose This was not a one editor issue and treating it as such is neither fair nor appropriate. Does anyone think it really would have come to this if there wasn't ownership issues with Blenheim Palace. This only ever got out of hand because of that reason. Deal with the root issue before treating the symptoms ?--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Move to close It's clear that there is very little support for implementing a ban aside from those who have are directly involved in the dispute, and the thread is now just playing host to the ongoing bickering. What do you say we put this thing out of its misery? – ClockworkSoul 06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BlueWhaleSkeleton.jpg

Resolved

Hi there, is there any source information or permission documented in the local history of this image? --Flominator (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly sure what you were asking, so I undeleted the image. Just tag it with {{NowCommons}} when you are done. NW (Talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I didn't realize that the uploader was somehow related to the photographer. --Flominator (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I redeleted the image. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD vs Speedy?

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

If it meets the speedy deletion criteria, it can be speedied. Obviously, if people disagree on whether or not it should be kept, then it should go through the whole process. However, there is no need to wait the entire week just because it was brought to AfD instead of C:CSD. We are not a bureaucracy. NW (Talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why not? If someone researching the article in order to comment in the AfD finds, for example, that the article is a cut-and-paste copyvio, tagging it for speedy deletion on that ground (and noting in the AfD that it's been so tagged) seems entirely appropriate. Deor (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In cases where there is harm in keeping the article on wikipedia for even a short period (attack pages, copyvio etc.), certainly. In other cases, having to do with notability, context, advert. etc, it is usually better to let the AFD run through (esp. if there is any good faith opposition to the deletion) , although early WP:SNOW closure may be justified in really obvious cases. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it happens quite often where the comments on the AfD identify that the article is speediable - no point wasting time when the result is obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix an incorrect move?

Resolved

 – deemed by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\

I don't know if it's possible anymore but this move was done wrong back in 2006 [8]. Can someone merge the histories or is it too late? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Anyone good at whois?

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

It geolocates to Hollywood, Florida (method: I used that info link in your post). It's not in Kansas, if that's what you're thinking, but of course there are obnoxious people everywhere these days. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be First Baptist Church of West Hollywood (Florida). It also looks as though they're in the midst of swapping out websites and ISPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they also seem to be changing/have changed their name to Hollywood Community Church. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also they have a small school, Hollywood Christian Academy so I think it's likely a kid pranking away on their AT&T network link to the Internet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well found (thanks for the block by the way). Should the IP be tagged as a shared IPEDU or suchlike? DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

...maybe from this very room. Don't know yet if this is truly a shared EDU IP, but it seems most likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the school using their "contact us" form to suggest they look into this. If it was run-of-the-mill "My teacher's a tosser" vandalism I wouldn't have bothered, but joking about the Holocaust sets my teeth on edge. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kids sometimes do stuff like that, more or less cluelessly, to see what it stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know they do - the point is, if joking about stuff like that doesn't get them into trouble now, they'll do worse in the future. Better for them to get a proper bollocking over this than to get into real trouble later for something worse. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So true, so true; after I reported this edit to local police (a few minutes after it was done), I got a response from the police saying that they were already quite familiar with the kids who had done it. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a sock, please block me

Resolved

 – Plaxicoed, thanks for the lulz.

Durova⁴¹² 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). [9] and [10]. He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual.[11] He then banned me twice for correcting those errors.--Storyadded101 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, this editor appears to be a sock of banned editor Reachspace101 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for admitted socking, Plaxico... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick tangent -- WP:Plaxico was deleted for BLP and I reposted a fixed version: WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:39, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I propose a BLP-friendly and easy to remember shortcut: WP:PETARD. Pcap ping 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmph!  Confirmed the following accounts as socks of the one editor;

• Spancrash (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Storyadded101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reachspace101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

One proxy blocked - Alison ^❤ 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Superman1111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Plotagent101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Iznican (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

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

BLP-Fact cat overlaps

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

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

Wikipedia:Database reports/Biographies of living people containing unsourced statements lists some articles in both categories. WP:CATSCAN could probably produce a comprehensive list. Hut 8.5 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, that's the fella I was looking for! Many thanks, Hut 8.5! :o) ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Manske's Category Intersection script is also quite good. I found it just yesterday, and I highly recommend it. NW (Talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good 'un as well, Nuke! 25,728 pages in that intersection. I think I may have to start Wikipedia:WikiProject BLP citations... unless one already exists somewhere? ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 07:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some existing projects are User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing; Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons; Wikipedia:Mistagged BLP cleanup; Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles; Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Fences&Windows 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else wants it I run regular reports for projects that list all unrefed BLPs in their projects. tools:~betacommand/reports/unref_blp I can do this for anyone else who is interested. β^_command 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Beta, this may not be possible (or worth the work required), but is it possible to find the following "intersection": where an article is in both Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Living people and a {{fact}} tag was placed by an IP or an unconfirmed user? I suspect this would be too great a drag on resources (server and you personally!) but if not... ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FUCKWIKIPEDOS.FU

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

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

Danielle campbell

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

It looks like Danielle Campbell was create-protected after Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danielle_Campbell found she was not notable and the page was repeatedly recreated despite this. Are you certain the (unreferenced) Danielle campbell meets the requirements for recreation in such a case? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

She stars in a new Disney movie, that gives her some notability. Note that I've never heard of her till I encountered this article in Recent changes. Woogee (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I've given Woogee some advice on how to overcome the problem. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - correct editor identified as Megh10 (talk · contribs). Offer to unblock made subject to agreement by editor to edit constructively. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Community Bans - Why discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

We tried. Durova⁴¹² 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As a practical note I think board has higher visibility than other current options.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 4#What is the correct venue for a community or topic ban proposal?. –xeno^talk 18:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC motion to close.

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

Backlog at TFD

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

Page ban for Ikip from the BLP RFC

Disclosure, I am hardly a disinterested party here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it just Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people that he'd be banned from? If not, could you list the pages that you propose he'd be banned from? I very much think that this would be a good idea, provided the page/topic ban is very limited. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• (nonadmin) I support in principle but I think the ban may be too broad. How about just a ban on posting complaints about other editors and possibly on complaining about the RfC itself, ArbCom, administrators, secret mailing lists, and other process matters in the family of RfCs. He would be free to state his actual opinion on what should be done about BLP, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 240 participants in the RfC, I think he's a) had his fair share of participation by far b) do you really think his inability to comment there will inhibit the RfC from reaching whatever fair consensus it does? Users are allowed to edit to make things better, not as a right. Allowing him to continue there risks further disruption or gaming and is unlikely to make much better.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your action could perceived as trying to get rid from the negotiation not only of (IO)kip but also all the editors he represents and share his view. That you much it's at stake. That is not just (IO)kip the simple editor. Whatever rationals and logicals arguments you can line up here can't get rid of that perception because it's utterly not rational.

(nonadmin)(IO)kip must stop posting complaints about other editors relating to the BLP matter on the RfC or other process pages. This a negotiation and in a negotiation there is no niceties like choosing your interlocutors. A good negotiator defends for the best the interests of those its represents and negotiating with persons you don't trust or dislike is part of the job. (IO)kip failed badly in that area. --KrebMarkt 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is forum shopping. A few hours ago Scott Mac filed an arbitration request in the attempt to bypass dispute resolution and get a topic ban on this editor. Responses have asked him to initiate Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ikip. Please withdraw the proposal and pursue dispute resolution. Durova⁴¹² 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Durova, not only did he make it clear that he had already filed a request for arbitration and was moving here instead, but he explained here why he believed filing an RfC would be unproductive. NW (Talk) 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • And several people responded that it would be inappropriate to sanction this editor without any attempt to work out the issue through normal means. It would not be a good thing to give the appearance of attempting to silence dissent. Durova⁴¹² 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I am uninterested in sanctioning the editor. This is about prevention NOT punishment. Indeed, I concede your point that an RfC might be the best way to address any behavioural issues. My immediate concern to to prevent further disruption to the BLP RfC, and a user conduct RfC is unable to do that in a timeous fashion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The difference is where to draw the line between disruption and legitimate lines of inquiry. If an editor has the type of questions he has, where would they raise it? Durova⁴¹² 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I've suggested repeatedly he open a user conduct RfC on the issues he has. My problem is not with them being raised. It is with repeated personal conduct complaints being made on a policy RfC. My problem is I am torn here. He is making unfounded insinuations about me, which I wish to challenge him to substantiate or retract. But if I respond to him on the policy RfC I simply encourage the derailment. If he'd agree to file user conduct RfCs and leave a policy discussion to be about policy we could all go home content.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, how about this? There are a couple of types of venue that could be applicable here: an RfC on the merits of Okip's questions (or if that seems to formal, how about a page for community discussion?) Or a user conduct RfC. In order to be totally evenhanded I'll offer to certify the latter on either Okip or Scott Mac, although here's hoping no conduct RfC is necessary. Durova⁴¹² 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
              • As far as I'm concerned, if you get Ikip to agree to stop posting any discussion of editors to a policy RfC, I'll drop the whole thing. If he's got any accusations against me, then I'll be happy to respond to any user conduct RfC he wishes to file (although I don't think he'll do that - he'd rather use smears and innuendos). I'm not interested personally in "reforming" him, although I suspect other mightwant to filean RfC on him. My only interest is that the policy discussion can continue undisrupted. And, no, I'm not trying to silence the views of those who deny the BLP problem - I want the whole community to debate the systemic issues and not the personal stuff. Durova, if you can get Ikip to desist for disrupting the BLP RfC, you'll have my support. But consider that two arbs and several admins have already tried.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UT
              • I am unclear as to how we can prevent the obvious disruption on the BLP RFC by opening another RFC. It certainly does not seem the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter at hand. Kevin (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Okip's his own man; I don't have a whole lot of influence over him. Been biting my teeth a bit regarding this thing and would certainly like to see it head in a more productive direction. Durova⁴¹² 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • RFCs tend to take a month, and often accomplish little or nothing, c.f. A Nobody's RfC (which I note was disrupted by Ikip!). I don't think we want to hold up progress on something as important as the BLP RfC for a month to deal with one user's disruption of it. It's not "forum shopping" to bring matters here for a quick resolution, it's expedient, and Scott is to be applauded for flexibility in seeking to resolve matters efficiently. I support a narrowly framed page/topic ban. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Diffs?. Can someone point out to unusually vituperous behavior or some such? The BLP RfC has seen a lot harsh statements from a lot of editors. Is Ikip/Okip outstanding in that respect? I do find him a little annoying because he tends to write long and sometimes repeated posts about the same issue. But he does not rise to a WP:DISRUPTION as far as I can tell. Perhaps some evidence would help clarify this request. Pcap ping 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As he pointed out in his original statement, he has further detail here.  GARDEN  19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • On a quick inspection, he was blocked and then quickly unblocked, and the arbitration request has yet to be decided. This parallel request appears premature, if not WP:FORUMSHOPing. Pcap ping 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, ArbCom is always happy when the community manages to resolve these things on their own. Suggesting that this request is premature as long as there's a request at RFAR is getting it backwards, frankly. I make no comment on the merits of Scott's suggestion. Steve Smith (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay. Pcap ping 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• When so many people have behaved in dodgy ways around the BLP business, why single out Okip? By pushing to find out who apart from MZMcBride and the individual who seems now to be known as "K" were involved in the mailing list cabal that was involved in events prior to the rfc, he is not helping create a calm atmosphere, but the senior editors involved in the mass deletions did not act exactly act in a moderated way either. If we are rightly in my POV, not going to have a witchhunt to identify all members of the cabal, I don't think we should have one against people who complain about it either. I doubt that forcible silencing of Okip action is exactly going to reduce paranoid interpretations of what is going on anyway. Rather it will just convince some that the cabal is flexing its muscles.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No one is silencing anyone. The BLP RfC relates to a community discussion of policy. Ikip is repeatedly posting unfounded accusations there. I have invited him to file a userconduct RfC on the users he has issues with, and whatever evidence he has can be presented and discussed. That's all. He's welcome to raise issues about MZMcBride - although I'm not sure what remedies he's seeking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

(also by an involved party)

• MZMBcBride manufactured this crisis on his "secret mailing list" by "subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results". ... I would put this to a !vote, but MZMBride, along with Scott MacDonald who started this crisis (stating he had "utter contempt" for "community consensus") have made a complete mockery of our consensus building system. ... This RFC has been marred by severe corruption, severe rule breaking, "utter contempt" for "community consensus" and dirty tricks from its inception, which should shock the conscience of any wikipedian.
• The creator of this RFC is directly responsible for the very violations this manufactured RFC was created to stop
• an dysoped administrator who vandalizes unreferenced BLPs by proxy ... When you want to advance in wikipedia, editors will look back on this conversation and say "Mr.Z-man defended the actions of a dysoped administrator and his banned sockpuppet who vandalized wikipedia".
• MZMcBride the creator of this RFC, is creating the very crisis he wants new rules for. ... The context strongly suggests" this "secret mailing list" is being used for meat-puppetry, and canvassing. ... Tacitly supporting meat-puppetry, and canvassing by not investigating seems negligent. Do you know the names of this "secret mailing list" Fritzpoll? Do they include Kevin, Scott MacDonald, Coffee and Lar?
• The most vocal editor is a desysoped administrators who enlisted banned users to conduct breaching experiments and use secret mailing lists to manipulate policy.
• Coffee, whose wheel warring led up to this RFC, has defended this "secret mailing list", and has not responded on whether he was a member
• Scott, every time I see you use the word consensus, I remember your severe violation of consensus.
• Scott Macdonald states he has "utter contempt" for "community consensus". He is later thanked by Mr. Jim Wales. In a later request for clarification, Mr. Jim Wales defends his decision to thank Scott MacDonald.
• How do you reconcile your continued fervent defense of MZMcBride, who helped introduce "inaccurate information" with your continued concern about "inaccurate information" (what you support calling "sewers") on Wikipedia? Are you a member of this "secret mailing list"?
• the "breached experiments" which you are justifying? ... are you a member of this "secret mailing list"?
• Mr. Z-man weren't you the editor who removed other editors opposing comments in the petition which called 17,500 editors contributions "sewers" along with Scott MacDonald?
• the justification for these new rules is a hoax and the radical punitive punishment far outweighs the benefit. ... So your solution, most probably dreamed up in secret mailing lists ...
• Whereas your group of extremely disruptive editors sees 52,000 articles as "sewers". It seems this "BLP offwiki forum" will go to any length to push through their bullying, draconian vision of wikipedia, including recruiting a banned editor to do a biography of living persons breaching experiment.
• Both NuclearWarfare and Mr.Z-man have defended these breaching experiments and MZMcBride
• The editors proposing radical change, many, including Mr. Wales support the editors who have "utter contempt" for "community consensus" (to quote Scott MacDonald) an offwiki mailing list was set up by the creator of this RFC to change BLP policy, MZMcBride.

All of these comments are from the past 3–4 days.
Additionally, I have asked Okip to stop referring to a single comment I made as support for his position on the RFC (as I've told him multiple times, I disagree with him). However, even after multiple requests, he continued to quote me out of context (or sometimes just refer to me without quoting), at least 6 times, including 4 times on the same page.
This is supposed to be an RFC about content and policy. Comments and speculation on the behavior and attitude of other users are not appropriate, especially when not accompanied by evidence. Okip has been asked several times by several users (including uninvolved arbitrators) to tone down his comments and either provide evidence or retract his claims. For the most part, Okip has refused to do so. In June 2009, Ikip was warned by ArbCom to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with. In this RFC he has done both. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question': Where do these "utter contempt" for "community consensus" quotes, apparently attributed to Scott, come from? If true, they'd seem likely to cause drama, at least as much as Okip may have.-Milowent (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=339388380. Doc withdrew the comment and apologized for its tone. The whole matter was the subject of wideranging community comment and an ArbCom motion. That is, yes, they did cause drama, but it was a while ago and now its time to move on to more productive discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It was a heat of the moment comment, retracted and apologised for, and my more considered opinion offered. But Ikip keeps quoting it (totally out of context) despite the fact I've nicely asked him to desist twice. It seems he'd rather use it for rhetorical effect than enter into a real debate. I suppose I've no one to blame but myself, but sad really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for explaining, it gives me a little more context. Repeating arguments may be annoying, but their persuasive power won't get stronger by doing it.--Milowent (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Then someone will unblock and we'll have the 4th ArbCom case request surrounding BLPs in just a few weeks. Better not. The goal of this discussion should be to reduce dramaz and recriminations. Pcap ping 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is certainly no problem with your asking him to drop the WP:STICK with the clear message that if he doesn't turn down the rhetoric about ten points then a block will follow. You are certainly uninvolved and have no obvious history that would make it inappropriate for you to act here. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Totally agree, it would be completly appropriate for you to give him those standards. Even though I would like to see him removed from the BLP discussion all together considering he rarely has anything constructive to add besides asking for the status quo to stay as the de facto standard; but at least a block from bringing up totally irrelevant information would help in some ways. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• I think an overall indefinite block would be overkill. Okip appears to be moderating. And apart from the personal conflict, he(?) is contributing encyclopedic work. (Disclosures: I'm not an admin. I am involved in the BLP RFC, on the side against systematic deletion. My only involvement in the personal issues is to ask on the RFC page that they either be taken elsewhere or a truce declared.)

  I am presently going with Guy's suggestion - and have written to Okip's talkpage accordingly. Also, commentary by non-admins is more than okay - it is to be encouraged. Sysop only viewpoints tend to be a bit samey, and input from others gives valuable perspective. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• when what he is saying is that the status quo would work if people would actually systematically work through the articles instead of talking about how to it, there's a great deal to what he says. As for other matters, attempts to block one's principal opponent in a debate inevitably tend to raise questions. It is usually better to put up with annoyance than to appear repressive. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Okip is the "principal opponent" here, not as far as actually speaking to the issue goes. He is possibly the most voluble, and certainly the only one to continue to disparage his opponents in this manner. That behaviour's what has provoked this criticism, not his views on unsourced BLPs.   pablo_hablo. 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with this view. Over at WP:AUS, we've gotten our number of unref'd articles down from 2100 to around 700 at the present point, just by ... well, referencing them. It was made possible by some friendly and helpful people that got the toolserver to spit out a list of our unref'd articles. It's not perfect - there's been several false positives, and undoubtedly a few omissions too. But if the people crowing around going "It's such a big issue!" were to work with the WikiProjects, especially the big ones, then the issue would get resolved by content-focussed people who don't give a stuff about who's shouting at who on the noticeboards, and this ridiculous drama could be avoided. Orderinchaos 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• No reason exists for blocking Okip. Those attempting to silence him are those who disagree with him and who want to force a minority viewpoint on the community. It is thus nothing more than an effort to silence/censor an opposing viewpoint. If anything, Okip should be promoted to adminship given the knowledge and intelligence he has displayed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, bullshit. Agreeing or disagreeing with each other is fine; it is when it gets belligerent and off-putting, as Ikip has clearly been, that it becomes a problem. Don't play the OMG CENSORSHIP card, please. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  "belligerent and off-putting" would be say calling hundreds of editors and admins "slackjawed retards" as you have done. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  perhaps you could concentrate on discussing edits on wikipedia rather then the editor off wikipedia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps everyone could concentrate on actually improving articles instead of starting obviously frivolous discussions about editors with whom we simply disgaree? Imagine how many articles on living people might actually get referenced if the same effort playing games on admin boards (or in threads on that off-wiki site linked to above) were put into finding and adding sources to the articles in the first place... Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  That indeed is my hope. Unfortunately, someone seemed to be posting multiple discussions, smears, misquotes and attacks on me (and others) to a policy discussion. All I wanted was for that to stop. I don't want Ikip banned blocked silence or whatever. Indeed if he wants to discuss user conduct, I've suggested he opens a user conduct RfC. He's welcome to disagree with people in the policy discussion, but he needs to stop personalising it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, imagine if everyone spent so much time working on improving articles. Except they haven't, and that's why there's an RfC. People are pretty consistent in that they're not gonna do squat until they have to, which concept is supported in spades by all the BLPs that have been improved since the beginning of the RfC, not to mention Okip even starting some sort of BLP improvement contest (which is a lovely idea that I wish more people knew about and would participate in). That said, Okip's view does not represent a majority viewpoint as clearly evidenced at the RFC itself and he has clearly tried to derail the RFC with political mud slinging. I support LessHeard's decision to carefully warn Okip. If he wants to be a part of the future then I'm sure he's as welcome as any of us but the innuendos and ad hominem attacks need to stop. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Far more people create, edit, and come here to read the BLPs being deleted than comment in these sorts of discussions. The actual majority opinion of our editors and readership is that we should cover these things, but far more editors and readers than not are not interested in joining such threads as this one. Those trying to make others do something really should just do it themselves. The same time it takes tossing up an AfD and associated templates trying to get someone else to do something could and should just as easily be spent finding and adding some sources. Trying to motivate other volunteers is ultimately counterproductive and just creates extra work and eats up extra file space. I would only request help from others if I cannot do it myself. When I come upon an article with typos in it, I do not slap a needs proofreading tag on it, I fix whatever grammar error I can instead. Friendly talk page notices encouraging someone to proofread or add sources seems reasonable, but just spending time starting an AfD and going back and forth in that Afd without instead finding sources (something that is not hard in the age of Google News and Academic Search Complete) makes no real sense. And as I have said elsewhere, the idea that having an AfD in which random accounts dismiss a real person as "non-notable" or some other insult is somehow okay versus an article just baffles me. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  You are missing the point entirely. I accept that Okip's view on unsourced BLPs is a fairly widely held viewpoint. The problem is that rather than discuss using reasoned arguments and on-topic discussions, Okip has decided to argue by throwing around innuendo and allegations of misconduct in an effort to discredit his opponents and invalidate weeks of discussions, commenting on users rather than their opinion. This section is a good example of the problem. I hadn't made any substantial comments (if any at all) on the RFC since phase I ended. I replied to some of Okip's points, and noted that he seemed to be focusing overly much on the past actions of users to the extent that his comments were bordering on personal attacks. So how does he respond? By attempting to discredit me. I've also been accused of being a member of a secret mailing list and defending breaching experiments. All because I disagreed with a couple of comments that Okip made. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  it is perhaps an open question who is trying to invalidate the current consensus rather than refine it and actualize it. In the history of this and other policy arguments, argument, HAS CURRENT CONSENSUS has a great tendency to mean THAT'S THE WAY I WANT IT. During the course of implementing a general proposal, it has sometimes been the case that the people who supported the idea as a general proposal have not agreed on how to implement it. It has even sometimes been the case that during the discussions on implementation, it has been realized that the proposal needs to be very extensively modified. Okip has I think played a constructive role in discussing this, and discussing them with a fair degree of flexibility and openness to suggestion. Even those who brought the arb com and suggest an RfC like some of what he has been proposing. I do not want to enter into the question of the behavior of various parties, but it does not seem unreasonable to me that there is a good deal from various sides that could be called into question. I think this especially when I see the defenders of drastic actions defend them as , well, the overall result was positive, which I take as an implied recognition that many people think that their methods may not have been all that straight-forward. The practical question is whether we allow this discussion over the earlier actions to be the focus of attention. I recognize in myself the feeling that resents those actions sufficiently that I might want very much to discuss them. But in my calmer moments I do see that it is perhaps not the best way of making progress. I think that Okip does see that also, at least for now. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Behavior is the only thing at issue here. His views themselves are not disruptive; only the way he's advocating them. Mr.Z-man 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think he now realises this. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  He shouldn't be blocked. This is nonsense YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  The actual majority opinion of our editors and readership is that we should cover these things, but far more editors and readers than not are not interested in joining such threads as this one. BS. That sounds like the complaining of someone who supported a politician who lost an election: "most people really support my viewpoint, it's just that none of them ever say so." You're just making things up out of thin air, please stop. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Based on what? He's retracted only a token fraction of the allegations he's made without evidence and has apparently decided not to apologize. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does this matter stand at this point? It's not clear if there is a consensus, or if there's been a change in behavior, or if there will be an RfC, or a case, or no action, or what. Thanks for any clarity. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the RfC looks overwhelmingly headed for closure soon, despite I/Okip's dissaproval (and badgering, even on my talk page, when I'm much less involved than others), so the point of banning him from a closed RfC is going to be rather moot soon enough. Pcap ping 07:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks

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

One too many to's? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Or he's "Willing to consider two requests" :) --Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One too many. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap. Hold on, I'll move it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you can't move a category, unless I'm missing something. Deleted and re-created @ Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you accept requests from fellow admins? =) –xeno^talk 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording of WP:SELFBLOCK allows for latitude. While I prefer that users use the self-blocking script, your requirements are reasonable. And responding to User:Xeno's question, it seems pointless to block admins since we can apparently unblock ourselves.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking, though. –xeno^talk 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that had not even crossed my mind. I think I'm gonna go with no. My criteria are predicated on the idea that there is no appeal, an admin could easily get around that if they wished. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As could any user by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org ... –xeno^talk 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the blocking reason would link to the request on Beeblebrox's talk page, and the reviewing admin (not wanting WikiDrama) would either turn down the request, or at least contact the blocking admin first. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the administrative overheard involved in dealing with self-requested blocks is a main reason they are typically frowned upon. Prohibiting an unblock request via the list should also be a bullet point. –xeno^talk 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've signed up, and copied - as noted in edit summary - and amended Beeblebrox's criteria, per User:LessHeard vanU/Requests for self blocking requirements. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I only made the category because a lot of admins reject such requests by default, and I didn't want users to waste their time asking the wrong guy. And I'm absolutely not trying to hold anyone but myself to the criteria I've outlined, I only did that in the interest of not having my own time wasted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I see that you've linked your requirements prominently on your talk page. Would it make sense to tag the requirements page instead of your user page, so that users could go directly from the category? Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine idea, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) has been disrupting wikipedia for quite a while now, and was banned indef as result: [12]. Previously his sock accounts were blocked for death threats [13], disruption, edit warring across multiple articles, etc. More info is available here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. He is back now with yet another IP, 216.165.33.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The edits like this [14] [15] [16] with quite disturbing edit summaries, involving death threats, racial slurs, etc, show that this person has no intention to stop his disruptive activity or abide by his indef ban. As usual, his IPs point to the same university. I think the university would not be happy to know that their computers are used for making such edits in wikipedia. I think that maybe admins could contact the university Hetoum edits from to inform them what kind of edits he makes here? That may be a long term solution to the problem with this user. In any case, the IP 216.165.33.249 needs to be dealt with, as it is now used by Hetoum to evade his ban. Grandmaster 09:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as an educational IP and blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move close needed

The requested move at Talk:List_of_free_and_open_source_software_packages#Requested_move has been open for over a month now, and an uninvolved administrator is needed to close it. See WP:RMCI for closing instructions. Ucucha 14:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Public speakers

Resolved

 – Nothing for Admin attention.

Happy‑melon 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see meta:Public speakers (admittedly there are no known cases of this page resulting in a speaking engagement). It seems to me inappropriate that, to pick one example well known to many of us, Thekohser should be using Wikimedia Foundation resources to advertise himself for public speaking when he has recently violated one of the very few Foundation-mandated content policies, WP:BLP, by deliberately introducing inaccurate information into biographies as a breaching experiment (and in the process led to an administrator being desysopped and one of the largest and most acrimonious drama storms in recent times). He has also, in the past, attempted to have the Foundation's 501(c) status rescinded. Anybody here who is a metapedian, I would invite to consider whether a guideline should be written such that people whose principal connection with the foundation is abusive are not enabled to advertise themselves through this mechanism. I would suggest that anybody signing up there should at the very least be required to sign up to a statement of support for the fundamental aims of the Wikimedia Foundation and should be subject to some sort of peer-review process by the meta community to ensure that they are an appropriate person to speak, i.e. articulate, well-informed, in good standing, not batshit insane, not actively engaged in activism against the Foundation and its projects. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an enwiki resource; there is nothing enwiki administrators can or should do on this issue. If you want to raise this issue, the correct forum would be meta:Wikimedia forum or meta:Talk:Public speakers. Happy‑melon 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, but a lot of enWP admins are active on Meta (especially for spam management). Guy (Help!) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by the banned user

An urgent admin intervention is required due to edit warring by the banned user evading his block. Please see this report: [17] According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun, Homered (talk · contribs) is the sock of the banned user. He made 4 rvs on a highly sensitive article Khojaly massacre and continues edit warring on other Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles. Grandmaster 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is resolved, thanks. Grandmaster 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death SPA

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week Rodhullandemu 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember an editor with a strange obsession with fiddling around with causes of deaths in bio articles? I've noticed 67.253.66.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and something about the edits rings a vague bell. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I note they have issues regarding date formats, changing BritEng variant to USEng, too. If they continue, I suggest WP:BRI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This person also edits as User:75.68.82.23. Their edits are disruptive, and the IP should be re-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Living Persons task force meeting soon

Hi all. The Living Persons task force meeting mentioned above is starting just about thirty minutes from now (00:00 UTC). Please do make a point to attend if possible. Tell your friends too :) NW (Talk) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com

I was looking at Special:Linksearch/sites.google.com after reading a blacklist discussion thread. That set of links bears some inspection. There are a lot of links which are blatant WP:OR or are the sole supporting link to a biography of the site owner. There are personal essays, polemics and all kinds of stuff, and a goodly number are linked in biographies. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to clean what needs cleaning, maybe replace if possible. And then see what is left. See how it was (ab?)used, get a WP:RS/N-conclusion, and consider the solutions (XLinkBot/Blacklist?). The 'free websites' are often problematic, but they certainly also contain quite some good data. I think it would depend on the ratio good/bad and use/abuse how to respond. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

 – No backlog now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Evening all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - if anyone has some free time it would be good to get it cleared. It's time for bed in the UK and I'm too tired to make rational decisions! Thanks in advance, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input from the community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closing discussion. FlyingToaster 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone. If we haven't met, I'm FlyingToaster. I became an admin on Wikipedia on May 18, 2009, but retired my tools three days later and have been mostly inactive in the project since then. This departure was not due to a lack of interest in the project, but because I felt that my withdraw would be best for the community. In a way I still find surprising, my role in Wikipedia became marked with contention. For those unfamiliar, my RFA and WP:BN thread should explain. I believed this contention was harmful for the community, and that by temporarily withdrawing the community could heal itself and emerge stronger.

While I have been mostly inactive on Wikipedia, I have been watching discussions, contributing to articles logged out, and speaking to some of you in person over the past few months. What I've seen is evidence that the number of current active admins is becoming increasingly insufficient for the amount of work that needs to be done. This brings me to point of this note. As some of you will remember, I'm a pretty boring user. What I enjoyed was clearing backlogs in places like CSD, AIV, and UAA. This is the work I deeply wanted to do in an admin role. I'm offering to do this again: assisting in the boring bits, bringing down the backlogs, training people to do the same, and helping out where needed and requested.

However, I have no interest in replaying the bitter conflicts that erupted before and immediately after I became an admin. In addition to my distaste for drama and belief that it harms the community, I frankly don't have the emotional energy for another RfA.

Because I resigned the tools voluntarily, I am allowed to retake them. However, I would not do so without the will of the community. So, I am asking the community to decide if they would like me back. If the community feels it can benefit from the work I would provide, I would be thrilled to return and dedicate myself to that work once again. On the other hand, if the community feels that for whatever reason my return would cause more harm than good, then I will stay away. I will accept your decision, and could do nothing less; Wikipedia is governed by community process, and all who wish to contribute are subject to it.

As a side note, I wanted to acknowledge that some hurtful things were said in the days leading to my resignation, both on Wikipedia and off. Please know that I consider all to be personally forgiven. I can't say that some of what was said did not effect me, but I've made my peace with it and moved on, and I bare no grudges in this respect. I consider no one in Wikipedia (aside from vandals) to be my enemy. I truly believe that we all want the same thing - a better encyclopedia - and that strong feelings towards this goal can easily flare passions and lead people to say things they do not mean.

So, I encourage you to weigh in with your opinion: would you have me back? While I'll be happy to clarify and explain anything if requested, I'm going to otherwise be mostly silent here. I want to know how the community feels, and thus I won't be trying to convince you either way.

Respectfully yours, FlyingToaster 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of FlyingToaster Adminship

If nothing else, I admire your sense of humour! We have quite sufficient Admins and certainly don't require one as ignorant of protocol and editing as you. You resigned becuse your positiion as an Admin was untenable. It remains so.  Giano  19:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, FT, I think Giano being against you will probably help you gain support. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing an "admin" - who constantly broke and displayed a complete ignorance of copy-vio, to such an extent that the barnstars she gave her supporters were even copyvio. Then we have the small matter of IRC - do we really need to got there again? If necessary, I shall go the full distance on this matter - beleive me.  Giano  19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 What you seem to be saying is you won't request re-adminnification without a positive result from a mini-RfA, here on this noticeboard. Why not just have a proper RfA? You'd probably get a better idea of the 'will of the community' from wider participation.   pablo_hablo. 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the feeling that people have here, then I'll accept that but probably retire rather than re-run. The RfA process was extremely stressful and at times, vitriolic. Even though I consider myself an emotionally strong person, I don't have the strength to do it again. Additionally, my friends and family saw what the process was doing to me and have asked me to never go through it again. FlyingToaster 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would echo Pablo's sentiments. I think, even if you were to gain a consensus here, your retaking the tools would be controversial. I say that without any opinion about whether you should or should not be an admin, BTW. I remember when this all blew up, but I can't recall what my opinion on it was, if I had one. I would also suggest that you edit for a while with your main account, give people a chance to see you doing things correctly, then perhaps give it a go, if you think you're up to the admittedly grueling RfA process. IronDuke 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is basically what I am trying to determine - if there is a cloud or not. Technically there isn't, but it's the bitter controversy I want to avoid. FlyingToaster 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• You plainly resigned from the tools under a cloud (in "controversial circumstances"), and would thus be required to undergo an RfA in order to regain them. Note that I was on your side in the controversy, but cannot deny that it took place! ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is a significant cloud that all hell would break loose if you simply reclaimed the bit. As much as I would like to see it happen, there are many who would not.  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea is riciculous, the very suggestion shows how unfit you are to be an admin.  Giano  20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I would support as I did last time as I do not recall any memorable negative interactions between us since I supported the successful RfA that would alter my opinion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The question at hand is simple. Did FlyingToaster resign for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions"? If so, then her access should not be restored. If not, it should. Were any additional sanctions being considered at the time? NW (Talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Arbcom has ruled that editors can regain surrendered tools "provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances." The policy you're quoting was (I think) written by the 'crats as a rule of thumb, but the actual basis is broader and clearly covers FT's case. As I say, I was on their side at the time, but still... ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• No offence FT, but no bureaucrat in their right mind would resysop you without a new RfA - You resigned under a cloud - had you not resigned, you'd have been taken to ArbCom and been desysopped by them. Even suggesting that you gave the tools up voluntarily makes me questions your judgment further - it was one of the clearest examples of resigning under a cloud. If a bureaucrat was to resysop you without an RfA, they would most probably lose their bit as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think an ArbCom case would have been accepted or would have lead to de-sysopping. 1.) ArbCom usually does not accept cases where no other venues were tried, 2.) ArbCom almost never desysops on the first case against someone and 3.) the reasons why FT resigned her bit were not adminship related. One cannot say that she misused her tools, so taking them away would not have been a logical sanction in a ArbCom case. I think if a case had been created about this and if it had been accepted by ArbCom, the sanctions would most likely have been editing restrictions instead. I agree though that a crat simply restoring the bit would probably cause huge amounts of drama and thus would not be advisable. Regards SoWhy 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Arbcom would almost certainly have taken away the tools by summary motion - they have increasingly taken the tools away where a discussion clearly indicates that the community no longer wishes the user in question to have the tools. Threads on both the bureaucrats' noticeboard and on AN showed that this was the case here. Whilst you are correct in saying that there was no misuse of tools, the major issue people had is that the RfA had just passed and if the information had come to light just a couple of days previously, the RfA would not have been successful. The most likely course of events would have been an RfC calling for FT to give up the tools and when the inevitable support for her to do so rolled in, an application to ArbCom to desysop - had the RfC actually happened, FT would certainly have been desysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly resigned under a cloud (at least in the technical sense that is relevant here): would have been de-adminned by force in one way or another after a lot of drama. No chance to be adminned without an RfA, and probably no chance to win a new RfA any time soon. In fact, this thread has set back the clock in my opinion. Hans Adler 20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Ryan and Hans. This request in itself is somewhat discouraging. FT, if you want to be an admin, please spend some time making some good content contribs, then restand for RfA. People will respect that if you put in the time and effort. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Barring anything drastic to change my mind, I would have great pleasure in supporting you in a new RfA any time you wished to run for one. I also consider your post here to be a very encouraging sign, demonstrating thoughtfulness and caution rather than anything malicious. However, it seems clear from the comments here after you left that several bureaucrats agreed that a cloud existed over your resignation, and hence that immediate resysopping was not an option. I'd second the positive suggestions here to get involved with some content creation; but without any of the discouragement others have added. Happy‑melon 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you become active in editing again. This is to demonstrate your commitment and improvement and whether previous issues are sorted out. Then after a few months attempt RFA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive540#User:FlyingToaster_RfA does not look good. I think that qualifies as "controversial circumstances". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is it me, or is there something deliciously ironic in the fact that the user who 'outed' FlyingToaster was Peter Damian Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I echo the points made above that your resignation was obviously made in controversial circumstances, and it is not the case that you can simply ask for the bit back. A full RfA is, I'm afraid, required in my view if you want to regain administrator status. But I'm mainly weighing in to make another point. Obviously the issue from last May was the fact that a number of articles you wrote had been at least partially plagiarized. Some of us spent some time cleaning up some of those articles, but as far as I know you did not and I don't think you have since then, and collectively we did not deal with all of the problems. The first article mentioned as being problematic on the original bureaucrat's noticeboard was Cluster-weighted modeling, and that seems to have the same copyright violations it did 9 months ago. I'm not sure how many others there are like that, but you really should have cleaned up any articles that violated copyright back during the initial incident, but instead you walked away. Now that you are seeking to regain adminship again you absolutely must take care of these problems, and indeed even if you decide not to continue editing here I would enjoin you to deal with the articles you created (here's the list for anyone who is interested). I'm hoping you can actually reply directly to this point, as articles with copyright violations are a serious matter and since you now understand the rules about this you really should be the one to do the cleanup, rather than leaving it to others. As a final, hopefully more encouraging point, I would really hope that you do continue to edit Wikipedia even if not as an admin, and if you address the past concerns and edit productively for awhile I would certainly be willing to consider supporting you at an RfA. Even without the bit though I think you would clearly be an asset to the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  I agree and will clean up these articles no matter what. It was my plan to do this at the time, but the sheer force of acrimony against me, coupled with some users attempting to expose what they could of my offline life and work (including an attempt to contact my boss), pretty much crushed my will to continue. FlyingToaster 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• What complete self-pitying rubbish! "pretty much crushed my will to continue." It quite clearly did not, or you would not be back here trying to be re-adminned. Wikipedia is not some game (no matter what your IRC friends tell you) for people like you to just turn up and be given magical powers. That you can say "In a way I still find surprising, my role in Wikipedia became marked with contention." Surprising! FGS! You misunderstood the most obvious of basic rules.Whoever has encouraged you in this half-baked idea has done you a great disservice. Get on and edit some pages and make an attempt to learn what Wikipedia is all about, how you ever attracted so many votes last time - is an area best not explored even though you say "speaking to some of you in person over the past few months" Yeah, I bet you have been speaking, and I can guess where!  Giano  22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Crushed your will to continue? You're bloody lucky not to have been banned for placing the entire project in legal jeopardy! Guy (Help!) 09:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the situation here is unique because you resigned adminship because of harrassment on- and off-wiki rather than problems with your actions as an administrator. I wanted you to stay, but I understand that you had to leave because off-wiki life was more important. So I am a lot more sympathetic than I would be in most other re-RfA's. I would have no objection to you regaining adminship as long as you're willing to face whatever your opponents have ready for you. I agree though that an RfA anytime in the foreseeable future would most likely fail because you've been largely absent so long, and your opponents' claims have not been resolved. Is it possible that Arbcom could handle this matter now and give us a decision once and for all? —Soap— 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any need for ArbCom to get involved. There's pretty much no way a bureaucrat would +sysop FlyingToaster at this point given the clear consensus (both here and at the time of the original incident) that the resignation came under controversial circumstances (it is simply not accurate to say that FT resigned solely—or I think even primarily—due to harassment, dozens of editors had called for her resignation because of the copyright problems). Of course there's nothing preventing FlyingToaster from running for RfA at some point in the future, either using this account or a new one if there are harassment/outing concerns about editing with the FT account. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The only conduct concern regarded the sourcing of FlyingToaster's articles. That's a serious matter and one which time and work could solve. FlyingToaster, my best advice to you is to close this admin board thread and edit under your registered account for several months. Fix any old problems with your articles and create enough new ones to assure the community you've overcome that issue. After several months of that any outstanding worries will dissipate. Durova⁴¹² 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Upon further consideration, since the situation went as far as contacting FlyingToaster's employer the best choice is probably to retire the account. As a gesture of good faith, please consider using the account's final edits to clean up any remaining problems in article space. It would be a good idea to contact experienced and trustworthy editors offsite for advice before starting a new account. Durova⁴¹² 23:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your honesty, Durova. Unfortunately, as a metapedian who highly values my friendships and relationships here, it would be impossible for me to pretend to be anyone else. FlyingToaster 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• It wasn't that i repeatedly violated copyright and chose to plagariaze, it was the contention caused by the reaction of other people! No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I did not participate in either of FT's RfAs and did not know anything about the surrounding controversy until now. After looking through the ANI thread referenced by Guy it seems clear that FT resigned the admin tools under a cloud. I would take it for granted that in such a situation, regardless of whether the charges against FT were correct, a new RfA is required for resysopping, presumably after a few months of resumed activity. Of course, FT should be encouraged to come back as an active contributor. Nsk92 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I supported FT's RfA and would have supported his continuing as an admin but I must admit I find this request a bit weird. I think it quite clear that the circumstances of FTs resignation were less than salubrious and, assuming he/she had doubts about the 'cloudiness' of that, the normal way to find that out would have been to return as an editor, spend some time editing and making connections, and then asking the question. The 'I'll only return as an admin' approach is decidedly odd. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• FT: face it, you're never going to get the tools back under that username. If you do want to help on the admin side, I suggest you do what most other deadminned admins do; find a new ISP, create a new ID, contribute well for six months including article creation and participation at XfD, AIV, and some very carefully considered CSD work, and then run for RfA again. If you do it well, you might even end up on ArbCom! Note for the hard of thinking:posting contains sarcasm. Black Kite 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Nope. This is a disappointing request, since anyone really dedicated to the project would likely fix their old mistakes rather than focus on regaining the bit. AniMate 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• The trend these past 6 months within the community, and confirmed by ArbCom, is that admins found in severe breach of WP:C do not retain their bit. As long as the mess you created is still there, I don't see why this discussion is taking place. Since you vanished, we now have a process to deal with multiple copyvios, so if you want some assistance as well as demonstrate that you're serious about regaining the community's trust, file a report for yourself under WP:CCI and start mucking out. MLauba (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I suggest that the best course of action for FT to take would be to cleanup any remaining issues with her articles in the main namespace, and then spend a couple of months patrolling the newpages, recent changes, and UUA (which are the areas she would plan to work in if she were an administrator), before running for adminship at RfA. I understand that I may be in a current minority here, but if FT was able to do that then I would be more than happy to support her in the RfA. Kindest regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Not under this account. My suggestion would be to clear up those articles where, as mentioned above, there are issues and then retire the account. Start afresh with a new account and gain the trust of the community. If you then wish to start a RfA, notify ArbCom and perhaps a few others of your previous identity, then do so. If the connection is made, you do at least have it on record of cleaning up afterward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • LessHeard, I understand the motivation, but your suggestion is a recipe for disaster. Imagine that FT does pass an RFA under a different account without publicly declaring the association with this account. If and when the link is revealed, I am certain any admins./arbitrators who were aware of the account history and still allowed the RFA to proceed will be asked to resign - and the adminship will be considered to be acquired fraudulently by many. I wouldn't wish such drama on anyone! Instead I'd recommend that FT continue with this account and re-earn the trust of the community and stand for an RFA in say a year's time. If instead FT decides to create a new account to have a clean start, she definitely should not run for an adminship w/o revealing the link publicly. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Do what MLauba said. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I echo the statements above, and think if you are interested in returning to constructive editing that you ask User:Moonriddengirl where she needs help in addressing copyright violations, and make that your focus for a while. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can answer that in MRG's absence. Open up FT's entry on WP:CCI, clean that one, and from there, there's plenty of other work left in terms of copyright cleanup to do. But there's little sense in starting to work on other contributors as long as FT's own house is not in order. MLauba (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

flagged revisions when?

Resolved

 – No longer requires admin intervention. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

or will we have to cope with garbage like these (which goes undetected on a high profile page): [25], [26], [27].  Dr. Loosmark  22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But it didn't go undeteced, it was reverted within 6 minutes of the first vandal edit. A later edit was reverted immediately. This is run-of-the-mill vandalism, so why bring it up here? It's also not BLP related which is how most people are interested in using flagged revisions. This also is really not the place to discuss flagged revisions, though I earlier noticed a threat about this here if you are interested. Suggest this be marked resolved unless there is something I'm missing that needs discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism problems

Closing this, as it's not an issue for immediate admin intervention. Please direct further comments to User:Roger_Davies/Plagiarism or to RD's talkpage. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Roger Davies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In an above thread I note that claims of plagiarism are being dealt with very harshly by the community; some would say rightly so. I would be interested to have some comments on the behaviour of User:Roger Davies, who seems to have repeatedly plagiarised content despite being a MILHIST coordinator and, more worryingly, arbitrator. this edit is apparently sourcing information from pages 214 and 215 of this source. Instead, it comes directly from 214. The article reads "He learned his architectural and engineering skills while on campaign with the Janissaries, becoming expert at constructing fortifications of all kinds, as well as military infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and aqueducts", while the source says "had served in campaigns with the Sultan as a military engineer, becoming adept in the construction of fortifications and arsenals, bridges and aqueducts". Where the article says "At about the age of fifty, he was appointed as chief royal architect, applying the technical skills he had acquired in the army to the "creation of fine religious buildings" and civic structures of all kinds", the source reads "At the age of fifty he was brought into Suleiman's service to work with him closely as Royal Chief Architect, adapting his technical skills as a military engineer to the creation of fine religious buildings." This is not a problem limited to a single article, although that is one of the most recent problematic edits I've seen. The article on Fort Saganne reads "At the time it was made, it was France's most expensive film production.", while the source says "At the time, Fort Saganne was the most expensive film". The article George Nathan reads "Even though he had been turned down for Communist Party membership - either because of his 'sexual orientation'", while the source says "even though he had been refused membership in the Communist Party because of his sexual orientation." ""Comintern observers admired him for his "cool arrogance under fire".", while the source reads "admired by Soviet 'observers' for his 'cool arrogance under fire'". St Symphorien Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery is very well referenced and attributed. The article reads "A granite obelisk, constructed by the Germans, erected at the cemetery's highest point, commemorates the German and Commonwealth dead from the Battle of Mons in August 1914."; the source, on the other hand, reads "At the highest point, there is a granite obelisk ... erected by the Germans in memory of both German and British servicemen killed in the actions near Mons in August 1914". this article was plagiarised; it reads "Davies received his ticket of leave in April 1854, and was conditionally pardoned on 31 October of the same year." and "It is said he gained the name as he taught others to sing and would lead the church choir from the gallery", while source 1 says "He eventually received a ticket of leave on 20 April 1854, and was conditionally pardoned on 31 Oct. of the same year. "" and source 2 "It is said that he was called DAi'r Cantwr because he taught people to sing and led the church choir in the gallery". Not only is this obvious plagiarism, this article was a DYK, sitting on the main page for six hours for all the world to see our *cough* brilliant writing. This is an obvious problem; I'd be interested to hear how the community (or Mr Davies) intends to resolve it. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I didn't know about any of this until someone sent me at the weekend an text file with examples that apparently has been circulating for ages by email. I don't know why this hasn't been raised with me on the article talk pages or on my talk pages. I'd have been very happy to respond and fix contentious edits. The key point here is that there was no intention whatsoever on my part to take credit for others' work. I try to be scrupulous about sourcing and the vast majority is sourced.  Roger Davies talk 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Since this AN thread started someone informed me that there was a big discussion about this on IRC a few days ago. As everyone knows, I never use IRC and wasn't aware of that. Roger returned to the Guy Pedroncini article on February 20 and made several changes, including misattributing the sourcing while leaving the Le Monde copyvio nearly untouched.[28] Was that alteration made in response to the criticism? Someone who was in the channel could probably confirm whether these edits took place before or afterward. Durova412 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I first learned about the detailed accusations on Friday. The Guy Pedroncini edits were in response to them. I always respond to content criticism by working up the material and, if necessary, resourcing.  Roger Davies talk 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) And so, as ever, groweth my intense dislike of IRC. In case anyone who participates there was unclear about this, IRC is not the place for a "big discussion" about possible copyright violations and/or plagiarism by a sitting arbitrator. Some private communiques with the person in question might well be appropriate before taking it on-wiki, but the discussion belongs on en.wikipedia, not on off-wiki channels that many of us choose not to participate in on the principle that open discussion is a good thing, and indeed central to the mission of this project. For any IRC peeps who remain confused (as has been the case in the past) as to why the existence of IRC channels ("private" or not) for discussing Wikipedia pisses so many people off, this is a pretty good example. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Well, there are precedents for how the community handles editors whose copyvios get onto Wikipedia's main page at DYK. See this RfC and its outcome and comments by Dahn at this thread, which had a similar outcome. Surrounding circumstances were different, yet we would normally hold admins and arbitrators to a higher standard than regular editors? Durova412 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I would assume so; drawing FT's original ANI thread as an example (where some people called for a desysop) I'd expect some kind of tap on the wrist for Mr Davies. I also note an example of what seems to be deliberate deception. The article on Guy Pedroncini originally ran "director of the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains, from 1983 to 1995, and publisher of the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains, Pedroncini was the first military historian to report in great statistical detail on the French army mutinies of 1917." - plagiarism from Le Monde, as it is a direct translation of the French. In this edit he reworded it slightly to " was director of the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains, from 1983 to 1995, and publisher of the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains from 1985 to 1997" (not changing the fact that it is still plagiarism) and then attributed it to a different source. I can't think of a reason to do this that doesn't come back to "attempting to hide said plagiarism". Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC) There is no attempt to deceive. I've simply expanded thew original article and included a much better source that covers it. The material about the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains and the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains is not incidentally in the Le Monde extract.  Roger Davies talk 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, this is a direct translation rather than a paraphrase. And this noticeboard is currently reaching consensus on a siteban for an editor who deliberately misattributed a copyvio to the wrong source. This misattribution was done by Roger two days ago? This is very serious. Durova412 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC) No, it's not a direct translation. I'll do one for comparison purposes.  Roger Davies talk 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Please assemble the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roger Davies. I suspect that by the time you are done, several editors will have attempted to resolve this with Roger and should be available to certify. I don't think a complex matter like this can be dealt with fully at WP:AN. Jehochman Brrr 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC) It's actually a fairly simple matter; either they are plagiarism, or they are not. I think it's fairly clear that they are. If Roger Davies is an honourable individual, he'll see growing consensus against his actions and take whatever action he sees fit. If not, an RfC is pointless since it's non-binding. Either way, I think we can afford to let this sit here until he gets online and formulates a response. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Not opposed to conduct RfC in theory, but only one of the three cited examples of plagiarism/misattribution needed to go there--and before it did the admin boards discussed it in a bit more depth. Copyvio is a serious conduct issue and no Wikipedian's positions of trust earn them exemption from normal scrutiny in that regard. Durova412 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Plagiarism is not always a copyright violation. These are two different things. Jehochman Brrr 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC) But in the case linked after Durova's post, where he has not only plagiarised but misattributed the source in what appears to be an attempt to hide it, it is a copyright violation. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) A direct translation of a copyrighted French text would violate the original French copyright. It's worrisome to see that the French version of the article, which Roger also cowrote, uses its sources properly[29] while Roger's English contribution is a straight translation from Le Monde.[30] Durova412 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) We need to ask him what happened. Maybe he copied the source into a text editor to save it, and was writing in another Window late at night, and accidentally copied the wrong text into the article. Who knows what happened until he responds. The million dollar question is whether these errors are habitual or exceptional. I believe that if there has been plagiarism, it was unintentional. In Roger's favor, he did attribute the sources, though he may have paraphrased too much and failed to quote where he should have. Jehochman Brrr 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC) So he got confused with text editors what, five or six times? And in the last example, he not only did not attribute but deliberately changed the attribution, in my opinion to avoid detection. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Is there a link to any previous discussion or is this the first time it's been brought up?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) This is the first one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) That's disapointing to say the least. Would be better to have both sides of the story on the table before bringing it to the community looking for judgement. As others I would like to hear what Roger has to say.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Just as a matter of interest, how many ways are there of representing a claim that a film was the most expensive ever based on a source that says it was the most expensive? I can't help feeling that somebody is mistaking legitimate precis for plagiarism here. A touch of good faith might also be an idea, since Roger is hardly known as a problem editor. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) And such good faith would have been extended, if that had been the only flaw. I would've gone "fair does, some things can't be avoided". It isn't, and some things are far larger than that. Of particular interest is the occasion where he not only plagiarised but deliberately altered the attribution. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Did you attempt to discuss your concerns with Roger before coming to this board? Have you discussed these concerns with anybody else? Jehochman Brrr 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Definitely cause for concern here, though we'll need to hear from Roger before reaching firm conclusions. My initial impression is that we have some cases where Roger felt he had altered the wording sufficiently to avoid crossing the line into plagiarism (i.e. he was just drawing info from the source, citing it, and then putting it in his own words), but in fact the wording was too close to the original. I don't see "attempting to hide said plagiarism" as the only reason for recent edits to Guy Pedroncini, rather he seems to have found a better source for certain basic facts and simply cited that instead, perhaps not even remembering or realizing how closely some of the text held to the original French-language bio from Le Monde. Still that article is an obvious problem based on what I can parse from the original French source. Ultimately it's quite likely that these are good-faith errors where the editor believed they were using the sources in an acceptable manner, and it's important to find out how widespread the issue is before judging its severity. However even if these are good-faith mistakes it's still clearly a significant problem since experienced contributors (much less admins or arbitrators) need to be aware of standards for plagiarism and copyright violations. One or two errors or oversights out of thousands of edits is likely forgivable, but anything even vaguely systematic in terms of problems with plagiarism is an extremely serious issue. At this point we simply need more information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Roger's work at Second Vinson Act uses direct cut and pastes from one of its two sources. Durova412 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Disclaimer: returning to expansion on the San Diego Museum of Art, which was a badly underdeveloped little stub[31] and still needs much work. May be slow to follow up here at this thread. Roger's text:"mandated a 20% increase in strength of the United States Navy"[32] "Development of the World's Fastest Battleships" by J. David Rogers, p. 7: "mandated a 20% increase in the strength of the U.S. Navy"[33] Roger's text:"had authorized the construction of the first American battleships in 17 years"[34] "Development of the World's Fastest Battleships" by J. David Rogers, p. 7: "had authorized the construction of the first American battleships in 17 years"[35] My apologies: the text should have been enclosed in quotes and at this distance in time (nearly two years) I really don't know why I didn't do so. Two ten words extracts from a 6,000-word source is legitimate.  Roger Davies talk 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Those examples are quite blatant and considerably increase my level of concern. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC) It is my understanding that Roger is away for a few days. While I do not have any intention of suppressing concerns here, perhaps someone can come up with a way of identifying the concerns and permitting him to respond without keeping a thread open for several days on this noticeboard. 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) Risker, I agree it would be a good thing not to have too much discussion here before Roger can respond. On the other hand whatever we do that doesn't give everybody the chance to contribute their opinion several times over the next 48 hours would probably create a shitstorm of ABF "sweeping under the carpet" accusations. I guess the best way forward is to create one of those copyvio case pages that I have seen in other cases, continue discussion there, and close the present discussion until Roger is back. I trust that Roger will take things very seriously and suspend his other WP activities until this is more or less resolved. Hans Adler 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'm away tomorrow (I booked Eurotunnel this afternoon) and have keeeping my head down getting work ready for my trip. I can assure you that I do take these allegations very seriously indeed and will post a response shortly.  Roger Davies talk 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (ec, to Hans Adler) That might be necessary. Compare on Camp Vernet: Roger's text: "In June 1944, the last internees were evacuated and deported to Dachau in the 'Ghost Train'. In total, about 40,000 persons of 58 nationalities were interned in the camp; mainly men but also women and children."[36] Text virtually unchanged in current version.[37] Source: "In June 1944, the last internees were evacuated and deported to Dachau in the 'Ghost Train.' In total about 40,000 persons of 58 nationalities were interned in the camp--mainly men but also women and children."[38] Durova412 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Why do matters like this arise just as the largest fine art museum in a city of a million people is getting from stub-class to start-class?[39] I was horrified to see this. In my defence, it was written four years. I used to cut and paste sources into Word (a practice I've long since stopped) and then edit them and I guess this got tangled up with article.  Roger Davies talk 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This makes sense to me, as I do the same thing. If I'm working on a complicated section or article with multiple sources, I'll often jot down key assertions or phrases that capture the view or contribution of each source, and then look at how these can be worked into a coherent narrative. In the first stage I'll sometimes write entire sentences verbatim, with a view to rephrasing after I've figured out just what it is I want to say. I take care to ensure that nothing verbatim slips into the final version that I post to Wikipedia, but it is plausible that one day a sentence could slip through and I will find myself facing accusations like these. Hesperian 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Now re-written.  Roger Davies talk 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) So you repeatedly confused articles and sources? And this explains the poorly-paraphrased plagiarism dating from two days ago how? Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Which example are you referring too?  Roger Davies talk 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Guy Pedroncini Original Le Monde text: Guy Pedroncini, historien de la première guerre mondiale et biographe de Pétain, est mort mardi 11 juillet à l'âge de 82 ans. Né 17 mai 1924 à Paris, élève de l'Ecole normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud, docteur ès lettres, il enseigna à la faculté des lettres du Mans avant de rejoindre la Sorbonne en 1977 en qualité de professeur. Premier historien à avoir étudié les mutineries de 1917, Guy Pedroncini avait publié le fruit de ses recherches en 1967, Les Mutineries de 1917, aux Presses universitaires de France. Direct translation: Guy Pedroncini, historian of the First World War and biographer of Pétain, died Tuesday 11 July at the age of 82. Born 17 May 1924 in Paris, student of the Ecole normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud, doctor of letters, he taught at the faculty of humanities of Le Mans before rejoining the Sorbonne in 1977 as a teacher. First historian to have studied the mutinies of 1917, Pedronici published the fruit of his research in 1967, Les Mutineries de 1917, with Presses universitaires de France. Article text: Guy Pedroncini was a French military historian of World War I and the biographer of Philippe Pétain.[1] He was born in Paris on 17 May 1924 and died on 11 July 2006, at the age of 82.[1] Educated at the École normale supérieure at Saint-Cloud, he was a doctor of literature and taught at Le Mans university before becoming a professor at the Sorbonne university in 1977.[1] Director of the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains, from 1983 to 1995, and publisher of the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains, Pedroncini was the first military historian to study the French army mutinies of 1917.[1] I think the article text is a reasonable paraphrase though it obviously covers many of the same facts. I have since expanded it, and based it on a much more detailed source.  Roger Davies talk 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Sinan This is a very much a work in progress (which I started by adding numerous sources). Having re-read the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline, I honestly think this is legitimate paraphrase.  Roger Davies talk 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) George Nathan The core of this was written nearly four years ago, prior to the existence of WP:PLAGIARISM. Of course there are similarities to the original text (which is cited in both instances) but I'm unclear how to paraphrase the key information without drifting from the sourced facts or introducing vagueness. Again, had this raised on the article's (or my) talk page, I would have attended to it promptly.  Roger Davies talk 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Fort Saganne It did not occur to me, to be honest, that using a succinct commonplace phrase would land me in hot water for plagiarism. As it's become an issue, I have replaced it with "When it was shot, it was France's biggest-budget film to date". I don't know if that's an improvement. Alternative suggestions welcome.  Roger Davies talk 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Motion to close This AN discussion should probably be closed, as productive discussion seems to be taking place that would be better suited for another forum. Further investigation should definitely take place, either in a subpage of Roger's userspace or at WP:CCI. A RfC/U might also be suitable, but I don't believe that there is anything more that needs to be done here. NW (Talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I for one would like a verification of Durova's assertion above that there was a "big discussion" about this on IRC a few days ago. Beyond that, it would be good to know what the gist of that discussion was, and why exactly nothing was said about this on en.wikipedia for days afterward. I know some folks don't like to discuss IRC around here because they view it as something that will always be around (some even think for good) and thus any discussion is pointless, but I would disagree strongly with that. To my mind it's completely inappropriate for an important issue like this to have been discussed extensively off-wiki and then only brought to the attention of the wider community because one editor took it upon themselves to do so. I ask any editors involved in any IRC discussion to describe it and ideally explain why it stayed there and only showed up on the part of the internet that actually relates to running this project a few days later. Those of us who choose not to participate on IRC do like to be up on the latest discussions that have to do with ArbCom and plagiarism and the like, and I'd be curious to see the justification for discussing those matters out of view of most of the community in a non-public forum. Beyond that, a rush to close this strikes me as a bad idea simply because it would seem hasty to some, even though I don't disagree with you that there are better forum for this. Perhaps discussion can be shifted once those discussions have started so that a link can be placed to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I never use IRC so I am unable to provide verification of whatever did or didn't happen there. As stated above, someone contacted me today after I posted to this AN thread to inform me that a related discussion had taken place on IRC several days ago, and to assert that Roger Davies's misattributed referencing of February 20 was done afterward (possibly in response to those complaints). At any rate, the more salient question than ooh, seekrit IRC meeting is whether Roger Davies misused a source to conceal a copyvio in response to it. It isn't pleasant to think any editor would do such a thing, but under these circumstances the question needs to be asked. Durova412 02:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I've created User:Roger_Davies/Plagiarism for further discussion and copied over the sub-sections above.  Roger Davies talk 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I'm still waiting to see an actual case of plagiarism. I'm not the most experienced of editors but I have spent some time working on plagiarism and copyright issues and I haven't seen a single instance presented here yet (IMO). There's only so many ways you can say "they built a bridge across the river". Copying distinctive phrasing or non-chronological presentation of facts, sure. But saying it was the first battleship authorized in 17 years just proves that you actually read the source. I don't think WP:PLAG was intended to insist that every adjective must be changed, every tense changed, your clause-order can't be the same as the source. Unless someone pulls up something startling, this all looks rather lame just now. Franamax (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You missed a couple then, see Durova's examples above from Second Vinson Act and Camp Vernet. The others mentioned were either debatable or at least relatively minor examples, but there was wholesale copying from the source in the two articles cited above. Obviously that's cause for concern and we need to make sure there were not similar problems on other articles, but I'm fine with that happening at User:Roger_Davies/Plagiarism or at WP:CCI if someone feels that is more appropriate. Most of the discussion can move to one of those places now, but personally I will not consider this closed until we hear more about this IRC discussion that supposedly took place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The first I heard about the detail of this was on Friday when I received an anonymised extract of text from an email. I don't know much about what has been going on IRC (I've never set foot there). I did have a very vague allegation back in mid-January by private email from a banned user but as written in, um, trenchant terms, made various other allegations, and I have never ever had any previous complaints about plagiarism, I'm afraid I paid it little attention.  Roger Davies talk 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The Camp Vernet one, yeah I missed that. That would fit my criteris. Second Vinson Act, I say no (I used it in my comment just above). I won't be spending much time on this for sure, there are bigger fish to fry out there. Unless the definition of "big fish" is bringing down an arb, where I share your concern about IRC discussions. Franamax (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The Camp Vernet, which was done nearly four years ago, is indeed indefensible. I have no idea at all how it happened. (I have now fixed the text by the way.) The Second Vinson Act, from two years ago, looks to me like a matter of omitting a couple of pairs of quotation marks (which I have now added). Roger Davies talk 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (ec x 2)Before closing, would someone answer the following question so it becomes a teachable moment for the rest of us? [1]= http://www.mta.org.nz/n1327.html (“As the last tyre manufacturer in Australia and New Zealand, we have all worked hard over many years to avoid today’s decision. However, the unfortunate reality is that Bridgestone Australia Ltd. can no longer commercially justify the continued operation of these facilities.) Which of the following is plagiarism: 1. Bridgestone is the last tyre manufacturer in Australia [1] 2. As the last tyre manufacturer in Australia, the closure of the South Australia plant ends tire production in Australia. [1] 3. As reality set in, Bridgestone Australia Ltd. found that it could no longer commercially justify the continued operation of the facility. [1] 4. What happens when you want to copy exactly a sentence. How do you cite it then? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC) If you really, really have to use the same wording? You put it in quotes. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Additional evidence of direct plagiarism (for Franamax's benefit); the original draft of Henri de Turenne (writer), which read "he has also written fictional screenplays, the best-known of which is Les Alsaciens ou les deux Mathilde (1996), for Arte, for which he shared a Sept d'or with Michel Deutsch.". The source reads " écrit plusieurs séries de fiction dont la plus célèbre est « les Alsaciens ou les deux Mathilde » (en 1996 pour Arte) qui lui vaut un Sept d’Or du meilleur scénario avec Michel Deutsch." Roger, if the "direct" plagiarism was as a result of confusing the word file with the source in it and the word file with the article draft, could you explain how such a thing happened when the source was in French? Because even I can see that's verbatim. Ironholds (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Firstly, it's not a direct translation, though it covers very similar ground. The question here, I suppose, is how do you write fact-dense material without covering the same facts? The guideline says under "What is not plagarism": "Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Editors who claim that the phrasing at issue is plagiarism must show that there is an alternative phrasing that does not make the passage more difficult to read. If a proposed rephrasing may impair the clarity, or flow, of a paragraph, they must propose a rephrasing that avoids such side-effects, possibly by rephrasing content preceding and following the disputed passage, or even the whole paragraph."  Roger Davies talk 02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I just went through it word by painful word. I have no problem at all with the overall translation and restatement. Note the rearrangement of chronology from the original. The last sentence uses the same words to restate a simple fact. The original has been successfully rewritten in its body. What is the problem? Should have used a period instead of a comma? Seriously, how would you word it? Franamax (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This is not an appropriate matter for this noticeboard. Roger cites his sources, but on occasion his attempts at rewriting information are uncomfortably close to the originals. It's clearly not a matter of deceit or misconduct. It would have been better to work directly with Roger to address this, as he is a good faith editor interested in correcting the problems. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "uncomfortably close to the originals" equals "identical in several cases", does it? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You might want to read Substantial similarity, which indicates that not only is this plagiarism, it is also a copyright violation under US law. Ironholds (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) With respect, I am not an expert on copyright law, let alone the applicable US Copyright Law on translations. Our copyvio article doesn't even mention translations. However, the general problem here is how to simultaneously stick close to the facts (which WP:V requires) without falling foul of plagiarism allegations.  Roger Davies talk 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Again, this is not an appropriate matter for the noticeboard. Do you want someone to block Roger from editing? The most productive way to resolve the problem would have been to simply talk to Roger about it. If Roger refused to accept that there was any problem and refused to adjust his editing style to avoid these instances of "substantial similarity", then you'd have a point in bringing it here. Everyking (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) IRC chat I'm fine with the above discussion relating directly to Roger Davies' editing being archived and ultimately moved elsewhere, but I do think the issue of a "big conversation" about this issue on IRC a few days ago needs to be addressed. Aside from Roger saying he knows nothing about it (which I very much assume to be true), no one has responded to queries about this matter as yet, and while we cannot as a rule police activities in IRC, this particular incident (if true) strikes me as problematic enough to warrant at least some rough accounting from a participant or observer. While I don't want to sound like a broken record (and now risk entering that territory), I find it quite unseemly that this issue was the subject of IRC gossip days ago and the rest of us have no idea what went on there or what relationship that conversation has to this thread. I would strongly advise someone who was privy to that conversation to give us the gist of the matter here on the noticeboard (obviously without violating anyone's privacy). If it's largely innocent (as might well be the case) then I'll leave it at that, despite my deep personal disdain for IRC chitchat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) While this is unprovable, I have never engaged in a "big conversation" on IRC about these matters. Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I guess the question would be, "Did you engage in any conversation on IRC about these matters?" Scottaka UnitAnode 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) If someone wants to know what conversations occur on IRC in public, they are welcome to find out for themselves by joining. If someone wants to know what conversations occur on IRC in private, that's really none of their business. And finally, if someone wants to be the judge of what is innocent (or not innocent) conversation on IRC, after they themselves have declared a personal disdain for IRC, then they really ought to think again. Really, either archive the whole lot, or keep the whole lot open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC) If IRC conversations (whether public or private)directly affect what happens on-project, they deserve to see the light of day, period. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Capital idea! While we're at it, lets open up the admin chan logs and Arbcom Wiki! after all, if conversations (whether public or private) directly affect what happens on-project, they deserve to see the light of day, period. Ironholds (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This isn't about the sensitive RL concerns that arbcom deals with, and you damn well know it. But your dissembling says all that need be said on the matter. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You're most entitled to your opinion and you can keep demanding answers for as long as you want (much like users do with the sorts of things that are discussed on the arb mailing list); sorry, but it won't change the reality, period. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (after edit conflict) Ncmvocalist the above replies really do not exactly strike the right tone, I think. First of all from what I can gather (and understand I literally do not know how IRC functions) all IRC chats regarding Wikipedia are "private" to the extent that I cannot go read their logs somewhere if I do not participate in IRC. Second of all there are many Wikipedians who do not want to join IRC channels (open "public" ones or "private" ones) because they do not think it is appropriate to discuss Wikipedia (a project that is built on the idea of transparent, consensus-based decision making) in off-wiki channels that cannot be viewed by all editors (the ArbCom and functionaries lists are exceptions in my view, perhaps there are others). My question here is really a simple one and I'm not remotely looking to turn it into a referendum on IRC, which is why I said "if it's largely innocent (as might well be the case) then I'll leave it at that." To clarify, by "largely innocent" I mean just idle chatter or the like that didn't really go anywhere, as opposed to a concerted effort to go after an arbitrator, or to cover-up the fact that there were maybe some problems. However it also would be an issue in my view if there was agreement on IRC that there were problems but no one bothered to actually bring it onto en.wikipedia where it really belongs. These are perfectly valid questions, and your response is precisely the kind of attitude that makes many wary of IRC ("we'll do whatever we want, join us if you're curious, otherwise shoo"). You're obviously welcome to not answer the question, but perhaps someone else will be more obliging. Finally while I very much take Ironholds at their word in the comment above, Unitanode's followup is a valid question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (outdent) It doesn't shine a very good light on our priorities if plagiarism, copyright violation, and improper sourcing somehow merit less scrutiny then what was or wasn't said on IRC. Durova412 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) It doesn't shine a very good light on your priorities if you don't care that there may well be concerted private attempts to go after a sitting arbitrator on IRC. As for your concerns about RD, he's trying to deal with those, and has even opened a page specifically intended for such conversations. If you have further concerns in this regard, go there please. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Question, what are people trying to accomplish here? RxS (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Speaking for myself, I'm trying to get a little clarity as to the IRC conversation that apparently happened about this matter, in my view quite possibly inappropriately. I've laid out quite specifically what I'm interested in knowing above, if there's something specifically unclear in that let me know, but I think the goal of this subthread is quite transparent—finding out if there were IRC shenanigans leading up to this AN discussion. It's a valid question, even if people who are active on IRC may not care for it. And to Durova, no one here (including me) has said it's more important to find out what was said on IRC than dealing with copyright, so I don't know where you got that. If you check my recent contributions you'll see I'm reviewing Roger's articles now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) When you have nothing to substantiate your view, it does seem inappropriate that you and more particularly Unitanode, personally make every effort to continue this part of the thread, when other users don't believe it accomplishes anything useful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Durova stated unequivocally, that there was a "big discussion" that had gone on about it on IRC. It would be very helpful if you made certain you knew the facts of the situation that we have questioned before commenting. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Then perhaps you should've spoken to Durova directly about it - the fact that you chose to prolong this noticeboard discussion speaks volumes. The same goes for your questions that are directed to Ironholds. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Unless you actually have something to add to the discussion, perhaps you'd do well to simply disengage? Scottaka UnitAnode 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Take your own advice before expecting others to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I did engage in a conversation about it on IRC - after I'd posted the thread. Any discussions involving other people are unknown to me. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) How did you become aware of the concerns about Davies' editing, then? Scottaka UnitAnode 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) An email sent to me, which I followed up on with some investigations of my own. Are we done with this particular witch-hunt, or would you like to look at the larger issues, such as a member of the Arbitration Committee breaking US copyright law? Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Your last sentence is far from being substantiated, and you'd do very well to not make such accusations without much more substantial proof. Accusing someone of breaking the law is very serious indeed. Davies has opened a page for discussions surrounding the issues with his articles. Perhaps such inflammatory rhetoric could be contained to that page. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC) No. Please leave legal talk to those with some training in it, and give Substantial similarity a read on your way out. Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This is veering dangerously close to making legal threats toward Davies, at least in my view. As I said, such rhetoric should probably be confined to the page that has been opened to deal with the problems identified with his articles. Doing so here is little more than a distraction from the direct questions you've been asked. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Legal threats? Please, hyperbole is not helpful. Each user has a talk page; if you want to ask them a question, use it instead of stirring up more drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "dangerously close to legal threats"? "Please, hyperbole is not helpful". But to confirm: I have never intentionally made any comment which could be conceived as a legal threat to Davies, since I am a law student with the common sense of the average garden gnome. I have simply pointed out that your little IRC-discussion, which I have now resolved, is the little fish in the bloody big pond. Ironholds (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (ec) Witch hunt? Please, hyperbole is not helpful. The reaction to a simple query is quite telling, for example Ncmvocalist edit warring to close this thread, which is not really something a non-admin (or indeed an admin) should be doing on WP:AN. If people don't want to answer my question they absolutely do not have to, but efforts to immediately close down a conversation about IRC (on the part of IRCers!) makes things look far worse. I'm completely open to the possibility (if not likelihood) that all that happened was idle chatter, but surely y'all understand why some might be concerned that this was discussed days ago (and I agree with Ironholds that these are serious issues) before being brought to en.wp? Again, what was the gist of the conversation? Takes about one minute to answer and then we can drop this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) To paraphrase closely (I keed, I keed!) "ohai, you might want to take a look at [x], cos I herd you liek copyright/plagiarism work", "ooh shit, I'd help out but I've got stuff to do, DO NOT WANT". Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) It's disappointing that a serious and (to my mind at least) valid question was replied to in this fashion, but I'll leave this entire issue here since this thread is not helping anyone. I'm flabbergasted it so quickly devolved into deep acrimony, sarcasm, and edit warring—that was not remotely my intention, and if even asking starting this sub-thread about the IRC issue somehow led inexorably to this brouhaha then I apologize. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) How convenient that your concerns have precedence because...oh that's right, you're an admin. Unitanode was acting as your agent, Bigtimepeace, when he grossly misused rollback and edit-warred [40] [41] over a disputed close? Oh, but that's right, it was a small price to pay to advance your witchhunt, instead of asking Durova directly on her talk page with minimal drama. The fact that you tried to cause maximum drama at this venue suggests what sort of politics goes about on-wiki. ChildofMidnight might have a point after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (out of sequence, Unitanode below also replying to Ncmvocalist above). There's an extraordinary amount of bad faith there. Unitanode was not my "agent" and at first I did not even notice you two were edit warring. We're not remotely allies or anything like that and the one time I've ever commented on Unitanode's talk page it was to ask that editor to stop doing something (other than that we've debated in one or two AfDs). I don't think my concerns get precedence because I'm an admin (but I can ask questions, like anyone else), I'm not trying to cause maximum drama, and I'm not remotely on a "witchhunt," in no small measure because I'm not looking for any particular "witches" but just asking someone to describe a conversation. Importing (or trying to) another completely unrelated dispute pertaining to ChildofMidnight suggests that you may be far more interested in escalating drama than I, and I'm obviously not going to reply to that. More so, I'm not going to pursue this overall issue any further, so no worries for you there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Do you even care how foolish you look when you claim a misclick was "grossly misus[ing]" rollback? You were point-ily trying to collapse an on-going discussion about IRC. I clicked rollback instead of undo, and almost immediately rectified. You're doing nothing here but flinging accusations and not even truly paying attention to the conversation. I'm finished replying to you, as there's truly no point. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, a misclick was it? You "misclicked" rollback while in a heated content dispute where you intended to (and did) revert anyway - gee, I really must believe that. Gosh, how foolish of me to believe otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Serioulsy? You do realize that "rollback" and "undo" are right-fucking-next-to each other, right? What the hell is your point, here? I almost immediately rolled back my own edit, and reclicked the proper button. You need to desist disengage, right now. These bad-faith accusations about misusing rollback are far out of line. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) As amusing as your hyperbole is, your misconduct including your approach throughout this entire discussion, has not vanished into thin air. I think it's quite transparent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC) A collapse/uncollapse edit war has been occurring.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] It's difficult to reply to several heated comments while this is going on. Durova412 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I think it's stopped now, but that certainly wasn't a good thing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Is it allowable to state that the substantive issues themselves appear meritorious and that other problems exist, or will that be lost in a barrage of counteraccusations and sarcasm? Durova412 04:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand the question here—is it directed to me as a reply to my previous comment? I was not being sarcastic (either there or anywhere else) but was just pointing out that the edit warring had stopped but was not a good thing to have happened (thus agreeing with you). And I certainly think it worthwhile to discuss the substantive issues regarding articles Roger has created and indeed have left him a note on his talk page based on a partial investigation on my part. If you were bothered by something I said perhaps my wording was not clear, or maybe I'm misreading your comment above, but I think we're definitely on the same page in terms of the copyright issues being the main thing. Indeed I now regret starting this further thread about the IRC issue, though I had no idea it would devolve into this since I took it to be a pretty straightforward question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Uncle Screwtape's guide to bringing up a plagiarism complaint on Wikipedia The following suggestions are meant to focus on learning from best practices of more than one previous plagiarism complaint and are meant not so much as a critique of past performance as a way of helping us do an even better job in the future:clarification -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Fail to bring it up with the editor first, as WP:PLAGIARISM#Addressing the editor involved strongly suggests: contact the editor responsible, point them politely to this guideline page and ask them to provide the proper attribution. Hyperventilate. From the same section of the same policy: Please use care to frame concerns in an appropriate way, as an accusation of plagiarism is a serious charge. Hyperventilate some more. Fail to keep in mind that close paraphrasing of cited sources is the easiest way to violate plagiarism and can be done by even concientious editors. Instead, treat the editor like an escaped felon. Forget that years-old edits, well before Wikipedia ever had the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline, reflect an editor's earlier levels of expertise. Forget that computers have the ability to both copy and paste exact words and that any researcher working on a computer will almost inevitably copy quotes and paste them somewhere. It is extremely easy for a volunteer, especially a tired one with a job, to mistake an exact quote from one's own words when the material isn't all that creative. Bring the matter right here, or to AN/I, regardless of whether or not it's necessary to do so. (The following was not done by Ironholds, but others should take up this idea in the future: Discuss it at IRC first, to get maximum volume.) Continue Hyperventilating. Present cases of close paraphrasing, the most minor, piddling form of plagiarism, as if the lawyers had sent someone knocking at the door with a subpoena or some committee had been convened to bar the editor from the faculty lounge. Exaggerate. Present acceptable paraphrasing from drably worded sources as if an artiste's precious prose had been purloined. (To take a recent example, no obit writer at a Paris newspaper gives a damn whether or not a Wikipedia article on the deceased presents information in roughly the same order, even if the -- translated! -- wording is similar. It is possible that the writer will sneer a bit before turning to the next obit. Best not to concentrate on just how low those stakes are when we're talking about someone sneering at Wikipedia.) Propound on the iniquity of plagiarism in general, out of all proportion to the circumstances in the case at hand. Twist your knickers tightly. Conflate a few mistakes over the course of years into what looks like an immediate horror. Take the sausage-making that is Wikipedia ever so very seriously. Take the actual feelings of actual editors (i.e., human beings) that you're actually referring to -- among their friends and acquaintances here -- with very little regard. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC) So bringing the issue up is to "Take the actual feelings of actual editors (i.e., human beings) that you're actually referring to -- among their friends and acquaintances here -- with very little regard.", while making sneering personal comments with little basis in reality = totally fine? Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) See Rule #1. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You're right, this totally isn't bringing it up, and obviously justifies your petty comments. Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC) It isn't bringing it up with the editor. Did you even attempt to contact Davies to ask him what was going on? If so, I didn't see any evidence of that. That is clearly what is rceommended. Dragging to WP:AN isn't advisable as a first step, for certain, and probably not even as a second step. It should only come here if the editor is intransigent about the issue. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Did you or Bigtimepeace even attempt to contact Durova or Ironholds to ask for further information about the IRC claims? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Unitanode, please explain: Where you attempted to contact Durova or I vis a vis IRC; Why my failure to speak to Davies directly voids this thread, since he's now made it clear he was already aware of the problem; Why my failure to speak to Davies directly excuses Barber's petty comments above? Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Who cares? I'm not accusing you two of breaking the fucking law, as you are with Davies. It doesn't, necessarily. But, it does call into question your intentions in the matter, since you didn't bother to follow normal protocol. Barber's comments were direct, and had a spin to them, but they were not inaccurate. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC) firstly, I've never accused Davies of making sexual advances or violating any other element of "fucking law". Secondly, as I've demonstrated, my points have been verified. Ironholds (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, you've found me out! I, a user who has never (so far as I remember) had any interaction with Davies, am trying to expose his vile and nefarious schemes! I must fall on my sword to protect the honour of my clan! Ironholds (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry? Alleging that I discussed it on IRC beforehand; false. Alleging that I've conflated "a few mistakes over several years"? False, considering the most recent problematic edit was two days ago. Ironholds (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Ironholds, if you say you didn't discuss it at IRC first, I take your word for it and I'm refactoring that sentence above. You did present years-old edits without saying how old they were, and that's one way not to do it: occasional mistakes over time are a lot different from constant problems. My "guideline" is meant to warn other editors not to make some of the same mistakes I see on this page and that I've seen in the past. It's sharp criticism, but not meant to be an attack on you. I'm not saying that everything you said is somehow "voided", but I don't think it's as serious as you made it out to be. Durova, below, is making some interesting points, and they seem worth checking out, but I think the way you went about this is harmful in some ways, and I wanted to point out those errors in a way I'm hoping others will remember, not to attack you but to attack the errors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Back on subject Let's take the high road and stay on subject. The substantive issue which remains unresolved is that Roger admitted the improper sourcing of 20 February 2010 at Guy Pedroncini was done in response to complaints.[50] Now he has created a page in userspace to accept and address other sourcing issues. With that as his first attempt can the community quite trust him to correct other problems properly? Durova412 04:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Actualy, he admitted to rewriting the section and adding a new source, not "improper sourcing" [51]. Just a point. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) A full read of the thread would provide better context: Roger Davies had done a straight translation from Le Monde--not a paraphrase--and in response to complaints he retained basically the identical wording and attributed it to a different source. So instead of correcting the problem he compounded it. Durova412 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The first article text is not a straight translation of the "Le Monde". I've provided a direct translation here, for comparison. The re-write is significantly different diff. The text which you say is substantially the same didn't appear in the Le Monde extract anyway. Roger Davies talk 05:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (EC:oy, I worked hard on this!)Then I'd point to the section in the collapsed part above entitled Guy Pedroncini, wherein Davies provides the original source, compared to a direct translation versus his original attempt to paraphrase[52]. It holds up for me, that is, I don't think "straight translation" is a fair charcterization. Further, the article has now gone from: Guy Pedroncini was a French military historian of World War I and the biographer of Philippe Pétain.[1] He was born in Paris on 17 May 1924 and died on 11 July 2006, at the age of 82.[1] Educated at the École normale supérieure at Saint-Cloud, he was a doctor of literature and taught at Le Mans university before becoming a professor at the Sorbonne university in 1977.[1] Director of the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains, from 1983 to 1995, and publisher of the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains, Pedroncini was the first military historian to study the French army mutinies of 1917.[1] to this Guy Pedroncini was a French academic and military historian specialising in the First World War, and notable as the biographer of Philippe Pétain and for his work on the French army mutinies of 1917.[1] He was born in Paris on 17 May 1924 and died on 11 July 2006, at the age of 82.[2] An alumnus of the prestigious École Normale Supérieure at Saint-Cloud, Pedroncini worked as a high school teacher in lycées in Tours and in Courbevoie while working on his doctoral thesis. [1] This thesis, on the French army mutinies of 1917, was published in 1967 and was the first to provide detailed statistical analysis of more than 600 courts martial, based on his then unprecedented access to the French military justice archives.[3][1] Between 1969 and his retirement in 1992, Pedroncini held professorial and decanal posts at the universities of the Sorbonne, Panthéon-Sorbonne in Paris and the University of Maine, Le Mans. He was director of the Institut d'Histoire des conflits contemporains, from 1983 to 1995, and publisher of the Revue des guerres mondiales et des conflits contemporains from 1985 to 1997.[1] So I don't think "basically identical wording" holds up either. For a stub article, these are pretty substantial expansions each time. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (ec due to double checking, outdent) Point. Consider this withdrawn. Durova412 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today, and your comments are invited. For what it is worth, I personally do not see your !vote or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest despite the obvious fact that this is a proposal that impacts administrators directly. In any case, I believe the community needs to know the thoughts of a goodly cross-section of administrators regarding this RfC proposal.

I also urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax 01:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• So far, every dissenting opinion has been ignored and the process has been pursued in spite of every objection. Is this going to be any different? Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Flaws in this process noted by TenOfAllTrades suggests not. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Living Persons task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 28 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is at 0:00 UTC on Monday, 22 February, which you will notice if you have been in previous meetings is several hours earlier than usual. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested. Be sure to read our current project, a set of recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees, if you plan to come.

Please do email myself or Keegan if you have questions on how to participate!

Yours sincerely,

NW (Talk) 19:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Noooooo! Boycott IRC. ;) Durova⁴¹² 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Use Skype instead? ;) Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I already have a chat room meeting at 11:30 UTC and it can go for 2 or three hours sometimes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

must...not...use...inappropriate...humour...arrgh...;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL

At Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL I've made a proposal to close that RFC and suggestions for next steps. Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Running into a spam blacklist problem when reverting vandalism.

I can't revert these two edits because I get a spam blacklist error. Can an admin fix this, please? Woogee (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the 'offending citation' which was causing the blacklist to disallow edits to the page which would restore the reflist, as attempting to manually get around it instead of reverting still resulted in me getting hit by the spam filter. The problem link can be seen here: [53]. --Taelus (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Taelus. Woogee (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing WP:R2D?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Enforcing WP:R2D? and comment. Thank you, –xeno^talk 23:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone look into this sockpuppetry-related mess?

I would handle it myself, but I don't believe I have the time to do the issue justice. I believe the relevant links are User talk:Sumbuddi (see bottom of the talk page), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi. Thank you, NW (Talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Is this bad faith canvassing allowed?[54] ArticlesForRedemption 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine for me. They put the posting in an appropriate spot, it's not like they went to several different people's Talk pages and spammed them. Woogee (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that bad faith canvassing? Is the same or similiar things posted elsewhere? SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As the alleged "canvasser" you can check my contribs to see that single post on Talk:U2 is all i did in terms of notifications. I note that in my experience, afd nominators usually notify article creators, frequent contributors and related projects. I could comment further on this editor's behaviour but will leave it for now. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) No; User:Merbabu left a notification at Talk:U2 much the same way a WikiProject would be updated with information regarding AFD/GAN/FAC, etc. Since the U2 WikiProject became inactive the U2 article editors have mainly used Talk:U2 for posting notifications about general topics (such as the proposal for creating an article on their concert at Sarajevo). User:ArticlesForRedemption removed Merbabu's post, and Merbabu restored it. I left a notice on AFR's talk page (which was promptly removed) trying to show the difference between asking somebody to vote a certain way and notifying about a deletion discussion. And that's pretty much the extent of our "canvessing". By the way AFR, along with notifying users about AFDs, you are also supposed to notify them if you open up a thread at AN or AN/I about them. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the editor who has started this thread is now blocked - at the same time I was about to put up a sock/checkuser request - anyone reviewing the editors 50 edits might want to consider a checkuser check first before reviewing the block - it might make the process easier to ascertain - as the duck test suggests a banned user returning to vent issues on the user page list SatuSuro 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

InactivityEmailBot up for approval

Based on the ideas at WT:RFA which moved to WT:Requests for adminship/Inactive admin email and eventually lead to local consensus followed by an uneventful RfC, InactivityEmailBot is up for approval. This bot will send a one-time email solicitation to administrators that have been inactive for more than 6 months, asking them if they still require the sysop bit, and if not, if they'd be willing to give it up. Gigs (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken "random article" feature

Resolved

 –  Fixed now –xeno^talk 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Special:Random" is seriously broken at the moment, see WP:Village pump (technical)#.22Random_article.22_feature_out_of_order_.3F for more. Probably not something an admin can fix, but I suggest taking the link out of the navigation links until it is fixed. Studerby (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has noticed that the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Random works correctly, the current nav link that is broken is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random Someone with rights, please adjust. Studerby (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can even edit links in the sidebar. Someone should probably flag a dev on IRC. –xeno^talk 23:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can, it's somewhere in the mediawiki space. J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that for the upcoming April 1 festivities ;> –xeno^talk 00:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant userinterface message is here: MediaWiki:Sidebar and the specific url message would be MediaWiki:Randompage-url —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

←They were doing some server stuff yesterday which messed up some Special links. See a related thread on Commons:COM:VP#Latest Files. The server log is here. Killiondude (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD backlog

WP:OLDAFD has over 50 debates that need a close or a relist. I'm working on it but that's a lot of closes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to review thread

Can some admin evaluate the consensus in this ANI discussion and enact the 1RR restriction if appropriate ? Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Handed in the Bit

Just a quick note that for reasons explained on my talk page, I have surrendered my bit until I have more control of my temper and impulses. This may lead to some extra work as I have asked anyone challenging or querying my admin actions to take it up with a current admin instead. I'm sorry for any extra hassle this may cause you and I'm sure it goes without saying that you are welcome to over-ride any admin action without consulting me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While we have had our share of disagreements on Wikipedia, I certainly would not wish ill on someone off site. Thus, I hope that you are able to work out whatever is going on your real life and wish you the best in that endeavour. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth that strikes me as a mature decision and evidence of the kind of self-awareness we would hope all admins (and indeed non-admin editors) would have as they edit on Wikipedia. Taking a break seems like a good idea, and I would agree with the others who commented at WP:BN that you will be welcomed back to adminship if and when you feel it's the right thing to do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, as one who followed the original dispute closely, it is very clear that Spartaz did not resign under a cloud, and that therefore Spartaz may request a return of the bit whenever ready, it should be routine. Whatever errors were made and discussed, they were not serious in the end, and were, in fact, fixed. We do not expect administrators to be perfect. Or, at least, we shouldn't! --Abd (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not great, but not as bad as losing the editor as well. I think you will find that the door to the mop cupboard will be left gently ajar, should the desire return. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Good call, much better than burnout. Have a nice holiday from mop and bucket crap and come back refreshed and refocused. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• We've not always agreed, but you have remained a reasonable person to deal with, and this further shows it. I can;'t think anyone should have the least objections for you to resume whenever you feel ready. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Take a break and come back when you feel up to it. Hopefully the encyclopedia hasn't burned up by then. -- Atama頭 23:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area

I've merged the article histories (but not the talk pages) Any further move discussion should take place pursuant to WP:Requested moves.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a half truth. SarekOfVulcan merged the history back to the new location in violation of WP:Requested moves (the original move was done with full knowledge that it was not consensus and SarekOfVulcan is choosing to promote a non-consensus move). Additionally Sarek has deleted a substantial number of edits I put in today.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I merged a content fork back into the original article, which is at El Paso-Juárez region. I then restored the previous state of that article, with a note that any edits from the forked version could be merged into the current version. The only thing I actually deleted was a redirect from a typo. Note that User:Mcorazao has refused to use the WP:RM process, so claiming that I violated it is... um... interesting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And, btw, forum shopping is discouraged. Finish the discussion where it was started. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not my job to use the WP:RM. I was not the one who moved the article in the first place. The original issue was a deliberate non-consensus move which I asked be undone so that the discussion could continue constructively.

Nevertheless I put a move request banner on the talk page of the new article in hopes that there will be some reconsideration of the matter.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. And my edits of today are not there in the article as of 4:27 PM CST. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just copy them out of the history.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Whale kills trainer at Seaworld

Just wanted to give the heads up that this whale Tilikum (whale)#Tilikum killed a trainer at Seaworld Orlando this afternoon. People may want to keep an eye on this since I suspect it will affect multiple pages. I can also see a lot of POV pushing around thins issue. Ridernyc (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Heart attacks, date formats, broken infoboxes - do you have a lomg memory?

75.68.82.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a history of breaking infoboxes, fiddling around with cause of death (especially heart attacks), and reformatting dates to a US-styleee. I am sure that I recall an editor with a similar pattern some time ago (probably a year or two) - ring any bells? I also get the feeling that there is a good-faith editor struggling to break through, but the lack of communication makes things very difficult. Any eyes and help much appreciated. S/He has been editing from another IP address too, when I can remember what it was I'll mention it here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) The other IP is 67.253.66.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It all does sound familiar, but I haven't been able to track down who was doing it before. In any case, AGF, I left messages on both IP's talk pages a couple of days ago with some suggestions on how to proceed to learn more about WP before continuing, but there has been no response so far. I'm of the opinion that a block of both would be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal for Keegscee

Keegscee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was recently indef blocked for admitting to the use of sockpuppets/open proxies to harass other users. Since his block, he has stated that he will create a sockpuppet to evade his indef block.[55] His original comment indicated his awareness that whatever he is doing exactly is blockable[56] [57]. This user has no respect for Wikipedia's policies, and he seems to think he should be exempted from them under WP:IAR.[58] This user is currently the subject of a sockpuppet investigation.[59] I think a community ban would be our best option; we don't need users here who disrespect our policies in such ways. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's indefinitely blocked, he's not going to get unblocked under the present circumstances, as a blocked user any sockpuppets are subject to WP:RBI. Nothing needs to change. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If he's banned, then there's more weight to sockpuppet allegations. He's currently defacto banned, but there's always that small few who complain "he's not really banned" when socks become an issue. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This editor has been productive in the past. The interactions he had with PCHS seemed to set him on a bad course. You guys don't get along, and eventually his behavior got him indefed. You got what you wanted, why still pursue this? Beach drifter (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:ABF? Honestly, I don't seek to get anyone indefed unless there's a good reason; don't forget that I gave this user a barnstar once. It's unacceptable, however, when users violate policy and thumb their nose at Wikipedia's policies and procedures as he's done. If he wants to come back, he needs to cough up exactly what he's been doing with those proxies, apologize, promise not to do it again, and do all of this with his main account. Anyone remember what happened with User:MisterWiki? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The last ban discussion arising out of a related matter produced days of unnecessary drama. We are not going to do that again, and accordingly, this discussion is hereby terminated, unless and until there is a significant worsening of the situation, which hopefully there will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what "last ban discussion?" I'm confused. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Guy's right, a ban does nothing to stop the person behind the account here, it's just swinging a baseball bat at a hornet's nest. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that bans only serve to feed the trolls in pretty much any situation. All it does is decree someone "banned" from the site, which is essentially what an indef block achieves anyway. WP:LTA is a place to make people aware of what to look for. Considering this, why do we even have the WP:Banning policy or WP:List of banned users? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Indef blocked compounds indentification issues and increases problems. I am glad several others have seen this. Blocking is a knee jerk reaction nothing more, but it's the policy we have today so until the point enough editors have an understanding and amend the policy then we will be bashing our heads against the wall. SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how blocking vandals is associated with lack of understanding. People who want to play silly buggers should go elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:The Conan O'Brien Show - role account?

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Ckatz. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know exactly where to mention this, but thought the username User:The Conan O'Brien Show might be slightly problematic. Gene Omission (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Anyone willing to assist with a report or two there? That'd be lovely. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 08:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: JI Hawkins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm proposing a community ban for JI Hawkins (talk · contribs), aka the "Sanders vandal", for severe disruption and to support AIV reporting of any new sockpuppets.

Since about November, JI Hawkins has been acting as if under a compulsion (The D&D kind, not the dict-def) to alert people to a nonexistent government conspiracy ripped out of a bad X-Files script (which, ironically, is one of his common targets), concerning alien colonization, 2012 (I assume the end of the Mayan calendar specifically), Colonel Sanders, the Men in Black, Adam Sandler, and faked deaths. He has been socking extensively since then, and standard methods are proving very difficult to use because he is evading every single hardblock and hardrangeblock placed upon him to stem his disruption (largely because he's abusing Research in Motion's BlackBerry ranges). There currently exists a filter to try and check his progress, but this, like the rangeblocks, is consistently dodged by him. He presently has a section at WP:LTA. I haven't attempted an abuse report yet because WP:ABUSE is in eternal limbo. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) NOTE) A sock of this user posted here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to Confirmed socks and Suspected socks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Support as one of the involved parties that has been tracking this individual for some time. It has been extremely disruptive, not supportive of our goal of building an encyclopedia, and obvious that the individual understands that his edits are not constructive due to his efforts at evading the filter that has been put in place. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support; although this individual is blatantly de-facto banned anyway due to his behaviour. I have no issue with it being codified it as a formal community ban if desired. ~ mazca ^talk 10:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. We have an SPI case for him like, what, every other day? Honestly, though, he's as banned as it can get, as no admin in their right mind would unblock him. Per Mazca. Tim Song (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As he's been socking and making insults, it wouldn't be a surprise to put him on this list. Minimac (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• No discussion required, he's already blocked and nobody is likely to unblock given the abuse history. He can't get any more blocked than he already is. Flag his userpage as banned if you like, it doesn't make any odds by this stage. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unsurprisingly obvious that none of you have opposed the ban on JI Hawkins, so I'm closing it. Minimac (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ivan guillen and User:Yves Ga

Can someone review this? It appears that Ivan guillen (talk · contribs) and Yves Ga (talk · contribs) are closely related, since they've only edited one thing, and that is a userspace draft, for user Yves Ga, or its direct copy by user Ivan guillen.

I think it is possible that it could just be a new user changing their username by making a second account, so it may not be sockpuppetry, but it just looks odd.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh dear. One book, published by PublishAmerica, zero independent sources. I foresee disappointment in his future. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've left a polite note on User talk:Yves Ga explaining that his article will not be acceptable, ever, and encouraging him to request a G7 on the userspace draft. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Attempt at paid editing: http://www.freelancer.com/projects/621555.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.75.45 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Paid for by "Polarflamemusic" website, awarded to a freelancer.com user named "earwen86". Jujutacular ^T · C 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone can keep an eye on it, I guess. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Earwen1986 and their attempt. β^_command 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least they are working in their userspace and not starting off with something like that in mainspace. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Jack "Red Hood" Napier

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ban enacted [60] [61]. –xeno^talk 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

---

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

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

Actually there were other undisclosed copyright violations at that time and afterward he made more copyright violations. Recently he also falsified sourcing again and checkuser has confirmed a sleeper sock as well as a likely result on a vandalism-only account. Those vandalism edits included adding obscene images to other people's user pages (caution--explicit content in link).[62]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith

 Confirmed - the following accounts as being the same editor;

• Drew R. Smith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Davis Bloome (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Likely

• MakemydayOW (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Additional sock confirmed by previous checkuser

• User:Larry Sanger's revenge[63]

Another admitted sock

• User:Ender The Xenocide (account created from unified login after first attempt to change user names)

Undisclosed copyright violations prior to final warning in lieu of siteban

• File:Knight Goby.jpg, from here: identical background, simple crop.
• File:Diagram of swine flu.jpg, claims self-made, appears to be a derivative work from here.
• File:Abramites hypselonotus.JPG claims to be self-made public domain release. Image has halftoning; obviously duplicated from a book.

Subsequent copyvio uploads

• File:Pompom.jpg The upload at Wikipedia asserts "Disclaimer states images can be reused under cc by sa." and links only to the image itself, not to the license statement.[64] The top result on Google Images for this image states "Copyright © 2007-2010 All About Aquarium Fish. All Rights Reserved."[65]
• File:Michael Grant Cahill.png
• File:L. Eduardo Caraveo.png
• File:Michael Pearson.png
• File:Russell Seager.png
• File:Francheska Velez.png
• File:Juanita Warman.png
• File:Kham Xiong.png
• File:Justin M. DeCrow.png
• File:John Gaffaney.png
• File:Frederick Greene.png
• File:Aaron Thomas Nemelka.png
• File:Jason Dean Hunt.png
• File:Amy Krueger.png
• File:Long-beakedEchidna.gif
• File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif
• File:Player at Island Paintball.jpg Copyright defaults to the photographer, not the subject. No OTRS submission.
• File:Player at Island Paintball.png Copyright defaults to the photographer, not the subject. No OTRS submission.

Source falsifications

• 2009: File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg deleted as blatant hoax after this admission: Drew R. Smith had used an image editor to alter the text of a reference source, then yellowed the background to make the image look like a scan from an old book.
• 17 February 2010: creates article at Wikipedia.[66] The entire text is a cut and paste from a Citizendium article[67] that was written in 2009. Violates Citizendium's CC-by-sa 3.0 license[68] by failing to give any attribution to Citizendium or the article's authors,[69] plus falsifies sourcing throughout the article. Sample for comparison: Wikipedia paragraph,[70] identical uncited Citizendium paragraph,[71] irrelevant reference added to Wikipedia paragraph does not substantiate the paragraph.[72]

Other problems (copied from User talk:Moonriddengirl)

• Heart Full of Black (song): (1 edits, 1 major, +663) (+663) Y, problem, in that he incorporated a non-free image without a FUR. I don't think a FUR can be made to use the album cover to illustrate a single, so removed. Otherwise, article is unsourced & does not seem to be copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Paintball: (1 edits, 1 major, +552) (+552) ? Not a copyvio, but a peculiar use of its sources to support the statement "Fields may choose to use field paint only to offset insurance costs." One of the three sources focuses on insurance costs and liability, but the other two list insurance costs as just one of a long series of reasons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary

After his hoax admission and apology last year I attempted to coach him in digital image restoration with the hope of integrating him into the community on a good footing. He did not follow through enough to make any substantial progress. His final responses to attempts at outreach within the last day and a half have been defiant.[73][74]

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

Per the above, I propose a community siteban. Durova⁴¹² 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support

  See:

  • ani#597#Disruptive signature
  • ani#597#user talk:Jack Merridew

  I spotted this reincarnation the other day while checking back on an unrelated thread on the same page and my first comment on it was at:

  • User talk:Tbsdy lives#My Userpage

  This fellow is unrepentantly disruptive and sees this project as a game. Enough already.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  more:

  • File:Wewillfuckyouup.ogg, by Drew, which I just cut from his userpage^{false citation}
  • User:Drew R. Smith/Goldfish which needs vetting for copyvio images (and teh text?)
  • and there's all the other stuff in his userspace that should probably all be deleted

  Jack Merridew 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • cough — Jack Merridew 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You can't just say cough and expect him to be blocked. Have you got any evidence? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

      I have email off him. It's him. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I just saw the timing of the last few posts; I wasn't coughing specifically at you; I'd not seen the block-comment below when I made my post; maaf, Jack Merridew 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. I'd also like to point out that Drew is denying that User:MakemydayOW is a sock of his. However, MakemydayOW chose to vandalize Jimbo's user page. Jimbo's user page was also a target for User:Larry Sanger's revenge, another sock of Drew's. I don't trust him and he's not worth wasting any more time on. AniMate 06:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly they are not here to contribute, but to play games. Show them the door and block new socks on sight. There ais actually an additional sock not mentioned above [75]. -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The imagevios by themselves are a bannable offence. MER-C 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked both Drew and Jack Napier account so I obviously support this. Enough is quite frankly enough. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• At least ban from uploading images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • He also copyvioed an entire article two days ago. Durova⁴¹² 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support siteban Were the effort and consideration into inserting falsehoods and copyvio's into WP directed toward working within policy then we would have an excellent contributor. That they were given that opportunity and spurned it is evidence, I suggest, that they are unsuited for the Wikipedia environmet and they should not be allowed to participate further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. I was the one that blocked him for 30 days last year. In retrospect, we should have just banned him then. A cocky, holier-than-thou editor who is either a) bent on discrediting Wikipedia or b) obsessed with people thinking he takes good photographs or can come up with airtight references, neither of which he is capable of doing. Toss the key. Tan | 39 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support The user's "contributions" are highly disruptive. There have been many attempts at guidance. Enough, already. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I noticed User:Durova's subjective 'defiant' comment in the summary and read User_talk:Durova#Being_reasonable, a section that was started by Jack "Red Hood" Napier. If that's going to be the quality of a summary then I have consider doubts of the quality of the investigation and the evidence but forward appears considerably distorted and quite one sided. I don't have the time to investigate but I feel at least opposing here will give others an opportunity for others to take a deeper look and review there supports with less herd of sheep type responses. SunCreator (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That conversation was not actually started by Jack Napier; the thread header is a sarcastic response to an invitation at his user talk.[76] Compare:

• You may wish to comment here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith. If you'd also like to discuss this with me at my user talk, please do. I'm willing to be reasonable if you are. Durova412 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes Durova, I am willing to be reasonable, but it seems a bit late for that as you and Jack have already publicly outted me, and any contributions I make will be looked at with my past actions in mind. I made this account to get away from all of that. Thanks for nothing. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I was hoping he would admit to the copyvios and help with cleanup. If he had cooperated I would have sought a structured editing restriction if an experienced volunteer agreed to oversee his edits. Instead he replied "Thanks for nothing". That is not the reply of an editor who intends to adjust to site standards, and improper licensing is not an issue where we can be flexible: it's the law. Durova⁴¹² 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the response to an invitation. I hadn't found that although it doesn't alter my view of the use of defiant in the summary.

Please be aware of the saying Sarcasm on the internet is like winking on the phone. You may give that some consideration. Over years of internet communications I've found that treating anything as sarcasm is likely to lead to a breakdown in communications. Perhaps this sarcasm perception lead to the 'defiant' claim? SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, a real and genuine example of the Chewbacca defense. Bleating marvelous! LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(Resp to SunCreator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

  Yes. Quite funny that he/she compares the support responses to a "herd of sheep", when he/she apparently cannot bother to do any sort of research before coming to conclusions. If the glove doesn't fit... Tan | 39 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  In fairness to SunCreator, a few hours after this siteban proposal started someone redirected the Jack Napier user talk page to the Drew R. Smith user talk without porting its contents. So part of the leadup discussion became hard to find and that might have confused SunCreator. Durova⁴¹² 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  I suggest at least I'm being honest when saying "I don't have the time to investigate". The editor in question here may of done all sorts of sh!t but I'm not convinced by a selective one-sided argument, especially in light of the closing suammry. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  They found their way to this page, and decided that they need not review the very many links by disparate editors to be found here... - but then, why allow evidence to get in the way of an argument (however good faith in being arrived at). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  No argument there. Durova⁴¹² 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  On the contary, it is the evidence of the summary that brings the investigation into question. I think my orginal post was quite clear. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  You think I am confusing the jury by questioning the evidence? Your misplaced put down is not constructive. (Response to LessHeard vanU) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think you are misinterpreting "Thanks for nothing". I don't see that as unconstructive. I read this edit as a willingness to make a newstart. (response to Durova) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  If he hadn't resumed his old problems, perhaps. Have a read at the preceding discussion at his user talk: not so much a break with the past as an attempt to avoid accountability for prior mistakes. Afterward when I showed him the problem with File:Pompom.jpg and invited him to provide a license reference that didn't state it was under full copyright, twice he changed the subject and finally told me I was wasting my time. Durova⁴¹² 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you supply the (three?) diffs for that please. SunCreator (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You stated above that you've read the thread at my user talk page. If that was a true statement then you've already seen all of those discussion points. Durova⁴¹² 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support It's amazing reading all of this. Show them the door is definitely needed. Blocking any socks and reverting should be done immediately. Really sad to see this come about, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Enough is enough. GlassCobra 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban) We should not be coddling users who treat warnings as sidewalk-chalk scrawls, especially where they're being unrepentant with violating copyrights. Get him out of here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hello. I am Drew Peacock, Esquire. I am posting a reply as to me only. I am posting my reply in the subsection below titled "Please block the remaining sock." I am trying to write it all there. However, I can't go post there without saying that I am none of these people, I do not know any of them, I am not in anyway connected with any of them or any of their accounts. Thank for your time and consideration in reading these words and the other words under the next subheading.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Repeated copyright violations and falsification of sources are not compatible with wikipedia's aim of being a "free encyclopedia". Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support; exhausted community patience with the continued problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support I've been following this whole case(and the previous, too) right from the start and I think that enough is enough. Editor has been given much chance and has broken all our trusts. Time for a community siteban. BejinhanTalk 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block the remaining sock

According to Jack Merridew above, Napier is still socking with an unblocked sock account [77]. Can someone check and block? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

An administrator should probably contact Jack to confirm the email evidence. Durova⁴¹² 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll block if the evidence is presented to me. Tan | 39 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew_Peacock,_Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not ironclad. I'm saying I believe it and that time will tell. I left Alison a note and maybe she'll comment. I'll sock-tag the new account if anyone nudges me and I'll forward the email to any admin that would like. Tan, it won't fit in the wiki-email-box... Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't User:Drew Peacock, Esquire have shown up in the checkuser that was run? AniMate 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's best not to block this one. It appears to come from a different state than Napier. Admins and trusted editors who are curious for details are welcome to email me; best to be discreet with this one. Durova⁴¹² 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that Droopy is Grawp, a known friend of Hugh Jarse and Eileen Dover ;) (nb: I had help on these;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a possibility; can't rule that out by geography. Would be a different discussion, though. Durova⁴¹² 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let it dangle. Things Take Time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse lengthy discussion by/about User:Drew Peacock, Esquire, not central to the ban proposal.

I am accused me of being a sock puppet for this person/these people. I am not Drew R. Smith, Jack "Red Hood" Napier, MakemydayOW, Larry Sanger's revenge, Ender The Xenocide, or Tbsdy lives. I am not connected to any of them in any way. I have never used any of these names or accounts. As best as I can determine, I face this accusation because (1) I sent an email to Jack Merridew in reply to his Welcome-To-Wikipedia Post on my talk page, and (2) as Ryan Postlethwaite says, my alleged connection to these other people is “basically, it's the way... (the email is) formatted.” (For easy reference, Mr. Postlethwaite’s post reads as follows: "I’ve been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew Peacock, Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu.") If there are reasons other than these two, and if you tell me them, I will do the best I can to respond. I had never heard of Jack Merridew before reading his post on my talk page (His post read: "Welcome! {picture of plate of cookies} Some cookies to welcome you! Welcome to Wikipedia, Drew Peacock, Esquire! I am Jack Merridew and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: - - - Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages How to write a great article I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! - - - Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jack Merridew."), posted at 1:58 a.m. today, Friday, February 19, 2010. I was online at the time. (I will be referring to dates and times based on Pacific Time (PT). Wikipedia identifies this time as “America/Los Angeles” time in the user “my preferences” page.) I thought that I would respond with a thank you note. I first tried to post a note on his talk page today, Friday, February 19, 2010, a few minutes later, but couldn’t because I could see no “edit this page” tab. I guessed that he had modified his page, eliminating that tab. Because I could not post him a thank you note, I instead sent him a thank you note through Wikipedia’s email system. That note read as follows: "Thanks for the cookies and the welcome. They were both great. I went first to your discussion page thinking I would leave a brief thank you there, but when I got there, I was worried for a while that I had messed something up on your page (ARRRGH!), or in my settings at Wiki (uggh!), because my “edit this page” tab was gone. I had just been adjusting some settings and then went back to read more about adjustments and then tried some adjustments again, so it made sense that I did something wrong. Now that I figured out that your page is modified somehow so it can’t be edited, I’ve had a good laugh at the unintended joke you’ve pulled, and another at myself for the overly anxious concern I was feeling that some guy takes the time to bid me welcome, and in exchange I mess up his tabs on talk page. Whew, am I now relieved. All The best, Drew (I am the author of this note. It contains words written solely by me. As the author of the note, I am the one who has the right to give permission to post a copy of it. Not to be silly, and believing that I have implied permission to post a note I composed anyway, be assured that I have given myself permission in this instance. I say this because I have read the caution on the “Wikipedia:Email” page about posting a copy of an email. I understand the words “without permission” to mean “without the permission of the author.” I believe that I have complied with that caution. I also see that I should have concern that because Wikipedia pages can be edited, my posting of the email could be changed and, if I follow it correctly, people would read the changed version and be mislead as to what I said. I don't see how that is different from anything else that is posted at Wikipedia. In any event, I think that I must take that risk because I want you to know exactly what I wrote in the email) I don’t know what aspect of formatting I did that caused Mr. Merridew to conclude that I am any of these people. I typed my note up in a word processing program and then cut and pasted it into an email for sending though Wikipedia. I type much of what I post, including this these words that will be my post on this page, in a word processing program so that I don’t hit enter or something else causing me to accidently send a half finished note or half finished comment/contribution to Wikipedia or elsewhere. I don’t know what effect that has on formatting as to the thank-you-email when it arrived to Mr. Merridew, but I mention this fact so that if preparing the email in a separate word processing program plays any part in the formatting, I have brought this to your attention. If there is a specific question about formatting, or anything else you have, I will do my best to answer. Again, I am not these people. I do not know them. I have nothing to do with any of these accounts. Today I discovered another post on my talk page (it said "fyi, I was just talking about an account named Drew. Regards, Jack Merridew") posted at 2:49 a.m. today, February 19, 2010. The word “talking” was a hyperlink to this page. I guess it is better to know what is going on as concerns requests to block or ban me, but let me say it is extremely distressing. EXTREMELY DISTRESSING. I am not any of the people. I do not know any of them and I have no connection with any of them of their accounts.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Revised and fixed because I did not know when I posted it originally that footnotes aren't allowed on this page. I had used the button that was above the editing box when I was putting my reply here, and didn't know that although it set my footnotes up and showed a numbered reference for my footnotes, footnotes would not display at the bottom of the page.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I would like to request some help please. I used a few footnotes in my reply/comment that is immediately above this request. If anyone coud tell me what I have to do to get my footnotes to display, it would be greatly appreciated. I hope that is what the problem is, because I did spend a lot of time working on what I wanted to say and I would hate to have lost the footnotes. I do have the text of them in draft form before I cut and pasted them from my word processing program, but I made some corrections/changes to them after pasting here from the word processing program, so I would like very much to find out how to display them. I used the button above the editing box to set up the footnotes, so I don't know why they don't display. Thank you.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 08:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I refactored your post. We don't use foot notes on our admin boards, only in articles where there is a reference section and template. AniMate 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I will go through it and maybe put what were the footnotes in parenthesis and in italics or something. Thank you again.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 08:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I went through my original post to this section and revised it to change what formerly were the footnotes into italics and parenthesis in the body of the post. I dropped one out and moved one because it made sense to do so now that the footnotes were in the post itself. My thanks again to AniMate for recovering my footnotes.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 09:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Well, you're not blocked. Other than saying, "sorry for the inconvenience", there's not much more to be done here. These things happen. Tan | 39 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I see that Mr. Merridew has posted some additional aliases (he posted in this discussion about me: “There's always the possibility that Droopy is Grawp, a known friend of Hugh Jarse and Eileen Dover ;) (nb: I had help on these;) Cheers, Jack Merridew”). I am not Grawp, Hugh Jarse, or Eileen Dover. I do not know any of them. I do not know anything about any of them. I have never ever had anything to do with any of them or their accounts. I am concerned. I made a mistake when I emailed Mr. Merridew. He was not sending me a friendly Welcome-To-Wikipedia. I haven’t the slightest idea what made him post to my talk page in the first place. I know of no legitimate reasons for him to say that I am any of these people. I thought that his posting was a genuine friendly welcome to Wikipedia. Why he suspected me in the first place, and posted to my talk page, is a mystery to me - I am struck dumb by the notion that all this could possibly be because one name involved also has “Drew” in it. That would boggle the mind. Maybe it would a good thing for the Administrators to know. Please, ask him what caused his first suspicions. I now believe that I errored about what I said in the email to him as concerned the “edit this page” tab. I had seen that there was no “edit this page” tab on his discussion page, which is why I emailed him rather than posting. Seeing a page without a “edit this page” tab may very well have been because of my efforts to activate Twinkle and tweak it to work with my browser. I was using Internet Explorer (IE) as my browser Thursday night, February 18, 2010 and early Friday morning, February 19, 2010, my time (Pacific Time - PT), ‘‘‘but’’’ I switched over to Google Chrome (Chrome) before trying to activate Twinkle because I read that Twinkle wouldn’t work with Internet Explorer. Chrome is already on this computer in addition to IE, so that seemed easy enough. I read that there were some known issues with using Twinkle with browsers other than Firefox, Safari or Camion. The Wiki page only says that Twinkle “APPEARS to play well with the latest version of Google Chrome” - something less than a guarantee, and a much lesser endorsement than using the other three recommended browsers (none of which are on this computer, nor is the other mentioned, but not recommended browser, Opera). There are instructions for enabling a Javascript Standard Library for the browser Opera, and since I was not using one of the 3 recommended browsers, I tried to find the library and use that too. There are also issues with firewall and Norton Internet Security. Anyway, I had some problems, though I’m not knowledgeable enough to say that without a doubt that it related to Twinkle and Chrome. It may relate to any of the other things alone or in combination with the others. I think that I have it working now. I say all this because I believe that Administrators can see what browsers I was using Thursday night, February 18, 2010 and Friday morning, February 19, 2010. I also believe that you can see what pages I visited. It will confirm what I have said and what I was doing that night and morning on Wiki. Can you see in Wiki when I activated Twinkle? That will be further confirmation of what I have said. Further, my understand is that Wiki’s webpage computer(s) can see a whole assortment of things, which should show that I am not any of these people. In looking online, I have found http://www.iwebtool.com/browser_details , which says, and shows to visitors to its site, the following information from a connecting computer: IP address, hostname, browser details (User-Agent, Cookies Enabled, Java Enabled , JavaScript Status, Screen Width & Height, CPU class/type, Screen Colour Depth, Window Width & Height) and browser headers. I believe that Wiki has all this information from my visits to Wiki pages. I read on this Wiki page the post directly under Mr. Merridew’s post previously mentioned the following: “Now there's a possibility; can't rule that out by geography. Would be a different discussion, though. Durova.” I take this to mean that Wiki does have the information I mentioned. If someone lives geographically in an area that can’t be ruled out as the area I am in (and there is no way for me to know, because I don’t know any of them), surely all the other information can’t be the same as mine. These other people CANNOT have my IP. They simply can’t. It’s supposed to be just one computer (or one computer network through a router? -- I don’t know much yet, but I am reading what I can online, and I am trying to apply my thought process to this problem thrust upon me). They cannot have the same hardware as me and the same settings as all of my settings, screen colour depth (don’t know what that means yet, but someone at Wiki knows, and not all the setting can be the same; it just makes no sense), etc. I am NOT any of these other people. Please tell Mr. Merridew that I am not these people. He’s posting now (here – this post I quoted) that he’s getting help in his efforts against me. PLEASE. I foolishly sent him a thank you note when I believed that I could not post on his talk page. I didn’t realize at that time that he would receive my private email address. I am not blaming Wiki for this issue. But I would like to say that I have other online accounts, and honestly, they work differently. I sign into those websites and then I have a little messaging page there on that website where I can send messages only to other users of that website. On those websites, it does not reveal my private email outside-of-that-webpage email address unless I want it to do so. Additionally, some of them will have a little window pop up if I included anything that looks like an email address in the body of the message I am sending. The message says that the website is protecting its users from the risk of revealing our private email addresses. The point is that Mr. Merridew appears to me to be gung ho on this, and in strange ways. He doesn’t tell me that he thinks I am these people/a sock puppet for them (these are the same thing by my understanding). He just posts to my talk page “fyi, i was just talking about an account named Drew.” I mean really, what?! He hyperlinks “talking” so I can then read though this lengthily page to discover, near its end, that I’m suspected by him and “cough” (where I see that he has hyperlink the “cough” to my name and the reply below leads me to believe that by doing so, or by email that the "cough" had more meaning to all of you than it would normally for me, he was, or had already, asked that I be blocked). Please, think about this from my side. I assume he is a friend of all or some or of you and I don’t wish to offend, but I find this strange. It’s more than that, it’s creepy. It just is. He puts another name that I supposedly am, and then two more that he accuses me of being friends with. Then he puts a winking smiley face (in bold to add to the creepiness becuase for what reason one bolds a winking smiley face is is beyond me) and says he “had help on these” and puts another winking smiley face (not in bold this time, and only six words away from the first winking smiley face in this single sentence 23 word message) and then a “Cheers.” Happy winking smiley faces in little note accusing me of being other people and seeking to get me blocked? That is creepy behavior. I don’t care what anyone says they think about that. I know that is creepy. Tell me the truth, if you were me, how you would feel? PLEASE, you have to have plenty of evidence that I am none of these people. I’m just not. Please, help me. Tell him. I don’t know what data or information he is out there gathering now that he has my private email address, and he’s got others helping “on these” and he’s inserting smiling winking faces in his posting telling you these things. At first I just wanted not to be blocked or blamed for things I have absolutely no involvement of any kind with. Now, I would like to ask for something else. Please tell him that I am not connected with any of these people. You must have evidence of that, because that is the truth. Please, help me. Other aspects are bothering me too. I don’t know who “Alison” is, but I see he has “left [her] a note.” I guess that means something to you, but I do not know what it means, or who Alison is. In the note I quoted is also what seems to be a message to "nb:". Needless to say, if that is someone, I don't know who they are. I did not notice an N. B. user posting here, by either initals or name with those initals. Yes, I am guessing that 'nd' is a person, but what else can I do? I was lured into replying to his Welcome-To-Wikipedia post, and lured here to read what is going on by his criptic note that he was "talking" (hyperlinking the word "talking" to this page) about "an account named Drew." He says he will “sock-tag [me] if anyone nudges” him. Please, in all fairness, don’t nudge him. Instead, please tell him I am not involved and please ask him to leave me alone. He wants to forward the email “to any admin that would like.” Please, have him do that. Please, every one of you, look at it. It says exactly what I said it says. Wiki must have a record of it. I see that he says that “it won't fit in the wiki-email-box.” I don’t understand this at all. I’ll try to read about the “wiki-email-box.” The message fit when I sent it. I don’t understand this comment. Please, I am here because he wanted me to be here reading these things he is saying. He didn’t tell me what was going on, he just hyperlinked “talking” in a strange cryptic note on my talk page (which adds to the creepiness of all this), so I could be shocked to find out that he is accusing me on this Administrator’s Notice Board and asking that I be blocked. I don’t know what he has been saying in emails to some or all of you (but he is clear in his posting he that he is sending them out, and after luring me here, he wants me to know that he is emailing). I think that you should all share them with each other. Please evaluate what’s going on here. Please consider it from my perspective. I don’t wish to upset anything, but I have to have some piece of mind. Please. You have to know that I am not any of these people. The evidence must show that. It can’t show otherwise. I know the truth and you have got to be able to see that in my visits to Wiki pages and all the computer evidence you have. I feel that I do have to do something. I am going to post a note on Mr. Merridew page asking him not to contact me in any manner or post anything on my use or talk pages, or, should we find ourselves on the same Wikipedia page (which, if it happens, I will not believe is a coincidence; it is a virtual guarantee that he has been following every letter and punctuation mark of my postings, and has read everything I have posted on Wikipedia; and now that he has my private email address, I am a bit freaked out when I think he can be scouring the internet to gather more information on me with that information), to not post anything directed at or about me on general encyclopedic pages. Posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard is a different matter. At least this is where one comes when one has some reason to believe something wrong is going on (and sadly, I know that someone can come here and ask that people be blocked, or email administrators privately to ask that they be blocked, and do all that without any reasonable basis to believe that someone (me) is connected to any of these other people). I am very upset and I do believe that his actions are very strange.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) This rates as a good reason why only CU-confirmed names were listed on the ban proposal. He is not part of the ban proposal and this discussion can be separated from that. Any administrator (or Drew Peacock) who wishes to understand why I have responded within this section the way I have is welcome to contact me. It won't take long to understand. If Drew Peacock would prefer this discussion strictly onsite, though, please state so. Durova412 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hey. I'm fine with any route to sorting this. Someone should prolly box the Smith/Red Hood chunk and call it passed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) LOL. How's it hangin', Drewp? Ya, that was the email. What's going on here is an attempt to turn this to being about me. The first thing I called Red Hood on was his use of a positioned div to obscure the main username heading and the MediaWiki UI on his talk page. I cut that (also) and left him a note about it. Red Hood copied a lot of code from my userspace, including that technique. I had been positioning the "Cabal Approved" image on my talk, and formerly on my user page. It was positioned differently and was not intended to obstruct the edit and new section tabs. But, when using the modern skin and when the 'new section' tab is set to render as just a'+', it did. See here. I've since cut that. So, who is this guy? What's his fate? Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm divided between the urge to apologize and methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Especially the lengthy fears about privacy invasion from a gmail address. Jack, consider yourself assaulted with a Nerf cluebat for pulling this particular can of worms off the shelf while I was sleeping. But things are here now...it's up to Drew Peacock how to resolve his end of it. Durova412 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I should sell tickets I'm undivided. The protest quote had occurred to me, too. I figured there's a connection in here somewhere, so best to get it into this discussion instead of having to gear-up a new one some days on. I'm gonna have popcorn and watch the show. Cheers, Jack Merridew I have been trying to find out more about everything, and have been trying to put together a reply. I can’t seem to be briefer in my writing. First of all, it is my nature. It was probably my nature before the working world required it of me, which is a second reason. Thirdly it’s that this is all like some Twilight Zone episode for me and I’m that guy about whom Rod Serling says “. . . but this is no ordinary day for Drew Peacock, Esquire.” I can’t believe what Jack Merridew is doing, and that you all seem to think that it’s acceptable behavior. But before I finish a reply to the new comments, I wanted to ask something. As I said I would, I posted a note on Jack Merridew’s talk page. It was captioned “Request,” and said “Please do not contact me in any manner or post anything on my user or talk pages. Please do not send me any email. Should you find yourself on a general encyclopedic Wikipedia page where I have posted, please not post anything to me or about me. You know from my post on the Administrative Board what I have to say about posting there.” That’s it. No accusations. He knows from what I said on AN that I am not saying he can’t do as he chooses on AN or such boards, but personal comments about me or personal messages to me don’t belong on the encyclopedic pages. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that he not contact me or post on my talk page. I would just like to have some peace of mind as I spend some time on Wikipedia. Jack Merridew made two responses to my request that I know about. The first I saw was one posted to my talk page about 90 minutes after my request to him. It said “Hey, I got your email, and it seems you've found your way to posting on my talk page. You should know that declaring one's self off limits to another editor is really not jake; this is a collaborative project and that includes efforts to ding the many trolls that abound ;) Sneers, Jack Merridew” This is harassment. I should not be taunted and harassed on my own talk page, especially from someone who, from what in my very limited exposure to Wikipedia, seems to work closely with or for Administrators. It does seem like you are the judges and he is the prosecutor out there gathering evidence and presenting his case against me, and assuring you that he’s right, that I am these other accounts. On AN, when asked for evidence, he makes a seven word reply, “I have email off him. It's him.” If I am wrong and Wikipedia is more akin to a “discussion” on the school playgrounds where bullies rule the day, please tell me so. Isn’t he out of line? I didn’t say I was “off limits,” just requested that he not contact me or post on my talk page. It is obvious my request was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Ninety minutes later, I’m being harassed. He makes every effort to taunt. I already commented about the strange use of those winking smiley faces, and one in bold, on AN where he’s requesting I be blocked. He then posts another winking smiley face in his taunt to me on my talk page, in bold of course. With it he is also calling me a troll. “Troll” is a new word to me here. I know that all these words and phrases , as used here, are second nature to you. I haven’t been here as long. Because I because I believed that he wasn’t suggesting that I lived under a bridge or such, I looked up what an Internet troll is here on Wikipedia. It says “Troll (Internet): In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community… with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” This is part of what is so Twilight Zone-ish for me. I’m not taunting anyone. I’m not harassing anyone. I’m not trying to upset someone into a dramatic emotion response. I am the one being taunted and harassed, but I am somehow completely alone in seeing that. I’ve been here all of 5 days. I’d never heard of any of you (I mean no disrespect), or this whole processes I find myself in, ruining what enjoyment I had first got on Wikipedia as an editor. Out of the blue I get a Welcome-To-Wikipedia, then he post for me a cryptically used hyperlink to AN. I didn’t come looking for trouble and I’ve not sought to stir any up. He’s now posted yet another comment here. He says, in part, the following about me “I figured there's a connection in here somewhere, so best to get it into this discussion instead of having to gear-up a new one some days on. I'm gonna have popcorn and watch the show.” How can I be alone in seeing this? He’s taunting that it’s all for his amusement, something that now that he’s brought me over to this arena and assured you that I these people that I absolutely and not, now he’s going to sit back with his popcorn and watch, and enjoy, the torment of an innocent man. Is this the way Wikipedia runs? If he wants me to worry if he’s out of control and unstable in some way, or that he’s the biggest bully on the playground whom no one can stop, I absolutely believe that this is what he wants me to believe. He is harassing me. I wondered if he deleted my request to him on his page. I checked. It is still there and he has added a reply to it. More threats. Now’s he’s not going to stop until I am dead like some game animal he hunted down to hauled away in a bag. He said in his post replying to mine: “I'll likely ignore you once you're bagged and tagged ;) Jack Merridew”. Once again, the bold winking smiley face. Is this some kind of harassment game like in prison? Bullies bet on how many new prisoners they can harass until they break down, but here it’s how many new comers that they can either get blocked or run off? At least I don’t have to look up “Bagged and tagged.” That is exactly what soldiers said in Vietnam as to dead bodies, especially the NVC, when they were killed, and tags were put on those that we took possession of, and they did put tags on the dead bodies. That’s also what hunters of big game say when they’ve killed their quarry and high five one another. I don’t know how to wrap up this post. If you don’t see this all as wrong, I don’t know what I can say.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire - my talk page - 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Drew Peacock, would you like me to discuss onsite the things that I had offered to discuss offsite? Out of respect for your privacy discretion appeared to be the best course. But you seem to prefer to discuss the matter here on the admin board. Is that correct? Durova412 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC) And Drew, your personal life is your own business of course, but around junior high school age did schoolmates tease you in ways vaguely related to an anthopomorphic basset hound and a synonym for a rooster? Durova412 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Username violation, anyone? get your mugs, magnets, mousepads, tshirts and more! ;) Jack Merridew 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC) User indefblocked for username violation. Tan | 39 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I think we're done here. Keep an eye out for moar lulz. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Normally we'd wrap this up, but under the circumstances it'd be more fitting to wrap this down. Durova412 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Random comment: This gentleman makes me look succinct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I did make an off-wiki comment comparing you two; he's faking it, poorly, and is not the real deal. Your comments, while often long, are worth reading. I was recently reading one of your older statements (about 3 pages;) on an old case's proposed decision talk page. It was spot-on, involving difficult circumstances (and not mine). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) WP:CHUNK. Durova412 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Umm, guys? I'm just getting here late to the party, but this editor is  Unrelated to the other accounts above. In fact there's only one other account associated with this one; Andrew Peacock (talk · contribs), as checkuser showed. You can see his old signature file here, which shows the link rather clearly. I once knew a guy called "Richard Head", from Basingstoke, way back when, and I'm kinda wondering if this is a similar situation? BTW, there are no other known troublemakers in his IP range - Alison ❤ 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC) BTW, it happens! :) - Alison ❤ 08:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The patterns I saw here seemed to pretty clearly indicate a connection of some sort between the Smith/Red Hood issue and Drew_Peacock,_Esquire. The clincher, for me, was the subject looping back to the positioned div-element technique. I noticed the account because it had edited an article on my watchlist (ABBA) (see here), and because the username seemed a trollish username vio. My initial suspicion was that it was Smith/Red Hood creating yet another sock and then shifted to Grawp, who was behind the /b/ attack on the two user talk pages, when I saw the IP in the user page history. If there is no CU basis for either connection, I'm fine with assuming good faith, for now; I said as much several times, above: "time will tell". Sincerely, Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) thesun.co.uk is not exactly a reliable source. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Actually I never thought this was the same person as Jack Napier. Was treadling lightly with the reasons, but this is all public information. The user page for User:Drew Peacock, Esquire includes logged out edits[78][79] which geolocate[80] to Grawp's vicinity. Google picks up no meaningful hits for "Andrew Peacock" in that area (the only results are random returns for people who are either long deceased or live thousands of miles away).[81][82][83] Edits by the Drew Peacock account include local citations to local geography,[84][85][86] which support the conclusion that the IP is the Drew Peacock editor unlogged, not Jack Napier. Other Drew Peacock edits both logged[87] and unlogged[88][89] contain references to controlled substances in regard to the same living person's biography--basically arguing for a BLP violation. Durova412 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.