Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:56, 23 February 2010

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- As he pointed out in his original statement, he has further detail here. GARDEN 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Okay. Pcap ping 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Evidence

(also by an involved party)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem.

We have been lucky that we didn't have a second Seigenthaler incident. For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer." Fram (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the article was...?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions have been deleted; publicising the name of the article helps nobody. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily check it in my editing history (my log of deletions will help as well), but for BLP privacy sake, I'ld rather not put the name here. Yes, I realise that that makes this a bit awkward... Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look... If you're going to bring something to a noticeboard, it needs to be useful in some way. Informative - there's a problem we didn't know about, etc. Alerting - do something about this. Those sorts of things.

Posting the equivalent of "Elvis is still dead" is not useful. Yes, we know there are problem BLPs out there. We weren't given any useful information here - no article to check the edit history on, to see if editors are still around who contributed to this mess, to cross-check other articles they were involved in. No information to better inform future decisions on either operational response or policy decisions.

I would accept "other admins / arbs / whoever have already done those other reviews, all taken care of". But in that case... why put any mention on AN at all?

Putting something here is asking for attention. Don't do that if you don't want attention...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wake up call, a notice that despite the claims of some people in e.g. the BLP RfC or other pages, there are a number of very serious, long term BLP violations on (unsourced) BLP pages which could harm those people seriously (the article in question has been spread over many, many WP copies, with the result that any English language search for his name gives rather bad publicity), and could harm Wikipedia seriously as well (our reputation didn't really get a boost from the Seigenthaler incident). Furthermore, anyone can very easily find which article this is about, so people can check whether I handled this delicate situation correctly and whether any further action (oversight, rounding up of every involved editor, ...) is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reinterate (once and only once more) that this is a curious approach to and goal in posting something to a noticeboard, and that it was not perhaps entirely useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion caused by your objection to it is even less useful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - the edits have been undeleted now and suppressed per policy. You can see who made the edits but not the edits themselves, thankfully. That article was an utter disgrace - Alison ^❤ 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everybody, and it is a bit of a worry that this survived for so long. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that that vandalized BLP was not an isolated instance, but its not about having a few sources cited. The reason we don't have a second Seigenthaler incident is because the press won't cover every wikivandal case. Its not exciting to be "second" in the news about such things, aside from an occasional "wikipedia reported XX was dead for 10 minutes today". To the extent the general public knows anything about wikipedia, they know that anyone can edit it, and thus sometimes its wrong. But the root of the problem is not whether an article has a few sources or not--its about vandals who wish to deface a page. One day when I checked out what Wikipedia Review was, I became aware of a trio of articles repeatedly vandalized by a troll for over 2 years, where he asserted (with different usernames or IPs every few months) that one person was not a person at all but a pseudonym of the other. This started happening in mid-2007, and was last vandalized earlier this month. The articles are Chris Gore, My Big Fat Independent Movie, and Philip Zlotorynski (the last of which currently redirects to the movie article as a protective move). These articles were not unsourced BLPs -- they had some sources cited, and the blatant vandalism was slipped in, and overlooked despite other editors stopping by from time to time (like one editor suggesting that the two BLPS be merged if they were the same person, oblivious to the fake claim). Sample diffs for Zlotorynski:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Since I am watching the articles now, and have berated the loser vandal, I suspect the problem will be controlled (but now that admins will read this, feel free to ban him). So, while unsourced BLPs are the bogeyman of the day, I have had trouble finding any link between BLPs that are sourced and whether they become a vandalism target. The vast majority of BLPs, sourced or otherwise, are uncontentious. Though, if BLPs could not be edited by IP editors or unconfirmed users, this case may have not happened.--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that 'xyz was a former President of Sicily' is now considered just as much of a BLP violation as 'xyz was a flashy mobster'. Yet all you have done here is replace one unreffed BLP with another. So, per BLP, somebody delete the professor's article, and then someone can replace it with a sourced article about the mobster of this name, who actually lived in the 19th Century. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its still a BLP violation, but negative material that is provably false is much greater of a violation. Mr.Z-man 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sort of vandalism claimed here is not he dangerous kind, for such edits will be very quickly spotted. The people advocating strong action on unsourced BLPs have been generally highlighting the danger of the less watched and unnoticed articles, where vandalism can stay for a very long while. I'm not sure either is as much of a problem as the potential for damage to people in what are ostensibly non BLP articles. There are a great many many problems, and the attitude that all usourced statements are harmful prevents a focus on the true problem areas. Given our basic principles of editing this is hardly surprising. Given them, I'd say we had a rather low lever of vandalism, and I think a number of outsiders have commented that we are among the best sites in attention to removing them. The reason we have a very low level is because of the great number of editors, and the true solution to the problem is to encourage new people to become active, which is not done by deleting articles. (In the meanwhile, the existing ones will need to work a little more carefully and perhaps a little harder.) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer. - is that what you mean by being spotted quickly? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless people actually check the sources to see if they're true or unwarped, it won't help, as many entrenched users use fake sources etc. And people are reluctant to make a stand against entrenched editors, especially when a lot of the pov pushers are part of an ethnic/religious bloc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to defend BLP violations, but are we sure it is vandalism?

I cannot see the deleted edits. However, the Italian corresponding article is weakly sourced but enough to confirm that the guy has indeed a criminal record as being involved with Mafia, even if dissimilar in the details from the one cited above, and he has indeed been involved in that at the age of 53. See here for example if you can read Italian -the source is one of the main Italian newspapers; I am happy to provide a translation if needed. (The thing is complicated by the subject having the same surname of a notable Italian mobster -with whom he is involved in the events leading to the arrest, making the whole thing a bit convoluted). --Cyclopia ^talk 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see [7]. Again, the details do not fit with what Fram says it was in the article, but the situation is much less clear-cut than it seems. Again, happy to provide translation if needed. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia is right. The guy was "presidente della Regione siciliana", and was also arrested as a mobster; he was also addressed as "professore", which doesn't necessarily mean he was a university prof. Did you think their mafia has no political connections?! Surely references are good, but there seems to be no contradiction here between the two statuses. Reminds me of a recent similar case in Romania, but I forgot the name of the guy. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same person - the problem is there are two separate Giuseppe Provenzano's. One is a 19th century Sicilian mobster (see [http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html this link). The other one is a former President of Sicily who was in office from 1996-1998 (see Politics of Sicily). Unfortunately their names both linked to the same article, which apparently contained both the mobster bio and the President's bio scrambled into one. They need to be disambiged and separated into 2 different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different Giuseppe Provenzano. But the professor (who was a university professor indeed) we're talking about was also arrested or otherwise implicated for strong suspects Mafia connections, due also to turncoat's confessions, and not in the 19th century but few years ago. An excerpt from one of the refs above "Ma l' incarico di "curatore" dei patrimoni del boss di Corleone - è la rivelazione di Francesco Di Carlo - sarebbe stato affidato poi a Giuseppe Provenzano, eletto deputato regionale in Forza Italia il 16 giugno scorso e diventato presidente della Regione. Il pentito Di Carlo avrebbe raccontato di conoscere queste vicende "per averlo appreso personalmente" da Totò Riina e da Bernardo Brusca. I due boss sostenevano - sempre secondo Di Carlo - che il professore Giuseppe Provenzano, commercialista, docente alla facoltà di Economia e commercio dell' università di Palermo, un tempo anche perito del tribunale, avrebbe fatto quadruplicare i capitali di Binnu." ("But the responsibility of managing the belongings of the Corleone boss -that's the revelation of [turncoat] Francesco Di Carlo - has been delegated then to Giuseppe Provenzato, elected as a deputy in Forza Italia 16th of June and became president of Region [of Sicily]. Turncoat Di Carlo explained he knew about this for "having personally learned" from Totò Riina and Bernardo Brusca. The two bosses claimed -according to Di Carlo- that professor Giuseppe Provenzano, accountant, lecturer at the Economy and Commerce faculty of Palermo University and even assessor to the Palermo court, would have made the fortunes of Binnu quadruplicate") --Cyclopia ^talk 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was arrested for suspected mafia connections, he was not convicted for murder and so on, and didn't die in prison last year (as the article also claimed). Some vandal used the bio of the 19th century mobster, and pasted it on the current professor/politician. That minor parts of it were correct does not mean that it is somewhat better. Was the professor ever convicted? Fram (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Don't take me wrong, you were absolutely right in removing such unsourced information, being it true or not. I was only presenting such info here because, being unable to see the edits, I wasn't able to decide if they referred to the real arrests or not of the subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The article did not refer to the actual allegations of links with the mafia, but only linked the actual 19th century mobster facts with the current politician (using his death of birth and so on). Fram (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for Jack "Red Hood" Napier

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).[8]

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 [9]

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.[10] The top result on Google Images for this image states "Copyright © 2007-2010 All About Aquarium Fish. All Rights Reserved."[11]
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.[12] The entire text is a cut and paste from a Citizendium article[13] that was written in 2009. Violates Citizendium's CC-by-sa 3.0 license[14] by failing to give any attribution to Citizendium or the article's authors,[15] plus falsifies sourcing throughout the article. Sample for comparison: Wikipedia paragraph,[16] identical uncited Citizendium paragraph,[17] irrelevant reference added to Wikipedia paragraph does not substantiate the paragraph.[18]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[19][20]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- cough — Jack Merridew 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [21]. -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The imagevios by themselves are a bannable offence. MER-C 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
At least ban from uploading images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He also copyvioed an entire article two days ago. Durova⁴¹² 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- That conversation was not actually started by Jack Napier; the thread header is a sarcastic response to an invitation at his user talk.[22] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support ban Enough is enough. GlassCobra 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please block the remaining sock

According to Jack Merridew above, Napier is still socking with an unblocked sock account [23]. Can someone check and block? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

get your mugs, magnets, mousepads, tshirts and more! ;) Jack Merridew 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User indefblocked for username violation. Tan | 39 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we're done here. Keep an eye out for moar lulz. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Random comment: This gentleman makes me look succinct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:CHUNK. Durova⁴¹² 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BTW, it happens! :) - Alison ^❤ 08:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

thesun.co.uk is not exactly a reliable source. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[24][25] which geolocate[26] 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).[27][28][29] Edits by the Drew Peacock account include local citations to local geography,[30][31][32] which support the conclusion that the IP is the Drew Peacock editor unlogged, not Jack Napier. Other Drew Peacock edits both logged[33] and unlogged[34][35] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Attack page

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.

MFD is the correct venue for potentially problematic userpages where deletion under {{db-g10}} or other speedy criteria has been declined. –xeno^talk 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified tonight about a page put up that clearly is designed as an attack page about me here. I posted to the page to either file it, prove it or delete it and in response it was expanded to include personal commentary on my political views as reflected by userboxes on my userpage and interpretation of what they mean as well as commentary on my level of maturity. Whatever your opinion of me and my recent block, Lar clearly said that no connection existed between me and SkagRiverKing and the WP:SPI clearly stated here that KermitClown and MisterSoup were unrelated to anyone else named on the page. Meanwhile, this page also disparages other editors in good standing such as Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1. Under WP:UP#NOT #10 and WP:CSD#G10, this page needs to be deleted. I would tag it myself, but that would open me up to retaliation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this myself. This is an attack page that was made to provoke a reaction. User:Chowbok has lost a couple of arguments about articles that a group of us were on the other side of. Apparently s/he is not happy about it. Chowbok has been spreading this sockpuppet stuff to article talk pages and users alike to discredit edits. (difs available upon request) I believe this list is a collaborative effort with another editor who is not allowed to talk about or to Wildhartlivie on the project so she took it to email which can be seen here. To be honest, all of these sockpuppet accusations I believe started with User:SkagitRiverQueen. SRQ has just gotten off a block herself that was partially for being uncivil. I would really appreciate it if administrators would finally put a stop to all of this bad behavior and collaborations. There is no reason for any of this. Oh in case it should be or needs to be said, I am not Wildhartlivie. Thanks for your considerations, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having sent someone an email is proof of my involvement in this how? Please remove or strikeout your accusations against me regarding my involvement and/or collaboration immediately as they are based on only on your personal bias against me and not on anything factual. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty clear violation of a prohibition. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, he doesn't have a restriction, she does. But ya know, I agree. Enough is enough. Run a sock check, do a checkuser, whatever. You'll find no alternative accounts lurking here. And everyone with whom I've ever worked (with one clear exception) and cooperated or agreed seems to come up on that page. What? Getting along means we're all the same person? Puh-leeze. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside (perhaps), it seems to me that if no one looked at each others' contribs they wouldn't be made of aware of these pages. Just saying. The fact that both sides can't seem to quit stalking each other (an example from the other side as I pointed out on Lar's talk page) could mean that some type of formal interaction ban is necessary. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:57, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing to do with Chowbok's Chowbok/Wildhartlivie page. Neither am I stalking WHL or anyone else. Chowbok is not a meat-puppet for me. Accusations against me in this regard need to stop immediately. As far as the interlink you provided, Equazcion, I found out about WHL's sandbox page over a month ago when clicking on the "What links here" option on the left side of my User Page. As far as the Hepburn article - I went there looking for some info specifically about her family. I am an amateur geneaologist and Hepburn is one of my distant cousins - I was looking for info to add to my family tree, actually. After that, I chose to watchlist the page. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as clarification, I did not find that page by "stalking" edits. Someone mentioned on that page wrote me to inform me of it. I sent you an email about that page and another post and got no response from you or two different administrators I also wrote about it. This is a valid and legitimate complaint that really needs addressing based on what that page is and what it says. I certainly have the right to work on a complaint for WP:RfC/U, which I note has been encouraged by several editors here, some of whom have responded to this complaint. I also responded to your note to me that you link above on February 17, and you indicated you were thinking about a response to it. Three days later, I'm still waiting for a response. This is not, to me, about SRQ or anything that she has done. This is about an entirely different editor posting an attack page that disparages not only me with false facts, but also names a number of other editors who are in good standing. Equivocating "blame" here is not productive. This is an attack page that qualifies for deletion under WP:UP#NOT #10 and WP:CSD#G10. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to that (regarding your sandbox page) a couple days ago on my talk page. When I say "both sides" I'm not merely talking about WLH and SRQ, but your respective supporters as well. Whoever apparently emailed you regarding Chowbok's page had to have presumably either looked at his contribs or his subpage listing. Anyway, I feel this is merely another chapter in the SRQ/WLH saga, despite it taking place in another editor's userspace, and an adequately-worded interaction ban that addresses the parent issue would trickle down and also resolve (for lack of a better word) all the little branch issues too, such as this one. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:57, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Whoever apparently emailed you regarding Chowbok's page had to have presumably either looked at his contribs or his subpage listing. Actually, Chowbok posted a pointer to the page on SRQ's talk page,[36] rather than, say, e-mailing her about it, so the exisitence of the page was not particularly hidden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case it was missed, there is an interaction ban in place via Lar, which has not been very well adhered to so far. I have endeavored to follow his instructions and basically ignore her. I have no idea how the person who told me found it, but perhaps like me, that person has a Google alert delivered. I got one on this early this morning, so anything with my username triggers it. And how does that support allowing a clear attack page from not being deleted? I don't have a sense that an interaction ban from here will discourage the editor who created this page from stalking my edits and interjecting himself in discussions. There is a post by him to an IP that is also an attack upon me and there wasn't even a dispute, just a discussion. So you'll impose an interaction ban on me and her as well as about a dozen other editors? I don't see that working. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the page shouldn't be deleted, only that it's just a relatively small symptom of a larger problem. The Google alert thing poses an interesting issue, whereby neither editor can so much as mention each other without the other being alerted. That has disaster written all over it, if you ask me. Also, Chowbok's page has existed for less than a day, whereas yours has been around for over a month. If he claims it to be of imminent use in a process, as you do for your page, I don't see a reason why his should be forced into "use or delete" any sooner. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:31, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Lar's recommendations regarding the two users' interaction seem like just that, recommendations, rather than a formal interaction ban. A formal ban listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions with consequences for violation might be more effective. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:39, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, it was a recommendation, couched in the language of an informal requirement to not interact on pain of taking things to AN/I... it might actually have done a little good, I think. Or maybe not, maybe it just postponed matters. Since we are now at AN/I anyway, I guess it's mostly moot. I'm hopeful that these editors can find a way to work together peacefully... I think both do try, but both also sometimes backslide a bit. I don't see Chowbok's page as at all helpful. Where to next? I have no idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has declined to delete it per G10 - though perhaps through mistaken understanding that it only applies to BLP subjects (which it does not). Take it to MFD, I think. –xeno^talk 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google alerts are for mention of an inputted name, whether it's a full personal name or nickname or whatever, and notifies a person when whatever they've inputted is noted in an internet crawl. You don't designate a given website, I get them for my real name, which is unusual enough that the only mentions are from newspapers and the like, and my username, which I use on various websites. Yeah, it will trigger a note if someone writes about me on a talk page here and it triggers a note when I've uploaded a file or a file I've edited is again edited. The large difference between my page and this one is that I have diffs and evidence outlined on mine, it's not just a page of speculation with no supporting evidence and a block of POV speculation on the political "meaning" and what I support based on what userboxes I have on a page. Not evidence, not diffs, only commentary and some of the content has already been determined to not be connected, but it contains speculation regarding that nonetheless. Lar's recommendation also contained the admonition that if it couldn't be adhered to, that he would take it to AN/I for formalization. And I clearly stated earlier that this was not related to SRQ or blamed her in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UP#NOT item #10 is not dependent on diffs, evidence, or even validity. It's just a prohibition on the listing of perceived grievances regarding other editors. Either both pages should be deleted or neither should. Although SRQ might not be directly involved I think this is rather related to your dispute with her, and it might be time for that formal ban discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:54, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok's page has something to do with me only because *he* has inserted my name into this whole thing. I did not discuss with him what he is doing, nor was I aware he was going to do it before it happened. I saw what he was doing, but that's where my knowledge of it stops. I am not involved in this page in any way - I am not part of the creation nor the thought behind it in any fashion. I am completely uninvolved with it and I want all speculation that I had something to do with it to stop. These accusations, insinuations, and implications are completely groundless and just plain wrong. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except my userpage is clearly marked with the {{Userspace RFC draft}} template as included in the instructions for preparation outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Preparation while this page being discussed has no indication of a case being prepared and is clearly written as an individual attack page. I see nothing in the instructions regarding a time deadline, which is what you're pushing here on my page. The past 4 weeks and circumstances have changed the direction of the content. I deleted the "offending paragraph" and left, as I suggested, only a list of articles and dates with no names attached. And for some reason, everyone else wants to drag SRQ into this and I did not. The time for a formal ban discussion was some time ago before things heated up and since the admonition by Lar, little has occurred between us. It's pages like this that keep things heated up, as this thread shows. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that although that page has been up for a month, {{Userspace RFC draft}} was only added yesterday; i.e., after I put my page up. —Chowbok ☠ 19:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're here, Chowbok, it might be helpful if you could tell us what the purpose of your page is. Will you be using it soon in some Wikipedia process? Which one, and when? Or is it just "note-taking"? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

By all means, let's take it upon ourselves to take credit for the template. Just one more misrepresentation made by that editor. It was added soon after it was pointed out to me by two editors on my talk page. Didn't have a single friggin' thing to do with Chowbok's attack page, which Lar told Chowbok clearly "Some of those connections you allege were actually shown to be socks of others, so that sort of assertion is not really a good idea. I think WHL's right, file it or delete it. This sort of material is not appropriate to be kept onwiki." Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't matter; I don't know why you guys are fighting over it. It constitutes nothing more than a stated intention, which Chowbok can also state for his page, template or not. Thought I note he's not done so yet despite this whole thread basically depending on that question. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess just because I'm not totally sure. Partly it's for my own reference, as WHL hasn't hesitated to point to sock accounts as backing up her point of view, and I was kind of losing track of who was a real editor and who was just her muddying the waters. Also, she still denies being LaVidaLoca, and I wanted to have some place to put what I feel is pretty damning evidence that she is ([37] [38]). Also there does seem to be some weird double-standard with her, where she can get away with tactics that any other editor would be warned or blocked for, and I wanted to document some evidence of that. I mean, isn't this an example of that? She's had an attack page up for a month with only mild criticism, whereas I've had this page up for a day and I'm already having to answer for it here.—Chowbok ☠ 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to have a page like that if it's for imminent use in a Wikipedia process; that's why she's been allowed to have it, and if too much time goes by she will be forced to take it down. There's no double-standard. If your page is not for use at a process, it needs to come down. Same standard for each of you. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:26, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable. Can I at least have a little time to decide? Gathering my thoughts like I did at the post above is really starting to make me think that a RFC is what's needed. Also, what happens if I move this off-wiki?—Chowbok ☠ 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider to be a little time Chowbok? If you need a little time to prepare whatever it is you're preparing, that seems reasonable, but it would be better if you "put up or shut up". You make comments in places like Talk:Dawn Wells about sock puppets etc, and it does nothing but inflame situations and distract from the subject at hand. This is something that you are obviously growing more concerned about, and it needs to be resolved. As for User:SkagitRiverQueen, Idon't think this has been initiated with her knowledge, but you did invite her to participate. Considering that WHL and SRQ have been instructed not to interract, that is not helpful to either editor. If you have something to say, say it openly and in the correct place. It seems to me that if you have a problem with WHL's presence after she served out her block, and that you consider it was not handled correctly, that part of your issue is with the admin involved. For you to comment negatively about WHL on the basis of a decision that was out of her hands and was made by an admin, is unfair. Take that up with the admin involved, or drop it, because the blocking/unblocking decision was not WHL's. You should also avoid making assumptions and conclusions and stick to facts that you can support or prove. You make a point that considering WHL's political stance, it's surprising that there are no gay-support-related user boxes on her user page. That's extremely flawed logic, and is plain wrong. Editors may be supportive of gay people, and may even be gay themselves, but feel no need to convey that with user boxes. Me, for example, and I've never seen a single comment anywhere that suggest even the smallest degree of homophobia from WHL. The homophobic comments made to SRQ were totally unacceptable and are indefensible, (are they at the core of all of this unpleasantness?) but if lack of user boxes on WHL's user page somehow supports a notion of guilt, that's jumping recklessly to a conclusion. If you're wrong on this point, it's also possible you're wrong on others. None of us really "knows" anyone on here, except by what they choose to reveal or not reveal, so if you're not sure, as you mention above, you should keep comments to yourself or have your suspicions dealt with promptly. Deal with it through the correct channels, and if you have a case to make, make it. Untimately that may lead to a resolution one way or another and may be helpful in a way some that some of your comments are not. Rossrs (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a day or two. I certainly may be wrong on several points, and I think I'm clear about that on the page. I say what I think, why I think it, and people are free to find my arguments convincing or not. The userbox argument is a minor point that I only think is relevant along with the other evidence. People seem to be focusing on that rather than the stronger arguments I'm making.—Chowbok ☠ 02:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may realize that you could be wrong on several points, but I disagree that you are clear about that on "the page". On the contrary, the manner in which your footnote comments are framed, your opinion of both Wildhartlivie and Lar are clearly negative. You don't convey doubt on the page. You convey a little bit of doubt here. I was not "focussing on" the userboxes and I don't see other people focussing on them. I referred to them as an example of you misinterpreting what you're seeing and suggested that it may not be the only thing you've gotten wrong. You have focussed on that in your reply. In any case, a couple of days seems fair to me, especially as it gives everyone else the same couple of days to consider the situation. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for someone else to answer, but since they haven't yet, I think you can have some time to decide, and a day or two sounds okay to me. If anyone disagrees they can say so. As for moving it off-wiki, I hope that means you want to move it onto a local file on your computer, as that would be the wisest choice. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:48, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you were waiting for someone else to answer? You waited 4 minutes. I appreciate that 4 minutes is more than enough time for Madonna and Justin Timberlake to save the world, but this is not so urgent. Don't be so impatient. I asked the time question, and unfortunately I was away living my real life over the last few hours or I would have been right on it. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for someone to answer Chowbok when he originally asked these questions (about moving off-wiki and having time to decide) in his comment at 21:47, 20 Feb, above, roughly 5 hours before I answered. Regardless, I'm not sure what the problem is with me answering promptly anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:36, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There is no problem with you answering promptly. Rossrs (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't feel I needed to ask Wikipedia editors' opinion on whether I can save something to my hard drive.—Chowbok ☠ 03:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised what I've seen people ask here. Anyway, if you're asking about making a public posting somewhere else, I don't have a concrete answer for you regarding how policy might restrict that, but I can tell you I recommend against it. On-wiki pages like this are against policy for a reason, it's not just some arbitrary technicality. These lists in public view cause unnecessary drama and it's best that they remain private. If you care about that, you'll keep it private of your own volition, even if policy doesn't expressly force you to. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:10, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

First of all, one of the options given me at the time of my block was to submit evidence that proves LaVidaLoca and I are not the same person. As I said, I'm working on doing that and you can "doubt it" all you want, but when that is submitted, then what you are covertly claiming is that I am lying will be disproven. In fact, that evidence will be sent to Lar in the next day or two, as she has agreed to submit a copy of her identification that will support everything I told Lar in private emails as well in the sock case. You didn't say it, but you've implied it here, on an IP talk page and in various posts you've made across the site. No, I'm not the same person and those diffs you posted above were covered in the case about it. The page I have covers specific incidents on Wikipedia and is not written in an attack manner, unlike yours that contains your own personal judgment and assumptions of what you have decided are my personal political beliefs based on what userboxes are on a subpage of my userspace. My page does not cast personal aspersions on editors that are clearly not involved in any way with you or on articles with you and are speculative in nature. Your page also makes claims about and misrepresents outcomes of sock cases that clearly absolved me of any involvement, as Lar informed you here when he told you the page had to come down if you don't plan to file it. It also states quite clearly that some of the usernames you've posted were previously disproven. In fact, if you think I am Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte, or Yachtsman1 (although I have NO clue why you would suspect the last two) then by all means, file the sock case and be disproven. As for your other contentions, the evidence being sent to Lar will prove that LaVidaLoca and I are not the same person. From that point on, you need to dissociate yourself from your other claims as they are specious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this again, for all the good it'll do, but from a policy standpoint, the only difference between your two pages is what you plan to do with them. This stuff about attack wording and invalid or disproved claims is pretty irrelevant. Rather than continue this, it might be better to wait for Chowbok's answer regarding his intentions. But if you guys want to keep arguing about something inconsequential, go for it I guess. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:55, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you go over and tell Lar that disproven and invalid claims are irrelevant and inconsequential, because that is partly the rationale he gave Chowbok for why the content on that page was inappropriate and didn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar wasn't drawing a comparison to your page, WLH, and wasn't necessarily pointing out a specific policy violation. Besides which, even if he was, Lar doesn't necessarily know better than anyone else, so kindly don't sarcastically tell me to "go over and tell him" anything as if an authority on the subject has already spoken (incidentally it's likely he's already watching this discussion, even if you meant it literally). The userpage policy (WP:UP#NOT, item #10) wording is pretty clear on this. Read it and let me know if you can find anything there that makes your page okay and Chowbok's not, assuming he shares your claim to be preparing for an imminent process. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:23, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely I can find something that makes my page different. The line says "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." In case anyone has not looked lately, the content on my page that could be perceived in anyway as attacking another editor has been removed and was early yesterday. There is no name whatsoever on that page, all that it contains is a list of articles and dates. As it was prior to removal of the paragraph, it contained factual evidence as listed which included diffs to individual points in the complaint being drawn and is clearly templated as being used in preparation of a dispute resolution process. That the focus changed in the past two weeks makes it completely timely in regard to changes added since February 11. On the other hand, the attack page I reported here has directly negatively drawn content that speculates on my politics and draws the editor's personal conclusions of my views based on what userboxes he saw, speculated on the "probable" sock puppet status of editors in good standing who have given no reason to indicate suspicion, contains content that is connected in a way to draw speculation between me and accounts that were not related to me in any way as proven as a result of checkuser evidence to suggest that I remain suspected of being those accounts and continues to relate that to other accounts that also were proven by checkuser evidence to not be related to me. That was supported by a statement at Chowbok by the checkuser who ran them. Why would anyone retain such content when it has clearly been disproven already? That none of that speculation is supported in any way by diffs to actual evidence to connect any of the other editors named and only makes the slimmest of speculation with others makes this content "attacking other editors" and his speculation on my views and commentary about them is listing perceived flaws. I'm sure you'll find a way to discount these differences, but they are very real. Although the nomination of that page yesterday under WP:CSD G10 was denied because the reviewer denied it was a violation of BLP, his perception that a BLP violation was necessary was refuted by another administrator. However I would maintain that if not against me, that page violates BLP in regard to editors Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 since there is absolutely no evidence presented there against them except Chowbok's suspicious mind. And I'd note that in the last few minutes, Chowbok has violated and outed the user account name that was deleted when the editor exercised her right to vanish [39] thus outing a former identity.

I also find it incredibly frustrating that the discussion about this page has been taken off on tangents about looking at other's edits even when it was clearly stated that the person who notified me discovered it via Google alerts, then a discussion about the "dangers" of Google alerts, then that comment was completely ignored to once again comment on looking at other's edits, comments about my work page for dispute that was clearly stated not three days ago that it was "acceptable", suggestions that now formal interaction bans be implemented when this situation did not arise from "interaction" between SRQ and me at all, attacks upon checkusers and administrators, and interpreting for them. In short, everything but the intent behind this attack page. By the way, I'm completely surprised that Rossrs has not been added to that page since we often edit together on articles. The topic seems to keep getting hijacked for other's personal viewpoints here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not overlook this personal attack against me that Chowbok posted to the talk page of an IP with which I was discussing a point at Talk:Ryan White. When I removed it as a personal attack, Chowbok returned the personal attack stating not to remove posts from other's talk pages. It is a clear personal attack and he posted it, effectively, twice. This is another issue I wrote to adminstrators and to Equazcion about but no action was taken on a clear-cut case of posting a personal attack. Twice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but has anyone noticed that User:75.4.215.55 which recently edited Talk:Dawn Wells the other day was possibly the unlogged User:Drew Peacock, Esquire [40] which was recently indeffed for username violation? Durova⁴¹² 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that, Durova, although I didn't follow up to know that he'd been blocked. I just noticed that the IP posted in concert with the user account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just mentioning in passing that occasionally when one smells socks, the nose mistakes which feet they're on. That's just human and it might have complicated your situation. Here's hoping that works itself out. Durova⁴¹² 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems to be the case here. Thanks so much, Durova. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are requests on the talk page for Chowbok to remove myself (requested there this morning) and another editor, Mosedschurte]. I think it's only right to remove the editors in good standing from this listing as sockpuppets. Either this editor needs to file an SPI or some proof of socking or it should be removed immediately. I have no problem with a check user checking my account to see if there is any socking occuring. I do not appreciate my user name being listed like this, so I am formally asking here too for the removal of my user name from this page, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it utterly laughable that this page is supposedly going to be used for some future reference and there's not one iota of evidence listed on that page. How would anything on that page be used for an SPI report? I've filed plenty and I'm fairly certain more evidence than "I think they're a sock because I don't like 'em!" is needed. I'm listed as a probable sock why? Because I agreed with and speak to WHL? Well, that settles it all then. Tag and block my ass. The point of this page is to antagonize, plain and simple. Anyone who can't see that needs to take off the good-faith glasses and see this for what it is. All this crap about needing time to decide what to do is just Chowbok stalling so he/she can keep the page around. If the content is so paramount, copy & paste that drivel into a notepad file and hit save. Like I said on the MFD page, if this is the kind of crap editors can now do to each other something is very wrong. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This attack page is currently listed at Miscellany for deletion for comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kept waiting for an administrator to tend to this matter because it's an obvious attack page of no value other than to stir up drama and upset people that Chowbok doesn't like. Well congrats, it did what you wanted, you got the attentions you wanted. If any administrator is watching this, I mean this is the administrators board, would someone please be bold enough to take care of this matter once and for all? Also, if any of you are a check user, you might as well go ahead and check my account to show that I'm not a sock. I have one IP, it doesn't change, so please clear my name. I figure I have the right to have my name cleared since Chowbok seems to have the right to smear it with no cause. We've never even had words that I'm aware of. So please someone take care of this already, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie - I keep waiting for you to either retract and/or strikeout the baseless accusations you made regarding me here [41]. If you have evidence that Chowbok is a meatpuppet for me, could you please provide it? Otherwise, you need to retract and/or strikeout your accusations immediately because it's not right for these allegations and accusations to remain any longer. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's going to happen, Crohnie. There will be a lot of hemming and hawing about the page and declarations that checkusers are not run to prove innocence but that's it. It really doesn't matter that some of us listed there have never been blocked, do good work throughout the project and don't use sockpuppets. Evidently it's kosher to make up whatever about whomever as long as you plan to do something about it.....eventually. I know, I know...it's just words on a page, if you're innocent, don't worry! Whatever. I didn't create an account here so I could be harassed and singled out by someone because they're pissed that they're not winning a lame dispute about the chick from Gilligan's Island allegedly having pot. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with that.—Chowbok ☠ 03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie has now been deleted. pablo_hablo. 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note that the page was deleted upon what was noted as user request, but not before he transferred all the links he had on that page to a new user subpage here, so it surreptiously was retained before having the attack page deleted. Four minutes after his attack page was deleted, he filed a MfD request on my user subpage that is clearly tagged as am RfC/U in progress [42] as an "Attack/wikistalking page]. The only way I can interpret this is retaliatory in nature because he saw that his unabashed attack page was destined for deletion. That the links were transferred to another subpage also reflects an intention to recreate his page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "surreptious", I know very well you're stalking my edits and would see it. I don't see anything wrong with simply keeping a collection of links. I won't be turning it into the old page or adding any commentary at all. It's true I nominated your page for deletion; seems only fair.—Chowbok ☠ 01:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would one otherwise interpret "seems only fair" except in responding in response to this? Seems like a clear cut admission to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new collection of links has also been deleted now, as an attack page. For everyone involved, it's far better to collect your evidence off-wiki when you're going to file a case. It avoids situations and conflict like this. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone involved" except for WLH, who is allowed to have such a page for over a month without a fraction of the attention I have gotten in the last two days. I am genuinely mystified by this odd double standard.—Chowbok ☠ 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Cause of death SPA

Resolved

– Blocked for a week Rodhull andemu 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hetoum I

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) has been disrupting wikipedia for quite a while now, and was banned indef as result: [43]. Previously his sock accounts were blocked for death threats [44], 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 [45] [46] [47] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Public speakers

Resolved

– Nothing for Admin attention.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requesting input from the community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing discussion. Flying Toaster 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, Flying Toaster 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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. Flying Toaster 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Flying Toaster 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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! ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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... ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 So Why 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Flying Toaster 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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. Flying Toaster 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Do what MLauba said. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: [48] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Roger Davies 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. Scott aka UnitAnode 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[49] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it's not a direct translation. I'll do one for comparison purposes. Roger Davies ^talk 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plagiarism is not always a copyright violation. These are two different things. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[50] while Roger's English contribution is a straight translation from Le Monde.[51] Durova⁴¹² 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is the first one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[52] and still needs much work. May be slow to follow up here at this thread.[reply]

Roger's text:"mandated a 20% increase in strength of the United States Navy"[53]
- "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"[54]
Roger's text:"had authorized the construction of the first American battleships in 17 years"[55]
- "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"[56]
  - 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)[reply]

Those examples are quite blatant and considerably increase my level of concern. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

(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."[57] Text virtually unchanged in current version.[58]
- 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."[59]

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?[60][reply]

- - 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    - - Now re-written. Roger Davies ^talk 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Which example are you referring too? Roger Davies ^talk 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

If you really, really have to use the same wording? You put it in quotes. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"uncomfortably close to the originals" equals "identical in several cases", does it? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I guess the question would be, "Did you engage in any conversation on IRC about these matters?" Scott aka UnitAnode 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If IRC conversations (whether public or private)directly affect what happens on-project, they deserve to see the light of day, period. Scott aka UnitAnode 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Scott aka UnitAnode 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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. Scott aka UnitAnode 03:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what are people trying to accomplish here? RxS (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unless you actually have something to add to the discussion, perhaps you'd do well to simply disengage? Scott aka UnitAnode 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice before expecting others to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- How did you become aware of the concerns about Davies' editing, then? Scottaka UnitAnode 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        "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)[reply]
      - (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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        
        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 [61] [62] 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)[reply]
        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. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]

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. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A collapse/uncollapse edit war has been occurring.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] It's difficult to reply to several heated comments while this is going on. Durova⁴¹² 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's stopped now, but that certainly wasn't a good thing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uncle Screwtape's guide to bringing up a plagiarism complaint on Wikipedia

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.
Hypeveentilate 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. Discuss it at IRC first, to get maximum volume.
Continue Hypeventilating. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
See Rule #1. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this totally isn't bringing it up, and obviously justifies your petty comments. Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
Scott aka UnitAnode 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) 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.[71] 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)[reply]

Actualy, he admitted to rewriting the section and adding a new source, not "improper sourcing" [72]. Just a point. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion war: Please stop this

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

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.[73] His original comment indicated his awareness that whatever he is doing exactly is blockable[74] [75]. This user has no respect for Wikipedia's policies, and he seems to think he should be exempted from them under WP:IAR.[76] This user is currently the subject of a sockpuppet investigation.[77] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

flagged revisions when?

Resolved

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

or will we have to cope with garbage like these (which goes undetected on a high profile page): [78], [79], [80]. Dr. Loosmark 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 843: / Line 843: @@
 :#:[[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 (outdent) 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=345777852&oldid=345777381]  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? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|412]]''</sup> 04:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
+:Actualy, he admitted to rewriting the section and adding a new source, not "improper sourcing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=345774807]. Just a point. --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] ([[User talk:InkSplotch|talk]]) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 == Deletion war: Please stop this ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards