Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Abtract is stalking again

Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing[1]. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th[2], self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway)[3], and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u.[4][5][6][7] as well as continuing his insults of other editors[8]. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.[9]

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here [10] You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on Abtracts talkpage regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. [11] [12] [13] [14] did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
      • Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay. I think that's best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

Unresolved

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway.

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [15] [16]
• Japanese war crimes: [17]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[21]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Josh Hamilton = Josh Hamilton (baseball) ??

Resolved

 – Not Spartacus

User:Josh Hamilton created his account on July 17, 2008[22]. According to him, he is Josh Hamilton, the baseball player. Five minutes after creating his account, he supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[23]. I think an admin should review this. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him until he has a chance to confirm his identity to OTRS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you did a right thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be prudent to unblock per the user's request for Wikipedia:Changing username? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because he's also asserting on his user page that he's the ballplayer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[24] I don't see the claim anymore. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I removed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, is it really wise to block someone who may actually be the person in question? It might be tenuous, but perhaps discussion would have resolved this. Or WP:RFC/N Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, either he is the person in question, in which case I don't expect that he'd mind being asked to prove it, since it's for his protection (and I did ask quite politely) or he isn't, in which case he shouldn't be unblocked under any user name. I haven't dealt with the unblock request because it should be dealt with by an uninvolved admin, but I don't see a lot of reason to unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly question, but what is the threshold for blocking a user who claims to be a famous person unless they verify? Stephen King, Tom Cruise, David S. Goyer, Joss Whedon? What if its some author with 2-3 books to his name? Whats the threshold? Just curious. rootology (T) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast threshold. I would put it as simply, "enough name recognition." —Kurykh 07:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do they have an article?" is the most sensible way (why create another set of criteria when we have one?), although this presupposes our notability criteria are effective and at the right level. Neıl ☄ 09:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it is likely that User:Josh Hamilton is an imposter. He supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[25] few minutes after creating his account. Why would Mr. Hamilton, a baseball player, be interested in the RfA of Finalnight? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He also "proved" his identity by providing me with an official sounding e-mail address...for a domain that was registered yesterday. I'd say we can mark this resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line between assuming good faith reasonably, and being silly about it. In a related story, I am actually Babe Ruth. You only thought he was dead. Trust me! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Our old Korean-Japanese hotspot article Liancourt Rocks is flaring up again, after being quiet for about half a year. The suddenness of the disruption (multiple disruptive throwaway accounts making either lame revert edits on the article or disruptive POV rants on talk, from both nationalities) leads me to believe there's again a coordinated campaign off-wiki. Please help watch. I've been blocking anything on sight that looks like part of the campaign, going as far as immediate indef-blocks with no warnings after a single edit. Given the intensity and stubbornness of disruption we've seen on this article, I stand by this rather extraordinary measure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been some sort of recent news stuff about it [26] - I expect that has something to do with it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Condoms, will people ever learn? Beam 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia has historicaly been viewed as a battleground for this issue yes. Can't find anything in english but there are korean and perhaps japanese blogs floating around that meantion the article that suggests there may be some online campaining specific to the article.Geni 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah here we are a group called VANK are probably involved. Sigh can't we just use the island for nuclear testing and have done with it?Geni 16:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And this would appear to be the appeal.Geni 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear testing would probably leave some bits and pieces above the water. We need something that would cut the islands off well below sea level. --Carnildo (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We could try air-dropping a copy of a few WR-related ANI threads on the islets, perhaps? That should finish them off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if we could send a few of our most "famous" vandals there prior to the air-dropping. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Help Desk is catching it in the earhole; personally I don't want to touch the entry in case I get people shouting at me, but maybe somebody should have a word with the angry mastodon? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this disruptive title moving vandalism by a new editor can't be done by none but Japanese. I believe 2channel's systematic meat/sockpuppetry began active like this.[27] Former or banned editors are returning to gear like a war or new editors provoked by the recent controversies around Japanese Government's history book revision emerge. Besides, summer vacation is pretty long. The article is not the only one to occur edit warring. Comfort woman, Sea of Japan, Korean Strait and all are all in this same vein. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is sudden disruptive activity from both sides, that's for certain. Anyway, thanks to Geni for finding that Korean link. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone ever notice the astonishing similarity between the map of the East and West Islets to Jonathan Swift's drawing of Lilliput and Blefuscu? Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokes aside, it needs to be said that Liancourt Rocks is currently only one minor side issue in the much larger field of Japanese-Korean conflicts. The most disruptive at the moment seems to be comfort women, where a bunch of Japanese editors are persistently trying to whitewash Japanese war crimes and relativise them with tendentious accounts of Korean actions. I think we need to lower the bar for forceful admin intervention (quick blocks, topic bans for tendentious editing et cetera), to somewhere near Balkan level on Korean-Japanese issues in general. Assuming that there'll be community consensus to do so, I guess I'll just start doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think FPaS gets half the thanks he deserves for being the one who takes on quelling so many of these nationalist flashpoint disputes. Thanks FPaS. Neıl ☄ 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :-) (/me bows deeply.) But please help watching the area too, it takes at least two or three dedicated admins to do such a thing successfully. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have Liancourt Rocks bookmarked now, and will help out where I can. I did make a special template for the page! :) Neıl ☄ 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, is Spartaz really not coming back? He was doing a good job to the article too....-Caspian blue (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Spammers using different IPs to add external links

Some spammer is adding this external link FREE CCNA Practice Exam Questions to Cisco Career Certifications from different IP addresses as this this2 this3 I reverted these edits and gave a general warning not to add them again each time. At the third instance , I gave a Final warning at User talk:116.71.191.250. How do I proceed here as the spammer uses a different IP every time ( so no point reporting to WP:AIV..Please advice -- Tinu Cherian - 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth attempt today -- Tinu Cherian - 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a problem, I suggest you file a spam report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, instructions there. The URL to be blacklisted is likely to be ccnacertificationguide.com. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you go over to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the indicated page. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna spam-blacklist the url locally, since other IPs seem to be contributing on the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. When I reported this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, I got a message that it is already backlisted. Is there anything I should do ? -- Tinu Cherian - 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be fine, we'll keep an eye open, but if they are persistent they may change domain to go around the blacklisting. If that happens, just poke WT:WPSPAM again. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Dirk Beetstra, another attempt by a registered username was reverted. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Four separate cases, a common thread, and I have no idea what to do about it

We need to, as a community, decide how we are going to handle the situation of a page in user space that, while not quite an attack page, exists for airing grievances or making a point about specific editors. I know it is theoretically prohibited under WP:UP#NOT point #9, but it doesn't seem to always work out that way.

There are at least four borderline cases I am looking at right now. In each case, other editors raised objections to the material in question, WP:UP#NOT was pointed out, but the editor with the user page feels the page is allowed and refuses to budge. In a couple cases I have sought admin enforcement, but there does not appear to be a consensus among the admins on how to deal with this.

So now I am forced to tell people, "Well, I think it's against policy, but I can't get anyone to enforce it, so... uh... maybe we can beg him to compromise?" Not fun.

The following links all contain content to which at least one user has objected, which I feel runs afoul of WP:UP#NOT, and which the creating editor refuses to remove:

• User:GHcool/Views (previously on User:GHcool, initially ad action was taken but it is now floundering)
• User:Abd/Allemandtando (ongoing MfD, but do we really need an MfD for this sort of thing?)
• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics
• User talk:Romaioi#Summary of Events Concerning False Sock Puppetry Accusations against User: Romaioi

(Even though the last two are in User talk space, the user has made it clear they wish it to remain a permanent fixture of their talk page and do not wish for other users to reply in the same section) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GHcool may still be on vacation, so maybe we should continue to wait on that one. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let GHCool have his little propaganda page. His command on "references" makes him a "good" editor, so I don't see him going away any time soon. Not that I'd even want him too! Beam 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

my case should not be discussed here as is now the subject of a suspected sock puppet case and that case should take primacy. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The page, User:Abd/Allemandtando is, as is noted, the subject of an MfD, which is currently heavily Keep. It's not a page as described by Jaysweet, not a page for "airing grievances." It's actually a neutral page, intended to be a compilation of facts (diffs, edit summaries), which has now been used, as Allemandtando points out, as an evidence page for an SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), because, when I finally started compiling it today -- the page was almost blank when the MfD was filed, though it was created two weeks ago (and was the subject of comment in AN/I by Allemandtango within a half hour, obviously somebody is watching my edits -- I saw a very strong correlation between Allemandtando's registration and an edit of mine to an AfD that he dove into the next day; I'd suspected Killerofcruft -- his name when he registered, less than a month ago -- of being Fredrick day before, but this made it likely, and I'd missed the connection. Fd is known to stalk me, was a popular deletionist editor, and, when unmasked, shown to be, as an IP editor, thoroughly and very reprehensibly uncivil, with gross vandalism of user pages, and other disruption. Killerofcruft was clearly disruptive, was the subject of two AN/I reports within days of registration, and I could go on and on, but won't. The SSP report isn't a user RfC. It is purely a statement of a reasonable suspicion that Fd has returned as Killerofcruft. Fd has claimed that he had other accounts, so I would not take a simple connection between Fd and another account as conclusive. One account previously suspected to be Fd, and now "retired," -- and who had a good record, and was only suspected because of an odd edit from an exact IP known to have been used numerous times by Fd -- could have come back, for example. But Fd very likely had numerous sock accounts, and Fd would not be his oldest account. Fd was a single-purpose account, dedicated to AfDs, and was not naive on registration.--Abd (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You left out User:Nishidani. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

@Beam: I never suggested for a second that GHcool be sanctioned, I just question whether it is appropriate that the "Views" page calls out specific editors -- more than one of whom has complained about it.

@Jayjg: I just took a look at Nishidani's user page for the first time, and while it's a bit WP:SOAPy, I don't see where it calls out specific editors, which is my main concern with the four pages I brought up here. Not that I'm saying it's perfectly fine, I just think it's potentially a different problem.

@Everybody: Well, the lack of response is telling me that the community is not interested in enforcing WP:UP#NOT point 9. Which is fine, I suppose, I'll just tell the folks who are offended by these pages that there's nothing they can really do about it. I'd suggest revising WP:UP#NOT if we're not going to enforce it, though... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UT#NOT points to Wikipedia:Utilities, a historically inactive page. Perhaps the link is wrong? Chillum 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, sorry... I noticed that about the same time you did, and I went through all of the places in this section where UT was mentioned and replaced it with UP -- and accidentally changed your comment too because I didn't notice you'd added it. Sorry!

I had looked at the relevant section via the shortcut shortly before posting this, and somehow I figured it wasn't UP for User Page, but UT for User Talk. My bad. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I have context. Now, if the page serves no other purpose than to attack another user then WP:CSD#G9 applies, if the page has a reasonable purpose other than attacking someone then it is a matter for WP:AfD. We have policy to address this. I would say all four examples shown in the first post of this thread are AfD fodder. I think telling anyone that we don't enforce WP:UP#NOT section 9 would be a misrepresentation of reality. Chillum 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an MfD on GHcool's user page quite some time ago that resulted in no consensus. An ongoing MfD on Abd's page got stalled because of other circumstances, but it wasn't look very good either. MfDing the other two would be awkward at best, because it is a single section of the User Talk page that is the problem. I could try that, but I'll bet you a hundred WikiBucks that it doesn't result in any action. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If the community does not decide the content should be deleted then that is the way it goes. I don't understand the bet you offer, if the MfD didn't turn out how you wanted just go to DRV. Some policy is enforced by the opinion of one person, ie CSD, other policies are enforced by consensus such as WP:NOT and WP:USER. It does not mean that the policy is not enforced, it is just that it is enforced by consensus, not the strict letter of the rules. Chillum 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not one of those four pages has any purpose in building a better encyclopedia. It shouldn't have to go to MFD, and the wikilawyering by some to get their rubbish kept is tedious, to say the least. I also have no idea why Jayjg thought it was a good idea to creat User:GHcool/Views. I would delete/remove them all, put a explanation on each user's talk page making sure to mention WP:SOAPBOX, revert and warn anyone who restored the content, blocking them on a second offence. Neıl ☄ 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, yes and no. There is no need to re-establish community consensus for every policy enforcement. Or perhaps we should start a new !voting process called WP:Vandalism for reversion, and before you revert vandalism we have to get consensus at WP:VfR? heh... I don't mean to make light, but my point is that the community consensus on this is highly unclear, and WP:UP#NOT does not seem to reflect the ambiguity. People come to me and say, "Hey, 'perceived flaws' aren't allowed on user pages, but this guy lists perceived flaws," and I say, "Yeah, he does, but all I can really do is ask him nicely to remove it." And surprise, most people say no.

Note that none of this involves me personally. I'm just growing increasingly frustrated because I'm not sure what to tell people to do in these situations. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, the community has repeatedly rejected the idea of deleting pages due to WP:NOT without an XfD. If you think this should be different the go to the policy talk page and make a proposal. These arguments for deletion belong on XfD, not ANI. Chillum 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try MfD, but when inevitably someone asks me, "Why is a user talk page at MfD?!", I will say, "Chillum made me do it!" (Or perhaps, I could create a page User:Jaysweet/Chillum made me do it.... It's not speedyable as long as I have at least one section on the page used for something productive, right? Hmmm... ;p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't say "Chillum made me do it!". Say "Policy requires that deletion based on this sort of policy violation should be based on consensus". Come now, lets get to the heart of the matter, it is not me, it is the way we have done things for a rather long time now. Ideally the closing admin would take into account the fact that a person's argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy. Chillum 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I am not literally going to say "Chillum made me do it"  ;) However, I am also not going to say "Policy requires..." because my interpretation of policy and past community consensus is different here. First of all, I did not think XfD was the proper venue for removal of a section of any page. Secondly, I have seen content that violates other parts of WP:UP#NOT removed on sight.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm not convinced that you're right either. So, what I would likely say in that case is neither "Chillum made me do it" nor "Policy dicates...", but rather, "It was suggested to me based on [permalink this ANI thread] that MfD was the proper recourse for violations of WP:UP#NOT." Fair 'nuff?

In any case, I am giving Posturewriter and Romaioi some advance notice that I plan to do the MfD, in case that makes either one of them change their mind and decide to remove the content in question on their own. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you can point me to a specific policy that says "Inappropriate content on a User page or User talk page should only ever be removed by consensus via the MfD process," I'll apologize profusely and then shut my mouth. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I see also user:JaapBoBo. I think it can be seen in contradiction with WP:UP#NOT points 7 & 8. Ceedjee (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've known some user subpages to be deleted unilateraly as not useful, not with any XfD. (Not saying that should happen here, just saying. I think it might be a bit rude actually to delete stuff in someone's userspace except in exceptional attack-pagey circumstances.) Sticky Parkin 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness at The Wizard (film)

Someone seems to have replaced the page with some vandalism I can't find. It's been replaced with a Celtic cross and the message "This is Zodiac speaking. I have recently bean informed about your litle website. You canot ex cape me.". Any idea how to fix it (or how to find this person)? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A vandal hit one of the templates used in that article. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But which one? Most of them are protected already. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's been fixed. It was {{who}}, and User:BettyLouJensen did it. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing is happening at User:Nousernamesleft/desk/qin. Which template is it? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review opinion piece regarding WP Admins, on cbsnews.com

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

This whole discussion reminds me of a Roadrunner cartoon, where the coyote falls victim to his own trap. This has gone so far off topic, it's wrapped around and met itself again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Nothing new here, climate change deniers incensed that Wikipedia reflects the dominant world-view; in other news Pope stated to be Catholic, study says bears shit in woods Guy (Help!) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved? Ha, that's funny. What's been resolved in this? Or do you mean that you are resolved to keep your head in the sand on this issue? :) --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml?source=search_story

excerpts:

Wikipedia Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

I saw a link to this article on a industry message board where 99.9% of the posts are industry related and not related to politics, global warming, wikipedia, etc.

Just FYI but information that administrators should know about, at least what is being written about WP. Chergles (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not really from CBS News; it's an opinion column in the National Review. Looks like there's already discussion of the essay at Talk:Naomi Oreskes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review has no particular biases themselves, though. In fact, NR is kind of leftist itself - a tad to the left of The American Spectator, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 17

July 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious from the talk page citations of Naomi Oreskes that the guy is a moron who has a bone to pick. Nothing else needs to be said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can think this if you wish, but the fact of the matter is that he has a platform based on observed experience and his points have found their way into two undeniably mainstream media outlets. Whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant, his piece serves to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a resource and ignoring that fact won't make the problem go away. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh...its National Review...and the opinion of a GW skeptic to boot. Maybe, if the editor who wrote that piece can refute the findings myself and others made when writing Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and come up with some other explanation than global warming, then it sure would be nice to see it. I tend ot be rather conservative on some issues, more so than the average wiki editor, and we looked long and hard for evidence of glacial advance and found almost none documented anywhere worldwide.--MONGO 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In matters of science, I'm more inclined to believe National Geographic than National Review. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Thinks the topic should read "Attack article from NRO reaches cbsnews.com, no one cares") SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Small correction, no one at Wikipedia cares. I am sure the people reading those pieces will care ... especially given that they won't have the benefit of the viewpoints being expressed here. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with multiple editors) Thinks SirFoz is helping NRO prove its point. If Solomon is right, and I'm too tired to look it up now, the attack articles would be on Wikipedia. Having worked in the trenches on this kind of thing, nothing in Wikipedia could surprise me. Actually, come to think of it, bias in Wikipedia, in principle, wouldn't surprise anyone posting in this thread, would it? Face it, when it comes to political controversies, especially anything that makes more than a couple of people livid, Wikipedia's consensus method stinks like piss pot in an asparagus farm. It's harder for a lot of people to put aside their politics than they think it is. You know exactly what a Wikipedia article on Negro would have looked like if this encyclopedia that anyone can edit were around in, say, the 1920s. So don't brush off the problem. I don't have the time to get into whether or not Grossman is correct, but when a respectable publication runs an article saying this website has biases, not taking it seriously is close to the worst reaction we can have. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the sentiment. But of course, when more editors are "left", that's what happens. And it's ok, if the people of the "right" had the ability to find good sources and worked at it they could tilt the articles a little bit if they cared to. Beam 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, that’s the theory, but in practice where articles on controversial topics are concerned, the most ardent partisans are the most active at keeping contrary information out. Less motivated editors tend to move on rather than keep on wasting their time in unproductive editing. It’s a problem that Wikipedia has not yet found a good solution for. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto this. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does William Connely really do that stuff? Beam 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the answer to this depends on whether you agree with him or not. The incidents cited in the article certainly happened. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeeech. I don't know whether I'm more disturbed by the fact that notable sources are calling wikipedia biased, or by the "whothefrakcares" attitude that is apparently the primary wikipedia response. I've half a mind to email Oreskes a link to this discussion just so she'll have a nice followup article. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The same notable sources that brought us Conservapedia? I'd be more worried if they DIDN'T call us biased, to be quite honest. SirFozzie (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing is that, we get criticized for having articles written by random laymen who don't know anything about the subject they're contributing on. Here we have an eminent, published scientist who has done extensive work and research in the realm of climate modeling contributing... and because he's edited the article to make clear the scientific viewpoint, that's illegitimate bias! So, experts should contribute but... not in the field that they're expert in? Is that what this guy is saying? FCYTravis (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you over-rate WMC's impact here ... and that's not me talking it appears to be the opinion of his supporters on his BLP where they are arguing that Solomon's assertion that WMC may be the second most influential person in the AGW debate (due to his activities here on Wikipedia) is (in their words) absurd. Even so, Solomon's point is not that WMC shouldn't be allowed to contribute ... but rather that his degree of influence over the GW pages is excessive. This view is held by many here at Wikipedia as is amply demonstrated by his history within RFCU and RfA's over time. There are always plenty of people taking this same perspective ... just not enough to drive home a consensus on the point. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that since Wikipedia doesn't support the minority viewpoint regarding GW, a viewpoint that he shares, that it must be because we're biased. And that folks like Connolley, who have studied the facts and seen the evidence first hand, who are only trying to keep minority viewpoints from being given a larger portion of representation than they deserve, must be biased. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV is one of our prime policies particularly due to the need to keep minority viewpoints from overtaking the quantifiable evidence.--MONGO 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he's saying that they tactics used to keep out contrarian viewpoints introduce a systemic bias. Your mileage may vary on whether you agree, or not, but the tally seems to fall along ideological lines which suggests there is some truth to it. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is (probably out of necessity) very vague. It's basically a judgment call each time to say just how much we should include from minority views, and those judgment calls rely on a consensus of editors with judgment. Which tends to be lacking if the debate gets heated. I'm coming around to the idea that WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK are each about ten times more improtant than WP:NPOV. (I'll take it on faith that everything you say about Grossman and Connolley is true.) Noroton (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed an issue with the wiki rules. I.m.o., the wiki rules are too much focussed on the politics articles, they are not good guides for editing the wiki science articles. The global warming article is written from the scientific point of view. This is how most wikipedia articles on scientific topics are written (by consensus of the editors). It is not correct to say that global warming is a controversial topic. In the scientific community it is not controversial, there hardly are any "contrarian views" published in the leading peer reviewed journals. We don't consider any other sources reliable enough for science articles.

What happens on the global warming pages is that from time to time some editor who usually edits politics articles comes along and argues that our own rules for reliable sources are in violation of WP:RS. This happened yesterday and I wrote that this is irrelevant, because either WP:RS agrees with the standard we use (which is simply that a source is reliable if and only if it would be acceptable for a scientist to use in one of the leading peer reviewed journals) or it doesn't. If it doesn't then that is a problem for WP:RS and one should discuss that on its talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, to claim the scientific journals are apolitical is hogwash. The scientific community is every bit as political as any other community. Factions form within the community and the members of those factions support one another precisely as part of the peer review process. The editors of the journals are perfectly able to shift the balance of what gets published and what does not by simply cherry picking the referees. It doesn't take a genius to know that this can and does happen. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking a step back from the specific article and even from global warming, Count Iblis, do you doubt that -- in principle -- politics can taint both the scientific community and by extension Wikipedia? Other than watchful humility on the part of all of us, I don't see any way we can avoid it. Noroton (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that could happen, especially not in a field so large as climate science were thousands of scientists are active in. It may be the case that more scientists are left wing compared to the general population. But that's simply because a left wing world view is more compatible with science than a right wing world view. The same can be said about atheism. E.g. almost all cosmologists are atheists for obvious reasons.

It is hard to see how politics could influence a discipline such as climate science. You do some technical research write up the results and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Then you get a Referee report. How could politics have an impact in such technical exchanges? The only way I can imagine would be if the referees and editors had some hidden agenda and were rejecting articles on political grounds. But the editors and referees are members of the scientific community themselves, they are not appointed by politicians.

So, the whole scienctific community must then be politically biased. Otherwise you would get disputes amoung the editors of the journals and you would hear a lot of complaints by scientists about unfairly rejected articles, but this doesn't happen a lot. So, you are then led to assume that some giant conspiracy exists similar to the conspiracy theory that the Moon Landings were faked. Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To recognize that political factions exist within the scientific community, as they do within any community, hardly requires an appeal to a conspiracy theory as you suggest. To assert with a straight face that such factions do not exist, however, requires a willful assumption of disbelief of significant proportions. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your faith in the scientific community's ability to step away from bias is touching. When science touches on sensitive political/social topics, such as research into gender differences, IQ testing, homosexuality and genetics, the consensus is always influenced by the strictest adherence to sound scientific theorizing based only on a dispassionate, open-minded review of the best research results. Personalities, politics, corporation funding and prevalent social views never, ever influence any scientific consensus. (Except when they did in the past, perhaps, before previous consensuses were overthrown by the current consensuses. Then we find scientists not only drawing conclusions from bad information but sometimes drawing bad conclusions despite good information -- but that all stopped in the past. Such practices are never carried on in the present. Because scientists act perfectly rationally, now, you see.) Because when you put on the white lab coat, human nature experiences wonderful changes. Left-wing world views and atheism are naturally the result because, after all, they're only a kind of applied science. What a coincidence that science has proven that leftwing world views are correct and that God doesn't exist when those views are prevalent on university campuses. (Coming up after the break: Scientific research establishes proof that long hair and unshaven faces on men, a taste for Star Trek and Cheetohs are the most rational cultural preferences that a human being can have!) Of course, we have to reflect whatever the current scientific consensus is on an issue, as Sheffield Steel puts it so well below. And the major minority views, as WP:WEIGHT reminds us. But should we be careful about describing those minority views which, as the history of science shows, might one day become the consensus? Only if we approach politically contentious topics with an appropriate degree of watchful humility. When science books get to be outdated, is it solely because of new information and theories no one ever thought of before? Only if scientists as a group are perfect. Noroton (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at historical cases un which with hidsight there was a lot of political bias, what you see is that the science was not driven by objectively vrifiable facts, that personal opinions/interpretations played an important role. In some scientific disciplines this is still a potential problem, take e.g. psychology. In cas of the "hard sciences" everything is unltimately based on the laws of physics. Personal opinions may influence the work of a particular scientist (e.g. by determing what kind of research he/she does), but you cannot get a situation where it influences a whole field.

So, while Freud's personal opinions may have influenced the field of psychology, the field of climate science will be influenced by the results of research which is based in observations and theoretical computations. Many climate sceptics don't have a background in physics, there are some economists, staticians and political scienctists who are skeptics (I think there are only two active climate scientists out of the few thousand who are sceptics"). They are used to the fact that political opinions can influence their own fields, and they mistakenly think that climate science is equally susceptible. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to revisit List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and get back to us. There seem to be plenty of physics and natural sciences individuals included there. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, your faith is very touching, but my examples weren't from psychology. It was you who brought up cosmologists (hard science?) and their supposedly scientific disbelief in God. How rigorously one looks at certain observations and theoretical computations is not always a simple matter of applying the rational parts of one's brain, as the history of science shows. I'm arguing a pretty limited point, and it's not worth going on about: be humble. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Scientific consensus#Scientific consensus and the scientific minority are worth looking at -- not because they show that scientific consensus is meaningless, but because they reinforce the idea that not all minority viewpoints are necessarily wild-eyed kook theories. You can violate WP:NPOV in more than one direction. Noroton (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to think about, scientists and historians funded by the state (which can also mean any state supported university or school), being only human and with bills to pay and mouths to feed like most anyone else, may indeed tend to support the PoVs put forth by the state through its power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. This has nothing to do with left or right (or even green), or with scientists blowing off codswallop belief systems like ID, but truth be told, the outcome is even worse than most think. From what I've seen, some academics knowingly play the game, having given up long ago, while others have somehow swayed themselves into thinking everything's NPoV or that, at least, never mind the bullocks, they're still being somehow helpful to the world in spite of it all. Still others throw up their hands and go into the private sector, with many and sundry outcomes. Meanwhile as WP:V says so pithily, it's not about truth, but about sources, which is as it should be but we don't handle sourcing in some articles as openly and neutrally as we could, hence the wanton systemic bias in some high profile articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Noroton (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Travis & Iblis) Beam, your second and third sentences contradict each other. And actually, your third sentence is being tested out right now at Project Vote where Bdell555 is essentially a Terminator robot searching out evidence and providing cogent arguments and just not stopping (at least as of about six hours ago when I had the chance to check). What I find in these situations is that some editors can be convinced, and some will never, ever, ever, under any circumstances change their minds no matter what the evidence. Wikipedia doesn't handle that situation well. At all. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I've got a bias against the National Review and GW deniers. The assertions brought up in that article are troubling at first glance. Here is one of the edits. The main trouble is that this Peiser's criticisms are not really published except on the internet. Plus, although he does present papers which doubt that global warming is anthropogenic (allegedly from Oreskes database), he only brings up 2, 1 from AAPG (petroleum geologists) and another from Futures. That's not compelling. II | (t - c) 00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing Talk:Global_warming#Conflict_over_NPOV_in_the_introductory_paragraphs which has an on-going discussion of similar criticisms that HAVE been published, albeit in a peer reviewed journal that the IPCC backers take issue with. Still, it is peer reviewed and otherwise meets WP:V. Still their simply seek to exclude it from inclusion on procedural grounds. This is exactly the type of thing the Solomon piece is talking about.

On a separate point, is your admitted bias also transitive? Does the fact the CBS News also decided to print the same piece simply get dismissed in your mind because it started out in the National Review (actually it first started in the National Post? --GoRight (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, an opinion piece in the National Review lambastes an online encyclopedia for accurately reporting a consensus view in the scientific community that if taken seriously threatens to disrupt the smooth sailing of well established American economic interests? You wouldn't say.PelleSmith (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, so everybody else's bias is wrong but yours? Watchful humility. Watchful humility. Read your comment the way most outsiders would who knew nothing about some subject and heard one side charging bias and the other giving the response you just gave, oozing personal opinion from every pore while dismissing the critic. You just got down not to his level but below his level. Treat critics of Wikipedia (even of minor importance) with a respectful attitude or you've already lost the argument because a charge of bias is, when you think about it, a charge of arrogance. Don't indict yourself. And Grossman's argument, right or not, was actually that Wikipedia was inaccurately reporting someone's view. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (((clarified my comment -- too tired, gotta go for now. Noroton (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC))))

There is nothing mysterious or secret about the National Review's political slant--as with other such magazines from the left and the right. I'm not sure how an observation based on common knowledge indicts me of anything. If you want to argue that scientific consensus somehow reflects a liberal political bias then you're very welcome to do so, but there are some rather obvious facts here which make this entire discussion uninteresting. 1) Scientific consensus is reflected in our encyclopedia's entries on global warming and 2) the National Review is an openly conservative news magazine aligned with a political position that still disputes the POV of said consensus. I'm not entirely sure what you think my bias is, but comprehending rudimentary social facts shouldn't be considered bias--unless of course it is the ability of others to engage in empirical observation that you take issue with in the first place. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The implication that National Review ran the piece not because they thought it might be accurate but primarily because global warming threatens "established American economic interests" is part of a leftwing meme about bad conservatives only mouthing what they say because they're fronts for economic interests. That's a bias. I remember a magazine cover story last year that defended the idea of global warming and helped cement my own view that it's a real problem. What magazine do you suppose ran that cover story? Noroton (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Same piece at NR...[28]...Lawrence Solomon, the editor who wrote it also wrote a book called The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud. Just saying.--MONGO 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple Grudgesocks.. er.. alternate accounts brought it up on the WMC/Geogre ArbCom case when it was first released. SirFozzie (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to really scramble their pinhead brains, tell them that Global Warming is just another aspect of Intelligent Design. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean it isn't? Gahhh! — CharlotteWebb 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If the published material from the reliable sources (i.e. the scientists' research papers) show a pronounced liberal bias, and we offer a faithful reflection of that, I think we've got it about right. To answer an earlier point, if Wikipedia was written in the 1920s, we would have written articles like Negro and eugenics very differently. We're here to document the prevailing opinion, not judge it, and certainly not to right wrongs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for putting it like that, SheffieldSteel. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well put. In tone as well as wording, with the exception that you neglected to say that we're also here to document the major non-prevailing opinions, not judge them, and certainly not to right wrongs related to them, either. Which was a major part of Grossman's point. Noroton (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The pith is, some high profile articles do carry heavy systemic bias, which is most often not the simplistic "left-right" or "helpful-unhelpful" kind of bias so many folks go on about. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And the pith helmet for us is to let the folks going on about it know that they're being listened to with a careful ear and an open mind. The same principles that we're supposed to be using in writing the articles need to be applied to criticism of our articles. Otherwise (a) we lose in public-relations terms, and (b) we may deserve to. Think of outside criticism as a continuation of the talk page discussion by other means. Of course we're entitled to our own POV, but critics (at least the prominent ones) of particular Wikipedia articles are entitled to both be heard with an open mind and for us to be seen to have an open mind. Doing that is in the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers, and as this thread shows, we don't do it well enough. Noroton (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that our position on "Intelligent Design" makes us firmly left is a bit like saying our position on Santa Clause not being real makes us firmly anti-Christian. Come on, just because we don't accept a fairy tale as reality does not mean we are taking a political position. Chillum 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pope stated to be Catholic

Ironically, the Pope recently said we need to do more about global warming. Yes, the Pope is Catholic... as was National Review's founder, Mr. Buckley. Doubly ironic is that the Pope was speculated, at one point, to have been a Nazi... as was... oops, 'nuff sed. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pope's a Catholic?! Next you'll be telling me that bears are doing their business in the woods! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Only the live bears currently at large in the woods. We also have zoo dwellers, polar bears, dead bears and unborn bears, none of whom can fairly be accused of polluting the woods.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This message constitutes Official Notice that, as of 13:14, 18 July 2008 the above thread has reached its Godwin's Law juncture ("inflammatory rhetoric" subsection). As such, Baseball Bugs has forfieted any and all of his winnings from the argument, to be distributed among the other participants, individually and severally, by a designated agent of the Pope (which may include a nun with a thick ruler) and the estate of the late William F. Buckley Jr. (a soldier in a war against <cough! cough!> a certain regime run by National Socialists). At the discretion of any administrator, or, for that matter, any damn editor (ouch! Sorry, Sister), this thread may be closed, as per the optional sanctions of Godwin's Law. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drama. Noroton (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jawohl! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me of this one: The Pope's secretary dashes into his office excitedly and says, "Jesus has returned and is on His way up to see us. What should we do?!" The Pope answers, "Well, at the very least... look busy." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pope said we should worry about global warming? I thought God designed all this, shouldn't we just accept global warming? Chillum 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The preceding comment was meant as a joke.

Soitenly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just blame God for Global Warming and for high crude oil prices. ;) BTW it's just a tongue in cheek joke. Bidgee (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Something wrong with 24 (season 7)

Resolved

There is something wrong with the page. This is not ordinary vandalism. Need urgent admin attention.—Chris! _ct 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem (not to say it is not there). Can you describe it? -00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Page hasn't been edited in two days. Grandmasterka 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template. WJBscribe fixed it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Look like it is fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot related edits

Resolved

As of member of the Slipknot project it has came to my attention that the same user has continually made disruptive edits to articles about the band. See [29], they have clearly ignored warnings on their talk page and have continued and was blocked temporarily for their actions. I'm not sure what the best resolution is but it's clear this user is out to either cause other users bother or does not understand the spirit of Wikipedia and it's policies. REZTER ^TALK ø 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin intervention. Try engaging the user on their talk page. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Nobs

Resolved

 – Nothing here requires administrator intervention. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to bring to attention to the admins, the AfD for the article The Nobs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nobs. Yesterday, User:Tenacious D Fan nominated that article for deletion. There was no previous discussion on the Talk page about the state of the article nor was the article's original editor User:Yobbo14 given enough time to respond. With only one comment from another user, the AfD was closed within 2 hours by a non-admin User:TenPoundHammer and only 50 minutes of discussion, with the comment "content was merged" in the resultant article edit summary. This was not the case at the time of the redirect by User:TenPoundHammer. This is IMO an abuse of the AfD process and poor etiquette on behalf of the nominators involved. MegX (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the commenter in the AFD noted that the information that was included in The Nobs was already present in the target article, at Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970, which appears to have been the case. Another editor has added to it, from the looks of the history there, which is fine, but it would appear the basic information was already included. Nothing was lost by the merge/redirect. I probably would have left the AFD to run longer rather than closing it so quickly, to be honest, and I'll mention that to TPH, but beyond that I'm not sure there's admin attention required here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That was done so by Anger22 only after I mentioned this to him a few hours ago, not TPH. Had I not left a comment on Anger22's page I seriously doubt that information would have been added. MegX (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

False statements on RFA

Resolved

 – Yechiel (Shalom) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it permitted to make false statements about other users on RFA?

If yes, please ignore this. Yechiel (Shalom) 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My, what a fatuous appeal for help. You already replied at the RfA, which is the place to do so. However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.nevermind, you already failed, got RfA and RfAr confused. I'll be opposing at your next one, then. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I would suggest that you be a little more civil in you comments. Comments such as "However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.", "...you already failed", and "I'll be opposing at your next one, then." don't help the situation at all. nat.utoronto 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)`

Hey, i'm being honest. A guy upset about problems at an Arb report comes here instead of handling it there, as he's supposed to, and that Arb is in part about his RfAdmin? It's reasonable to say that someone who seeks to forum shop and circumvent procedure shouldn't be an admin. it's really simple like that, and hardly incivil to say it. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you talk to the editors in question? —Kurykh 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of this. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling off the dogs on this one. I blanked the RFC. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, ThuranX, I didn't think during the RFA to check for all the false statements made about me. The whole RFA was done in 12 hours. I have a right to be upset about it, and the community has a right not to care. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Those comments are really beyond the pale, and I think a 24 to 48 hour block wouldn't be out of the question. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User RFC

Having created an RFC about himself, is it in order for the OP to unilaterally withdraw and blank it? Mayalld (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs doesn't specifically address self-RFCs, but (N.B. I'm not an admin) I would say it's OK if there was no ongoing discussion, the participants don't object, he's taken on board any comments made, etc etc; business as usual really, except that the nominator and subject are the same person. :-) If users want it to remain open then the closure can be reversed, but I think it's OK to give some latitude to any user who's shown enough maturity to open an RFC on themselves in the first place! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's codified anywhere but simply; if someone else has created an RFC on you, you cannot withdraw it as it's someone else asking for third party input on you. If you create one on yourself to get feedback for your own purposes, then yes, you can withdraw it. Usually it should just be closed and archived - unless it is uncertified, or has some other good reason to be deleted or blanked (such as you wanting to vanish). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He's vanishing now anyway (see WP:AN) so it's a moot point.

Very sad. That RFC/U was about the most ill-advised thing I've seen by an intelligent good faith editor in awhile. Ah well, such is life I suppose... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More template transclusion vandalism

I'm terrible at finding this stuff, so could somebody fix Battle of Monte Cassino? That *is* template transclusion vandalism, right? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Tuvalu. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything. Have you purged the cache? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I whatted the what? Let me go through Firefox help and see if I can figure out what you're talking about. What I'm seeing is that Zodiac Killer nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The cache purge dealt with the issue at Monte Cassino, but not Tuvalu. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confused... where specifically is the vandalism? nat.utoronto 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to indef full protect all the pages in Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd, one of them was the target, they are technical templates called by a lot of other templates to perform basic formatting functions, I've done some but need to get some sleep. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Would cascade-protecting Template:Rnd work? I don't know exactly how cascade-protection works, but I'm pretty sure that that would be an easy, on-click solution. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, while you're at it, you may want to look at Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. I'd imagine those are used quite a bit as well. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)they were on Template:World_War_II and Template:Rnd/b. Both are reverted and protected now. I think I'll look around and see if I can find any more heavily used unprotected templates... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Commonwealth realms was also vandalized with the same thing. —Kurykh 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS should fix up the issue once the vandalism is gone. I think Cobi might want to add yet another heuristic to ClueBot for this as well... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, Calvin, I haven't understood a word you've said this entire thread. You seem to know what you're talking about, though, so I'll bow out and leave this to the more technically proficient among you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Update the server's cache, then clear your own cache. That's supposed to clear up any template-vandalism. If that doesn't work... then the vandalism is still there and I just can't see it for some reason. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryulong appears to have gone through and protected all or most of Template:Rnd's subpages. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All that MBisanz hadn't yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Calvin (and this is probably the only technical thing I know that you don't), if an edit would cause more than 500 changes to the software (expanding templates, re-coloring links, etc), it is tossed in the job queue. The queue may take several days to fully process, as is seen with re-categorization edits. Usually a whitespace edit to a page with a vandalized template will fix it. Also, this is why it is important to find and revert the vandalized template as quickly as possible, since the longer timeperiod between the vandal edit and the revert, the longer each article will be vandalized, as the job queue progresses. MBisanz ^talk 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, see Special:Contributions/217.15.121.102. Hut 8.5 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked 200.44.156.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & protected the targets. — Scientizzle 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection, however, is counterproductive and interferes with the development of many templates. And in this case, simply knee-jerking reactionism. It only results in cutting off those who maintain and develop those templates for no gain what-so-ever. Semi-protection would be a much better alternative. --Farix (Talk) 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer protecting his own revert at Urban exploration

Resolved

 – Directly contacting the person you have a grievance with (and waiting for their response) should be the first step before going any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bother you, but it seems to me that in protecting his own edit, seicer may have been contravening general Wikipedia practice. Can you advise me on what to do? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that posting here was the right thing to do, since, 31 minutes after protecting the article, seicer has now reverted to the previous version. Hopefully, this sort of thing won't happen again in future. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I gather that your complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality and costs, and you've got a point. You should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if you have not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• [ec] The only text involved is a POV tag. The POV warrior appears, on the face of it, to be you; I'm with Bugs here, you need to provide sourced text not simply assert that the article is POV because it doesn't adequately reflect your POV, however right you may be. You seem to be extremely agitated on the talk page, to the point of suggesting some kind of conflict of interest, which I'm sure is not what you intend. I suggest you calm down. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality (trespassing) and costs (rescue efforts, etc.), and he's got a point. He should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if he has not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

EC'd on a clarification above. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression from looking at the contribs, etc., is that Seicer's reversion had more to do with you contacting him on his talk page to express your concerns... which I note you didn't do until after you raised the ANI/I report. I'm glad everything worked out, but in the future you may find that merely contacting the person you have a grievance with will solve more problems than an AN/I report. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I unprotected it before Papa contacted me, and I was not made aware of this thread on ANI. I stepped out into a meeting and just now came back to see a comment (not about this thread, though) on my talk page. I'd be more than happy to discuss this, but POV-warring is not the way to go about it. I've left it protected for one week; if there have been no more substantial comments, I'm removing the tag. seicer | talk | contribs 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on Soviet Union hacked since July 15th - semi protected

Resolved

The page was last edited on the 15th of July and has this bizarre message from "The Zodiac" in various characters (from that movie with that Jake Gyllenhall guy? The message appears in code, nonetheless.), and the page has been inverted in colour as to make it unreadable.

This shows up on IE6. Not sure about other browsers. The source didn't seem to show anything, so I dont know how it was inserted.

If I did this wrong, I apologize. This is the first time I've posted anything at all to Wikipedia.

Prometheus-BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus-bc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Linky: Soviet Union. I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything unusual; unless it was some cryllic characters that didn't render properly, everything looks OK. Where in the article did you see the odd text? I'm thinking it might have been a template that was vandalized, and the location would help narrow it down. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalized template was Template:Redirect6. IP blocked as an open proxy. Thatcher 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know where this guy hails from; I'm not saying who or where both per WP:DENY and to defend the person who gave me this info (if it came out he gave me this info, he'd be desysopped himself. All I will say is that he is not a Wikipedia editor). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fog

Can someone check the edit history of the article on Fog. I was adding to the article on Bristol International Airport, and wanted to check to the link I added to the sub-section there on Radiation fog. Suddenly, the whole screen goes dark and I have some form of hacker special message! I reverted this clear vandalism by going straight to the articles history page, and it seems an Anon IP was the last editor, so I reverted back to the last solid version of the article. I left at Vandal3 warning at the Anon IP's talk page, but am less positive now that it was that Anon. However, I note now that my reversion edit of the article does not stand in the articles history record. Help! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was just template vandalism on Template:Refimprovesect; User:(:Julien:) beat me to fixing it, bah! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to spread the word about what template vandalism is so that people can more easily identify and reverse it; I've noticed that the users reporting it frequently seem to not know what's happening. Maybe one or more of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:Wikizine, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would be interested in reporting on it? I'm afraid I don't normally interact with any of those, so I'm not sure. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about WP:BEANS, but if there's consensus that a signpost article would be of value, I can write one, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the recent wave of fools doing template vandalism means that the cat is out of the bag, so BEANS isn't a major concern. I'm not an janitor myself though, so please contradict me if you think otherwise! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I have the mop, but I am opposed to publicizing it until we have a better way of fighting it. Right now, going through the list of all of the non-protected transcluded templates on a page to find the one with the vandalism is a real pain in the butt, and most users are not going to do it.

If there were a button that said, "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page", then I would support publicizing it, because we can get widespread community help in fighting it. But until it's that easy, I think you'll end up recruiting more bandits than you will deputies.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point... That sounds like something that could be cooked up on the toolserver, doesn't it? Is there a specific page where we can put forward suggestions for new toolserver tools, or just the technical Village Pump? I'd try it myself, but I'm a bit busy at the minute and haven't even used the toolserver before. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can AWB do: "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page"? (I think not, but I thought I'd ask.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration To the United States- protected

Under general profile of illegal immigrants the first of the sentence of the child rapists. Other than not abiding by wiki's policy at neutrality it makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal alien" is not appropriate just as "undocumented immigrant" is not appropriate. Change it back to illegal immigrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to make this request is by creating a section on the talk page and putting the template {{editprotect}} at the top of the section. In this case, I think you definitely have a point, so I would go ahead and make the editprotect request. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Jaysweet. Alternatively, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection which might get a quicker response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg

Indiana Gregg has been protected and a section documenting an important and relevant event has, in my view, been improperly deleted. Could a few admins please review and undo the deletion? Thanks. cannona (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not wise, considering that the removal was nothing more than correcting a BLP issue, and is the subject of OTRS #2008071410044846. The article was also being heavily socked, so I am endorsing the protection and removal of the BLP issue. seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the sources noted are the Pirate Bay itself (not an independent source in relation to a dispute with the Pirate Bay) and the subject's blog (ibid), I concur with the removal. Have you taken an opportunity to discuss the matter with Phil? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty easy fix - find the reliable sources as requested, otherwise, between BLP and a high-level OTRS issue, you're completely out of luck. Shell ^babelfish 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have only a passing interest in this, and you folks have much more experience with such things than I, so I respect the above opinions. However, I am curious. What issues are in question? The PirateBay obviously posted her emails, because they are on their site and that link has been provided. Indiana Gregg has mentioned this fact on her blog, so it is clear that the emails were from her. Several blogs have posted about this issue, though no mainstream media sources have, most likely due to the relative obscurity of the artist. Finally, it is difficult to see how the section in question could be read as inflamitory or libel. What am I missing? Again, this is not so much about the article as it is about my trying to understand the reasoning.

Thanks. cannona (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much truth; it's quite likely that the information was accurate. However, it's about a living person (Ms. Gregg), and thus must be backed by independent, reliable sources. Given that there is an OTRS ticket on this matter, I'd say that goes double. If there ends up being mainstream media coverage, or even not-quite-mainstream coverage (a news website, or some such, for example), then I'd say you're fine. Failing that, though, we almost always go with the safer option, which is the removal of the material. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for explaining. cannona (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Likely sock of User:Fredrick day

Resolved

 – Blocked Allemantando as a sock, evidence is more than sufficient. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this result. My questions for this board are as follows: 1) When the results of a checkuser are likely, should the account be blocked? And 2) what should we do about the various pointed AfD nominations that the checkuser confirmed likely indef block evading account nominated as I also asked here, here, here, and here? Also, please note these edit summaries: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not totally sure about the rest, but typically (or at least as far as I've encountered) if an AfD runs its course, even if the nom was made in bad-faith or by a banned user, the community is considered to have "spoken" on the subject and the outcome stands. Shell ^babelfish 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussions in question were hardly unanimous and thus, if the block evading account played a significant role in influencing the discussions, I think we should be concerned about that per precedent. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Absent some sort of clear and obvious fix, I think that WP:DRV is the place to go with these concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to do multiple AfDs in one DRV or should each case be dealt with individually? As indicated above, I've contacted that closing admins and hope that they will agree to overturn or relist in some manner, but there is still the larger issue of whether or not a "likely" result means a block for the account in question as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Allie was doing good work, so let the AfDs run their course. "Likely" socks are not always socks, as was the case for instance with User:Coldmachine, who was later exonerated completely. Why does Abd care? I appreciate Allie's work 100% and if he is a blocked user (which he denies) I think he should be unblocked, as he was removing stuff from the wiki which I consider to have been of unprofessional/poor quality. Sticky Parkin 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not just take this to DRV? I would be pretty beefed if the outcome were voided on the basis of a "likely" return from a RFCU, given that the community did decide on these issues. Also, accusations of WP:POINT, Single purpose and sock aren't to be thrown around lightly. The phrase "confirmed likely" should jump out as a contradiction immediately. If and when he is banned or blocked, we can make statements like "sock". even then I'll contest accusations that nominations were made to prove a point or that they were somehow against policies and guidelines. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfDs, if started, and if there has been comment in them, should generally not be closed on the basis that a block evader started them. If there is no comment, they could be closed, reverted out, as can any content provided by a blocked user. -- or likewise if those who have commented consent. I'd say, though, that if an AfD has been filed, and there is no delete vote, but one or more keep votes, the AfD could be closed. If there is a Delete vote, I'd ask that voter if they want the AfD to stand, in which case they become, in effect, the nominator. As to closed AfD, unless the sock closed them, the remedy is DRV, that is very clear, and allegations that evidence had been distorted or improperly influenced (such as by tendentious debate by the sock in the AfD) would be considered there. Yes, it is possible, I'd argue, that if there is a single cause, there could be a single DRV for a series of AFDs, but I'd ask on the AfD talk page, with a specific example, so that people aren't just commenting in a vacuum.

Now, as to the user. Sticky Parkin elsewhere commented showing that he did not realize that checkuser came back likely' for Allemandtando being the blocked user Fredrick day. If he does not already know, I'd advise a little research into the history of that user, he was highly disruptive and, yes, he was an ardent and uncivil deletionist, and, yes, a fair number of people apparently didn't like that he was blocked. But he was blocked for harassment (the offense that he and now Sticky Parkin have either accused or implied has been mine) Why do I care? Because Fredrick day had essentially harassed and driven off the project one of the better writers we have had, has attempted much more than that, and because uncivil deletion is truly poisonous to the Wikipedia community. This is not about deletionism vs inclusionism, but deletion has a problem that inclusion does not have to such a degree: people get really angry when content they have spent days putting together is deleted in seconds. They may not know about Wikipedia sourcing policy and notability policy, and, if their content is going to be deleted, it should be done with scrupulous civility, not with contempt and incivility. It should be done with a sense of building community, not of excluding "fans" and "POV-pushers." It's crucial, it's important, and I hope that answers the question about why I care. Allemandtando has now been IDd as Fredrick day, which makes him eligible for immediate block. He's "retired," but I suspect that was an attempt to avoid checkuser, which could risk other assets of his. He's claimed to have other accounts, but they would probably only show up in checkuser if he slipped, which he occasionally does. Allemandtando should be blocked to seal this particular case. If people want to bring him back, there is process for that. Find an admin willing to unblock and take the heat, because, indeed, it would come out all that this user has done. He has not yet been banned, though, I'd say, it's probably about time.

Some will claim that the ID isn't certain. That's correct. Given the behavioral evidence, I put the odds against this not being Fredrick day at about a million to one, or, more accurately, not him or, say, a very close friend who thinks like him, writes like him, and shares the same ISP, living close to him. It doesn't make any difference. If, somehow, some injustice is done by blocking, it can be undone. This is not a clueless user who is going to go away in a huff if blocked. He knows the ropes. Remember, he was obviously -- and acknowledged being -- a "returning user," highly sophisticated on day one of registration. I can say this: if I did what he's done, I'd expect to be blocked, period. I think he expected to be blocked a month ago, when sock puppetry was first suspected -- not by me! -- when he also "retired," probably to avoid checkuser, just as Fredrick day pleaded "guilty" in his SSP case, probably to avoid checkuser.

Of course I know it has come back "likely", I have commented about it on one of the SSP pages. This is not conclusive and also it doesn't matter, to me his work is good, I hope he stays or comes back and deletes more stuff from the wiki that doesn't belong here IMHO. It's not WP:POINT to put up for AfD something you think is unencyclopedic or not helpful to the standards of the wiki. He said he was a returned user who's last account has a clean block log but he'd changed it due to security issues, which does not imply any wrongdoing. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC) P.S- I have commented about Allie's edit summaries in the first ANI about him and said I thought they were uncivil. But that's only worth a short block at the very most. Sticky Parkin 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say, it's tiresome to keep seeing this defense against a charge that isn't being made. Nobody has claimed that wrongdoing was implied by being a returned user. However, it raises normal suspicion, when an experienced user pops up like that, and especially when the editor refuses to cooperate with private confirmation -- as then-called Killerofcruft did -- that the user is indeed a blocked returning user, and a quite high percentage of such, in my experience, turn out to be so. In the original AN/I report, where there was a lot of call for blocking him, I stated that I thought the evidence insufficient. But I hadn't noticed his registration timing, it was a piece of evidence (certainly not conclusive by itself) that he was following a Fredrick day pattern. Had I seen that at the time, I *might* have suggested checkuser then. And maybe not, it was still fairly thin. But over the next month, I had many opportunities to see this user's behavior, and it was the same incivility, the same contempt for fans and ordinary editors who don't understand sourcing requirements. And he was disruptive. In the early days of the account, he edit warred with two different administrators over AfDs, see my account of the AN/I report filed by one of the admins, User:Abd/MKR incident. (The first time was with User:Shereth over the AfD that he had apparently registered in order to vote in.) He was aggressive with regard to any effort to examine his behavior, and I finally RFCU'd him because he was demanding it and I realized that certain evidence might be expiring. What, does Sticky Parkin think it was just a lucky guess? Sure, "likely" isn't the same as "Confirmed," but it is still very unlikely to happen by accident. Fredrick day, unless he slipped up, would be unlikely to be Confirmed. Did we know, before the checkuser report, that Allemandtando was using the same ISP as Fredrick day, using the same IP range? (That is the most likely meaning of "likely.") I estimate the coincidence of IP at somewhere around 1 in 10,000 false positive. I'd put the behavioral evidence at 1 in 100 false positive, though certainly there is room for argument there. Thus my estimate of one chance in a million that Allemandtando isn't Fredrick day. Yet some editors, who think that he did "good work" -- I'm sure he did, there was some going on today, I'm pretty sure -- are clinging to ... what?

Today, if I read the records right, he was changing dates like July 16 to 16 July, in biographies. See my comment on it in Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd)#What "Likely" means for checkuser. How the mighty have fallen! --Abd (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This AN/I does not provide precedent to overturn deletion results where one user was previously banned. That was an AfD where multiple new SPA's were generated (on an offsite forum linked in the debate) and consensus was clearly imperiled. What we have here is one user who may or may not be a new account of a previously banned user. No where near the same thing. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's cause for an overturn exactly, but good reason to use discretion for a relist to have an debate without the prejudice from the nomination.DGG (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd) hasn't been closed to confirm, user has not been blocked, discussion of the AfDs is premature. --Abd (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 Likely that Fredrick day == Allemandtando was confirmed by User:Lar at checkuser. With the behavioral evidence, including the manner and timing of Allemandtando's "retirement," this really nails it, there is far more evidence now than is routinely necessary for block. Please, would an administrator block and close the SSP report appropriately. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG has now blocked, and semi-protected Allemandtando talk. The block notice wasn't a paragon of civility, which is unfortunate, but.... it takes all kinds, and Allemandtando was definitely provocative. Please don't kick him when he's down. Move on now, nothing more to see here. I'd close this, but I'm involved, so .... --Abd (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

William Howard Taft

This page seems to be badly vandalized, in a way that I can't revert, but curiously the vandalized version is only visible when I am not logged in. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. There've been no major changes in the article recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Catch up, Will - we have a vandal who's been hitting templates. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In this instance 80.248.10.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); logged out users see cached material much more than signed in. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty vandalized to me; I think 194.171.56.13 is right--it's only visible to people who aren't logged in. 69.26.216.147 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not specifically to do with being logged out, it's just that pages that transclude the vandalised template are cached for logged-out users (logged-in users don't see cached pages). To clear the cache for this particular article one goes to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Howard_Taft&action=purge I think we need a mechanism whereby an admin, when clearing vandalism from a widely transcluded template, can tell something automated (ideally server side) to invalidate the caches for all the pages that include that template. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Purging the template doesn't do that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not related to the incident, but the "Administration and cabinet" table in that article looks really ugly! – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes. There was some strange stuff in there. Feel free to make more... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - some day I will understand Wikitable formatting. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Top of the shop

Please could folks look at the first section on this page, where Abtract is continuing to contest my indef block of him - I wouldn't want recent excitement to mean he misses a chance of review. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of possible IP socking and numerous statements in the past that alluded to cooperating with others and reforming, I am not inclined to support at this time. If the IP socks do prove that it is not Abtract, then sanctions against the editor may be more viable (i.e. topic ban, etc.). seicer | talk | contribs 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an open WP:SSP report, as those effected are not inclined to wait on the backlog while Abtract remains indef'd. Would your review be any different without the consideration of the ip's involvement? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say how highly unfortunate and objectionable it is that an IP editor giving his genuine, good faith view—one similar to that given by many who are familiar with the RFC filed in relation to this user—is accused as a sock, with that accusation used to muddy the waters and support an indef block against another editor? I am at a loss to know what evidence besides my being an IP editor is being used here, and I deplore both the echo chamber effect whereby that accusation (first voiced by Collectonion, the original complainant) is perpetuated, and the implication that I should stay out of project space while continuing to contribute to building the encyclopedia, merely because I do not wish to register. I'm also deeply disappointed by LessHeard's endorsement of a conversation about me on Collectonion's page. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Without crossing WP:BEANS, I'll just say I still approve of the block, especially with the current circumstances. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist unblock review request

(posting on behalf of User:Traditional unionist, who is currently temporarily blocked. He just wants the greater admin community to take another look at this. I am not involved and have no particular opinion either way - Alison ^❤ 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))'

In early May I expanded the Remembrance Day Bombing article on my userspace and added this to the article on May 27th. A couple of weeks later Domer tagged the reference to Taylor's documentary as failed verification. On July 14th I requested an outside view on the article, which User:Malleus Fatuorumvery kindly agreed to do. I reviewed the article myself, noticed the tags, and removed them. Domer reverted this "per talk", and I reverted his edit as the citations were valid. Domer then left it alone.

The next day BigDunc became involved. He cited WP:WEASEL in removing the disputed text referenced to Taylor. Not being in possession of the documentary at that time, I found a partial reference and re added the information. Dunc reverted partially claiming that the source said it shook the IRA to it's core, and not that the event was a calamity. In fact the reverse is true (PDF). I still haven't verified the "shook the IRA to its core" quote. I probably will be able to, but I don't feel this is overly important to the issue at hand.

On July 16th, simultaneous to the dispute, Dunc posted on the article talk page: "I've been watching the documentary and I can't see how the previous sentence was properly sourced. Please provide exact quotes that support the wording, and a rough time they appear in the show please." I contend that the first part of this is untrue. I have since discovered that the documentary is available here. In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA". If Dunc had watched it as he claims, he couldn't possibly have missed that.

My reinsertion of referenced information that he removed here prompted him to report me for 3RR at 19:41, 14 mins after the 4rth revert as he claims. This was 23 hours after the first "revert", an edit removing unjustified tags added by Domer three weeks previously. The second revert was again to remove the unjustified tags. The third was 22 hours later to replace information removed citing an irrelevant policy, with a readily verifiable source, this time by BigDunc. Yet Dunc was clearly aware of the two edits the previous day. Since my block, Domer has removed a cited and attributed description, citing synthesis.

This is clearly evidence of tag team editing.1 2 3 edits by Domer. Then he disappears. But look who is around the corner to help out! It's Dunc! 1 2 3 edits by Dunc. One reaches the limit, the other wades in to help out and technically stay within the rules. I have complained about this sort of behaviour by these two in the past, pointed this out to the blocking admin, who ignored me.

I have raised concerns in the past about Dunc's COI issues. His inclination to take a source that verifies one of two statements, and pick not only the wrong one to believe is verified, but one that takes the unfavourable statement about the IRA away, is deeply worrying. It is also worrying that I was blocked on the basis of clear tag team editing with the intention of having me blocked, and despite requests that they do so, admins did not see that this had happened. Domer gets to three edits, then Dunc wades in. Does this strike anyone as odd?

I submit this with four questions:

1. Exactly how disruptive was my editing, particularly in light of the behaviour of Dunc and Domer?
2. How justified was my block?
3. Does the community feel that Dunc and Domer's behaviour is acceptable?
4. Why do these issues continue to occur after the Troubles arb com?

I have been blocked from editing my own userpage, as one admin feels this report can wait. I don't so I have emailed this to an Admin, who I thank in advance for posting it.

Traditional unionist

(Posted by - Alison ^❤ 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi TU, IMO, I believe that (1) your edit was disruptive (2) you block was justified. However, Dunc and Domer's actions were clearly unacceptable. IMO, if anything, the actions that should have been taken were: (1) fully protect the article (2) or block all participants of this edit war as all parties are at fault. nat.utoronto 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant see the point of this thread except a disgruntled edit warrior not happy with another block for edit warring (6 in total). All I can see is an editor refusing to see that edit wars are disruptive period. Also his tired old mantra of ‘tag teams’, come on, an article that happens to come under WP:IR of which we are both members and I’m sure is on both of mine and Domer48 watchlist, so we both edit it wow what a coincidence. And where’s the assumption of good faith, this seems to be a concept alien to this editor. And as regard COI, I have declared that I HAVE NO COI on any article I edit. This can not be said for TU as he has a confirmed COI. And as to the reason for his block he reverted 4 times against policy that is the long and short of it. If two editors think that your edit is wrong perhaps it is time for some reflection that maybe you might be wrong instead of just edit warring. TU also seems to be admitting to synthesis on the article he says ‘In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA’ but the article said because of the extreme and provocative nature of the attack, and an "unparalleled calamity" that shook the IRA "to its core", and I am concerned he is synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative. This is a content dispute, and TU does not attempt to use dispute resolution and rarely discusses his edits, he just keeps edit warring no matter what changes I make BigDunc^Talk 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is fine. That's a solid four reverts and the content dispute is not so clear-cut that we can afford to waive 3RR. He's been indisciplined in his editing, so he can hardly have any complaints when proper discipline is reinforced.

I agree with one thing he says, though. Troubles articles do need better enforcement. If his opponents are persistent tag-teamers this does need to be looked at. Bad-faith editors who refuse to be honest, or rational, or engage in dispute resolution need to get their kickbans ASAP. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)As there were two edits each for two different situations, two for tags that TU felt inappropriate, and two for taking care of a sources question, I don't see 3RR in the conventional sense of making over 3 reverts to keep a single part of an article in 'your' position. Further, it looks like TU did the legwork for substantiating the sources, as seen above in his summary. I think he should be immediately unblocked. I do, however, note that in the RfArb for The Troubles, as linked above, the same 'others back him up' problem was attributed to TU, and given the tendentious and combative nature of the topic and articles, I think it's just as likely that Domer and Dunc are just supporting each other to push their POV, much as TU's side does the same. However, Given that his 4 spurported reverts were in different sections for different purposes, he needs to be unblocked, otherwise no article can be improved rapidly, because any editors making progressive (forward moving) edits with sourced support could be hampered by those who feel that they're on the 'opposite side'. (after EC:agree with Moreschi, the articles need tight reins.) ThuranX (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for enforcement of arbcom remedies. My perception is that BigDunc and Domer48, the other two editors in question here, might as well be joined at the hip whenever an edit war gets going. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, "any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator". Probation all round? I don't see any mitigating circumstances. All involved should know better.

As an aside, Domer48 is currently banned from editing the Great Irish famine article. If this ban merely serves to move the locus of disruption elsewhere, I would favour making it indefinite and extending it in scope. I would not, however, favour a general topic ban for any of the three editors involved here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Domer complained and complained, and Angus McLellan did nothing, so it's curious that he's so keen for quick action here based on a complaint about a content dispute. His actions here tell a story "An apology was not a condition for an unblock", when what you said was "You're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly". Shouldn't mentors set an example, especially when it comes to telling the truth? BigDunc^Talk 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is good; TU is being disruptive and has managed to push people far enough to protect his talk page. Why is this request here? Its pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Define 'good', in light of Two reverts each on two very different topics? Or is it your position that only Pro-Your Side editors can make more than three edits to an article in 24 hours? I see two editors provoking, intentional or not, a third into getting into a spot where they an agitate for a 3RR, when in fact the tactics they used were dealt with once, they switch to a second, which is again dealt with, so 3RR. This is rewarding unethical behavior by Domer and Dunc. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding tags for material of disputed sources is unethical? Removing synthesis is unethical? TU refuses to discuss, he just edit wars then complains until his talk page is protected when he's blocked for edit warring. He's welcome to discuss his edits at any time, or use dispute resolution if he feels that the discussion isn't working. But he refuses to do that, then blames others for the consequences of his own poor behaviour. BigDunc^Talk 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with TU on much (and 'tag-teaming' is not unique to Domer/Dunc) - but this block seems dubious to me. What is a "kickban"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you look at the timeline of events you will see that TU claims it is sourced then admits that he hasn't got them handy so what does he do, almost instantly, remove tags, and couldn't produce the quotes. He then say "Not being in possession of the documentary at that time". so how did he know it was sourced so quickly? Also I want to emphasise that "properly sourced" means "free from synthesis", something he's been pulled on before on that exact article. BigDunc^Talk 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks more to me like you're standing in the way of any progress by continually obstructing an editor with whom you have some basic, OFF WIKI political problem. This isn't the place to continue the terroristic bullshit both sides have spent the last 90 years engaged in. Act proper or log off and don't come back. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a complete and utter load of bullshit you have just said above and in your edit summary, why because myself and TU are Irish we are terrorists and cant blow each other up anymore so we argue here. I dont speak for TU but i'm sure he abhors the violence that this country suffered just as much as I do. I find these comments a personal attack and a breach of civility rules on wiki. BigDunc^Talk 22:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's the same arguments and conflict, you've just moved to a less destructive venue. And as Angus McClellan notes, you two do seem to be jumping around to avoid the topic ban backing each other up. I'm tired of POV warriors from all over the world bringing it here. None of them has the sense a mule's born with, and twice the stubbornness. You two guys get probation on Irish topics in one aspect, so you jump to others. LAME. Unblock TU, and like AM above, I favor expanding the ban. ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts right would you before you say something. I have never been blocked on wikipedia and I have never had a topic ban so why would I jump around? Can the editor you are defending say the same 6 blocks for edit warring. BigDunc^Talk 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a pattern from TU that can be seen here it's a content dispute, the claims of disruption are frivolous, TU just claims any edit he doesn't like is "disruptive" and again nothing was done and it leads to this thread. BigDunc^Talk 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but a content dispute. I've made some comments here about the sourcing and other issues, perhaps if TU tried working with other editors rather than just disagreeing for the sake of it, things would run more smoothly. You only have to look at his talk page to see how he doesn't see anything wrong with edit warring, and how hostile he is with the blocking admin. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, please take another look at WP:3RR.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Any three reverts and the circuit breaker is tripped. This rule is meant to be a means to and end, the end being preventing edit warring. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So you approve of gaming it, like they tag teamed to do. Duly noted. Now I know how to hang any page on Wikipedia, and push POV. Simply get one other wikipedian to share their 3 reverts with me, while I play a good game of 'bullshit' with my opposition, establishing goalposts, then ,when that's been reached, setting new ones, over and over till my opposition is 3RR'ed to the benches, lather, rinse, repeat. They gamed him, and rewarding them is sickening. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuran: I think you need to ratchet it down a few notches. This isn't helping resolve the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

very strange behavior with one article

There's something very wrong with the Alabama's 2nd congressional district article. There's a message from someone claiming to be the zodiac killer defacing the article, even when I try to edit it. I've uploaded an screenshot of what is happening to flickr here [not sure what else to do]. Any ideas anyone? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, now fixed. Algebraist 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's all fixed. May be a while before the fix shows up for you. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, which templates were being vandalised? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We spotted it on {{or}}. Thats the template I saw it on anyway. This was the diff. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also hit {{Party shading/Republican}}, {{Iso2country}}, {{Dynamic list}}, {{Bibleverse}} and {{WPFCevent}}. Algebraist 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All of them have been fixed and protected, let us know if you spot any more. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask Jeske, above he indicates that he knows exactly who the vandal is, and refusees to identify him. ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know his true identity; all I know is secondhand, but I'm pretty certain that I know where he comes from. However, I do not want my source to be attacked, thus I'm not going to divulge what I know unless sent an email, and I'm not sure what help the info will be. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 04:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is behind but I have seen this from:

• RGaikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 80.248.10.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 58.137.115.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 200.43.67.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The first 3 have been blocked and the last got off with a warning so far. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• All template vandal IP addresses should be checked for open proxies. Thatcher 03:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So far, most are proving to be open : see WP:OP. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bible

Resolved

 – Template vandal blocked, template fixed

Anyone care to have a look at the Bible article, just had a look and it looks hacked, I'll try and revert/investigate, but if someone else can get to it before me that would be appreciated. ^Khukri 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing that I was talking about above? Zodiac killer message? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed. Algebraist 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK cheers, what was the transclusion, first time I've seen that, and didn't think to look above. ^Khukri 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized template was {{Bibleverse}}. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Been away from Wikipedia for almost 2 years.

Resolved

 – No administrator attention required here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to be a editor back in '06 but right after i started I got sent to prison. I've just been released after serving 20 months for a violation of felony probation (aggravated assault). What do you think I should read up on to fill me in on what i've missed? Has wikipedia changed a lot? AdamBraniff75 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the WP:BLP -biography of living persons- policy has changed a lot. I've not been that active as an editor for long enough to remember, but I've heard that WP:N-notability- has toughened up too. Sticky Parkin 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I already have been harrassed by User:Chrisjnelson. That was quick. AdamBraniff75 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of advice: try to keep yourself from crossing swords with Chrisjnelson. He has had a "past" here at Wikipedia, and it'd be best to stay away from him. When he gets involved in a "situation" it usually turns into a full-blown war. Believe me, I speak with experience. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they give prisoners internet access? There are more than 2 million people behind bars in the US. Just think about how many wikipedia articles they could write per day  :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners in Florida get some internet access if they are on good behavior and classified as low-risk. I was in what they call "close custody" for most of my sentence. What little library time I had I spent reading in the prison law library. AdamBraniff75 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything here that requires administrator attention? Welcome back, but if you're just looking for general assistance, you may want to try the Help Desk. And Ksy92003, this is not the place to rant about people you've had disagreements with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah come to speak of it that Chris J. Nelson dude was rude to me. AdamBraniff75 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Yeah, BLP, as Sticky says above. In addition, issues have grown around POV-pushing in nationalist, scientific and political areas, and indeed around reactions to the perception of such. Concerns about outside "attack sites" have largely abated or at least become more nuanced among the project space community as a whole. And there is an RFC open on the Arbcom.

Try to be more peaceful in future, eh? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "more peaceful?" AdamBraniff75 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't land yourself into trouble, and watch out for people who try to bait you. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dually agreed. And I am going to go ahead and mark this as resolved because this doesn't require administrator attention. Best of wishes to you ADam on being able to edit Wikipedia again, though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the aggravated assault : D 86.44.28.16 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

About the changes since 2006, I think that the science articles have improved a lot. Although many articles from many different categories have made it to Featured Article Status, the science articles are considered to be so reliable by scientists that they use them as reference, see e.g. here

it is one thing to think maybe a recursion equation would be useful here, it's another thing to actually remember the damn equation. I'm generally not a good equation-rememberer, and I wasn't lugging any reference books with me. (I was in a bar, remember?) But I was lugging my laptop with me, and there was wireless internet. So naturally I looked up the equation on Wikipedia, and there it was! I checked it against some more conventionally reliable resource once I got home, but the Wikipedia page was perfectly accurate. (Nobody finds it worthwhile to vandalize pages on special mathematical functions.)

Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A repeatedly banned troll has just gotten your attention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

 – Phone calls made, e-mails sent. Unless one can track down the locale of the IP addresses/user, then not all that much else can be done. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Suicide Chump" You say there ain't no use in living
It's all a waste of time
You wanna throw your life away
Well, people, that's just fine!
Go ahead and get it over with, then
Find you a bridge and take a jump
Just make sure you do it right the first time
Cause there's nothin' worse than a suicide chump!

--Frank Zappa

We have another suicide threat which has been posted at [38]. Can someone look into this? — E ↗^TCB 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the IP now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(further comment) Looks like someone's just ranting to his girlfriend/wife/significant other... anyone care to take this further (*cough*Bstone*cough*joke*cough*) or just WP:RBI it? Most of the other edits by this IP are just nonsensical vandalism, so I don't think the threat was serious. WHOIS goes to Ontario, through Aliant Telecom. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this here from the Help desk:

"Someone should check this out [39]. Remember (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)"

I know there are ways to find out the physical locations of (some) IP addresses, but I don't know what they are. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm; it says "Wikipedia responders have consistently contacted local authorities in cases of apparent suicidal users. Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat. Please make as prompt a report as you are able to." Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: 142.163.22.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.22.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.211.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Seems to be generic vandalism, but to be on the safe side... seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to call the cops. It's either a person who needs help, or a person who needs a wake up call that this kind of stuff is not tolerated. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find out what country that IP is in? Or should I call the local police where I live and let them forward the info to wherever? Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you're not duplicating reports... *merges* Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in contacting law enforcement, the IP is actually originating from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, through Stentor National Integrated Communications Network. Can't give you anything better than that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling... seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) — E ↗^TCB 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Seicer. Sorry for the duplicate thread: I thought I had searched this page for the word "suicide" and didn't find it, but must have mistyped it or something. Thanks for catching the duplication, Hersfold. Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happens fairly often, as you know. Thanks for calling, seicer. Best of luck with that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling. Keep us updated on what happens. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, the text was originally posted by AngelofFadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on 24 June. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As AngelofFadness has been active today, I've indef. blocked the account. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Called practically all available lines and was redirected around but I finally made the case aware to one individual who logged it. I also sent an e-mail to abuse@aliant.net, which is what the individual recommended and per Bell Aliant's web-site. Try calling in the morning and seeing if anyone else has any more luck. seicer | talk | contribs 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell Canada also panned out, and given the vagueness of the locale, there is not much else that can be done. They could not locate the abuse number (outside of the e-mail), either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, how can someone threaten suicide? It's not really a threat, because they're only killing themselves... Beam 02:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'ts more of a threat against the people that are emotionaly attached. It is also a threat because suicide cleanup is very expensive. Stanley Steamer does not do "crime scenes". You have to hire an expensive and specific company to do it. The nicest suicides are when people just "disappear" themselves in the woods. No drain on public resources. --mboverload@ 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually saw a show on the Discovery channel about people who cleaned up crime scenes. Anyway I know this isn't the exact greatest place to discuss it, but if those who "threatened" suicide were not given the attention they do get, these "threats" would be reduced in number of occurrences. Of course there are those who are actually going to do it, and are honestly just letting people know about it. Those people will probably have a better chance of surviving with outside intervention.

One other strong feeling I have about suicide "threats" is that if one wanted to really kill himself, why would he give people an opportunity to stop them? Even an ip suicide notice here is treated to the whole nine yards as far as contacting authorities. The editors here are actually good at discovering who to call. Anyway it's kind of attention whoring, in a lot of cases, to claim an impending suicide. Meh. Beam 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, people who really do commit suicide do leave such notes, that is one of the reasons we take threats of any kind very seriously. I don't think threats should be dismissed because they may not be sincere. Chillum 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, always a quick judgment eh Chillum? As I state there is a portion of those who claim suicidal intentions that have their lives saved by actions like what fine editors here practice. Beam 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as threats like this are taken seriously. Chillum 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Dvds page

A lot of IP's are adding in release dates for Region 1 and three times I had to remove them because there is no confirmed source (Which I had been checking personally), I would request either a partial protection or just someone that could watch the page every now and then. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kylu (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and recently there was 1 more incident since I posted this message and on a related note User: 220.240.67.161 who was involved has a done nothing but vandalism edits and a warning would need to be sent. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User talk:Rove2

Resolved

This is going to be very controversial, so sit down and get ready to read for a while.

User:Rove2 was recently blocked by User:Sam Korn, as he identified Rove2 as a sockpuppet of the Avril Vandal through the Checkuser tool. The related case is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal, however Rove2 is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Just a short while ago, I noticed an unblock request from this user and took a look. I originally declined the request, citing our policy against open proxies, but mentioned that if the user had a good reason, they could ask for IP block exemption according to our policies and the precedent set by User:Giggy's exemption. I made my first mistake here in not checking the user's own block log, having seen the autoblock removal request and thus assuming that they were not directly blocked. Rove2 later posted another request, stating that they are a missionary in China and unable to access Wikipedia due to the Great Firewall, and can only get to the site using Tor nodes. I (again) reviewed the user's edits and found nothing objectionable, so asked for some opinions on the #-admins IRC channel, not looking for a consensus necessarily, just advice. Before I was able to grant the exemption myself, User:Werdna gave the exemption to Rove2. I logged the reasoning here, noting that I supported the exemption. Shortly thereafter, Rove2 posts another unblock request, saying he is still blocked by username. Now I finally check his individual block log and find the sockpuppet checkuser block. Whoops. So, under a hail of "what were you thinking" type comments in the IRC channel, I decline the request, go to revoke the exemption only to be beaten to it by User:Prodego, remove the log entry, and come here for further discussion and input.

My opinion in this matter is that the Avril Vandal could have very well used the same Tor node as many otherwise innocent editors, and that the checkuser report could, in this one unusual instance, be incorrect. Other administrators feel that the Avril Vandal is exactly the type who would try to make us give them IP Exemption just to be a nuisance. I will take no further action on this account myself, but invite everyone's input into this situation. Sorry for making such a mess of things previously, and for not coming here in the first place. I accept full responsibility for this; please do not accuse Werdna of any misuse of the tools or ignorance, because it was my stupidity that led him to granting the exemption in the first place, and as I stated, I was about to grant it myself anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith and give him the exemption. That said, if Sam Korn gives a reason for the block that hasn't been noted above things could be different, but for now it seems he was blocked for using Tor which would make a CU block somewhat shaky. —Giggy 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While the situation as-stated could very well be the case, Sam is a competent checkuser and should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt in this case: We're second guessing someone who blocked the user not the ip or range. I would suggest asking Rove2 to please wait until we can get Sam's input on this thread, or at the very least, another checkuser to double-check the situation for us. Kylu (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush here, and given that the Avril vandal has been active, I suspect the CUs have a wealth of data on separating him out from other run of the mill tor users. Lets wait for Sam or some other CU to respond before doing stuff. MBisanz ^talk 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A checkuser far outweighs good faith here, the user can wait for Sam to comment. Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam has been contacted, on talk page and by email, so should come by to comment soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're here and waiting, the IP Exemption policy page isn't very clear on granting exemptions in this case (to allow editing from a Tor node/open proxy), and the discussion hasn't been active since mid-May. This is a forum where most everyone, including non-admins, checks in eventually, and so this is probably the best time and place to decide this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on facilities to tag tor edits as such in contributions and recentchanges, and to allow administrators to change the level of blocking for all of tor at once, as well as to disable tor access for individual users. Once my changes are live, we won't need to grant ipblock-exempt for individual users to use tor. All the trolls, once discovered using tor, will go back to their botnets and zombies. We could even make the abuse filter more sensitive to tor users, when I'm done. — Werdna • talk 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So, with that, all users would be "Tor-block exempt" by default, which we could revoke at any given time if it gets abused? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, input from me. Firstly, I am slightly peeved that this was raised at ANI first rather than asking me to have another look. It generates a good deal of unnecessary fuss -- indeed, the whole conversation about ipblockexempt is pretty irrelevant to this case.

The user came up on two different IPs that the Avril vandal has used. There was more technical evidence to link them than this, but it is best not to release it, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, some of the edits made were rather reminiscent of this troll -- one of the first edits was to ask a question at the Help Desk -- the troll has spent a long time trolling the Reference Desk. Making a userpage redirect to the talk page is also, bizarrely, something that vandals often do.

Despite all these things, the link is clearly less secure than I thought -- the post-block behaviour is extremely uncharacteristic. I am very willing to concede that this is not the Avril troll on this basis and on the basis that a common use of Tor has muddied the waters and confused things. I have therefore removed the block on Rove2.

Incidentally, making it clear on the CU results page which edits come through Tor would be extremely useful in cases like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, and again, apologies for not contacting you first on this one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

KingActor, now reincarnated as WriterMJ

In some ways I admire his tenacity, but this user is proving problematic creating hoax articles in a somewhat delusionary vanity spree. He's vandalised past final warning now and a report to WP:AIV would be one way forward, but I think this is slightly more complicated - I'd be hard-pressed to "keep [the explanation] short" as requested, and in any case he has today reinveted himself as WriterMJ.

Before I became aware of his activities he created Zack Miller, Zack miller and Zak Miller at least 9 times in total. More recently he also created Talk:Zak Miller as an article page because Zak Miller itself is SALTed - and this showed a birthdate the same as he gives on his own page so it is near certain these articles were supposed to be autobiographical. Unfortunately the claims stretched credulity somewhat.

He created The Assassination and The Assassination (Film), nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assassination (Film) (which is where I first encountered him) - a hoax article about a forthcoming film he was supposedly involved in, into which he also dragged Megan Fox and Shia La Beouf (also editing their pages to link to the film) in a violation of WP:BLP. WriterMJ has just recreated this.

He also created The Insane Miller Brothers - another aparrent hoax about a forthcoming tv series starring Zak Miller and also claiming the involvement of Miley Cyrus and Victoria Justice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Insane Miller Brothers)) plus The JJVM Boys (speedily deleted) and Internet Show (a term coined in The JJVM Boys). He created KingActor past a level 4 warning.

KingActor always talks about Zak Miller in the third person but they are clearly one and the same (showing the identical birthdates appears to have been a bit of a gaffe). He is going to a huge amount of effort to suggest The Insane Miller Brothers is real, even creating a website for it (which, sadly, protests that it is not a hoax rather too much) but in reality The Insane Miller Brothers are just camcorder pranksters (link to YouTube video showing said prank now unavailable).

Generally out of character, there's a couple of examples of more straightforward vandalism (on his own user page) here and here.

Clearly he's determined and his enthusiasm might get him somewhere, but filling WP with misinformation isn't the right way to go about it. Now that he's reinvented himself as WriterMJ and a report of KingActor to AIV is pointless, can an admin deal with that as they see fit?

Ros0709 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a CU could check whether there is a single stable ip address behind the various accounts, and if there is perform a block with account creation disabled. Once the active accounts are blocked then there would be no way this individual can create more accounts. There are obvious limitations to such an action, but I won't spell them out in case our friend is reading. Try a request at WP:RCU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be indefblocked? Neither one of them is, yet, and they've never done anything but vandalize. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Insane Miller Brothers was a BLP violation and I deleted it and closed the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• No need to bother with check user. KingActor created Image:098.JPG and used it on WriterMJ's page. That is good enough for me. There is no point in blocking - the kid will just create another account. Putting him on watch lists is the most we can do. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the responses, all. It looks like the block on KingActor has caused a block on WriterMJ too. If that block is removed I will continue to watch. Ros0709 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia by suggesting unsourced change of article titles

There is apparently a game people like to play [40] in renaming articles because the "article title is lousy". This is despite the rather prolonged process by which, with the co-operation of the original source's author [41], the article title was corrected[42] to reflect historical reality. These people then like to substantiate their activity by using straw polls to somehow make it look like historical events can be renamed by consensus of Wikipedia editors. Then they try to find a way to get rid of those who actually spoke up to fix an error that has been unquestioningly repeated for 25 years in various references by extending the use of [43] editing restriction that applies to the Eastern Europe by applying it to the Russian Far East because the Soviet Union is involved (in the article), although my only contention is that in a reference work, a historical fact is a fact if properly cited, in this case requiring confirmation by the original author. Should Historiography be renamed into Historiography by Wikipedia consensus?

In any case, I would like to have the three editors in question reminded that despite their positions and awards they do not have the right to disrupt production of articles because they don't like the names of operations given by the Soviet General Staff.

PS. A reminder for User:Buckshot06 to not stalk my edits would also be nice, though the last AN/I didn't do much to change anything--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of the four editors who have commented on the name of this battle oppose the use of the name 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' and support something like 'Soviet invasion of Manchuria'. Mrg moved the article to its current name without discussing what the title should be after consensus was reached about 'Operation August Storm' not being a suitable title, and is the only person arguing in favour of the current name. Please note Mrg's abuse of Buckshot ([44] and [45]) and attempt to disrupt the straw poll on the article's name [46]. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please goto some form of dispute resolution. There is no admin action warranted, marking as resolved. Beam 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR check-list applicability

• Editor assistance - none required
• Ask for a third opinion - none required, asked the author
• Ask about the subject - none required since the subject is the subject of the discussion
• Ask about a policy - none required since naming proposed is fictitious
• Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard - it would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see below)
• For incivility - only in perception of one editor
• Request a comment - none required because the existing title is well referenced
• Informal mediation - non required because there is no dispute given all agree that was the original name
• Formal mediation - as above
• Conduct a survey - none required because this is the only name used, excepting book titles

Well, its not actually a content dispute, but a procedural disruption.

Content dispute was resolved when I moved the name of the article to the correct name, something Nick failed to mention.

What Nick also failed to mention is that current name was the PRIMARY SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION prior to the move, and that the name of the operation can not be decided by consensus as it is the one and only name of the operation. 'Operation August Storm' previously used was not an "unsuitable title", but a title derived from a title of a book, and reused by several authors in ignorance of the real name of the operation on assumption that the original author in English used the correct name.

I am not the only person arguing in favour of the current name because it is the only name available to choose from, being the exact translation into English from Russian. I should not have to argue to use the correct name of an event in a reference work!!

One can not "oppose" the name given to an event, such as for example the Boston Tea Party, because that was the name given to it during its occurrence.

I was opposed in this moving strenuously by Buckshot06, to the point when he contacted the author of the original title himself because he would not believe me after I had contacted the author to confirm that I was correct in my initial proposal to retitle based on 25 years of unverified research by multiple authors.

Buckshot06 never believes me. In every instance bar one starting from several months ago, he had immediately sprang up to oppose any suggestion I have made, usually with no supporting evidence or inadequate references, preferring to vote rather then discuss, hence my reflection on his behaviour given no sooner a proposal countering something I said or did was made, where there he was voting "yes" for it. He claims me being "uncivil" at every opportunity, but to quote "Civility policy is abused so much and needlessly. I almost quit the 'pedia over claims of me being uncivil, I wonder how many already have?" (guess who said that)

User:Raul654, an editor that had not participated in editing the article since November 2007, or the discussion on renaming, decided to "suggest" a name change based on nothing but his dislike for the original. What if I dislike the name of the article United States of America, can I start a straw poll for renaming that also? This is in fact disruptive, because it takes up my time from editing to have to argue for retention of an article title that should not need any discussion, given the discussion that had already taken place. That is why I deleted the straw poll; it is contrary to the existing Wikipedia-wide consensus to use them, and was only used in the attempt to legitimise a baseless and disruptive attempt to retitle the article.

I can't very well take the matter to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, because no sources have been proposed, and none can be since the name of the operation has been acknowledged to be the only one used by the Soviet General Staff. So exactly where can this be resolved?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to deal with the people you disagree with. Try to find someone to mediate. I removed the resolved tag as you seem to think it isn't resolved. Good luck. Beam 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rastronomer (subtle vandalism, racist slogan in mainspace)

Since yesterday, User:Rastronomer edits the page Roma minority in Romania, adding "references" to the text (see his contributions). Have a look at the diff (his version, which he already pushed twice into the article): one of his "references" ("Romanian press about Roma people's ID.") is his google search; the second "reference" does not verify the text (as any Romanian speaker will be able to tell you). For the latter, see the text before Rastronomer's intervention: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates . However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes." Here is his contribution: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates <ref>[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/ro/features/setimes/articles/2006/11/20/reportage-01. However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes. "Roma people" are criminals!]</ref>" [my emphasis, and no, obviously not found in the source, if "quoting" is indeed what Rastronomer pretends s/he is doing]. This is obviously a racist message, which, in addition to his "subtle" vandalism, should warrant a block.

Also, given the surprisingly short time Rastronomer took to familiarize himself with wikipedia, the history of such incidents among my fellow Romanian editors, and the need for "adoption" he states on his front page, it would not surprise me if this guy were a sockpuppet of a known Romanian vandal/troll. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

HkCaGu (reinstated comments of IP editor that breached WP:SOAP)

During the past three days, there has been ongoing disruptions at Talk:Guangdong and Talk:Nanyue. A highly dynamic IP editor has been adding condescending comments (some of which were highly inappropriate) such as the one found here: [47]. All attempts to remove his disruptive edits have proved fruitless since the IP editor either comes back to cause more trouble or HkCaGu turns up and reinstates the comments (an example being [48]), claiming that they are 'valid' or that censorship is 'not appropriate'. The IP editor has already been reported for suspected sockpuppetry. As for HkCaGu, someone needs to explain to him that his acts of reinstating the IP editor's comments, while well meaning, only serve to encourage more soapboxing edits to talk pages by IP vandals. David873 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a need for a neutral editor to scrutinise the aforementioned talk pages for any instances of soapboxing and to refactor, summarise or outright delete inappropriate comments as appropriate. David873 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of West Virginia - EDIT WAR

After trying to resolve an issue between two editors and the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article, it has been suggested to move this to this Incidents page. Below is the text that has been copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Can someone please help resolve this. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---Start of copied text---

User:Bedford and User:Doncram are engaged in an edit war on the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article. They have repeatedly reverted each other's edits. I cautioned both users about the 3RR and tried to help resolve this by doing an edit of the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. The edit wars continue. It's probably time for an admin to investigate and take appropriate action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it still has neutrality problems, then I must continue to add the templates. I was never asked if my problems with its neutrality were resolved; the tag was just blatantly removed. Over half of an organization's article, who's history must by necessity date from the 1860s-1870, if not from the 1700s (due to it must having been split off from the Grand Lodge of Virginia), being about a negative event can not stand. The only reason for this edit war is because user Doncram has making a nuisance of himself towards me for almost a month now, trying to torpedo many of my DYK nominations and whatnot, and this is his latest phase. If I hadn't commented on it on its DYK nomination, Doncram would not be the least bit interested in it. If this keeps up, I feel I must recommend it for AfD.--Bedford ^Pray 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was asked on the talk page and by edit comments to participate meaningfully on the talk page, which he has not chosen to do. It is asked there what on earth is the story, the source, any info at all which is available but which is not reflected or is being suppressed by anyone from the article. Bedford may have access to other sources, but the official public website of the organization is scant, and the organization chooses not to comment about the lawsuit which has been in the news. So, a new article does tend to show the available news. If that news was so bad, the organization would choose to respond publicly, which it does not.

Bedford's last big revert (which i eventually reverted) returned the article to a clearly inferior state, stripping out the development based on the official website of the organization which I had added, and returning it to show both "Under construction" and "Neutrality" tags. Since Bedford had not before and has not since contributed to the article besides tagging it and removing well-sourced material, i believe that his effective posting of a new "Under construction" tag was erroneous and careless at least. It's a perfectly fine new article, very well-referenced on every statement. So I don't get why he continues to tag the article and to make threats.

I appreciate that Truthanado stepped in to try to fix matters. I have provided the article with additional research and think it should now be cleared of Bedford's tags. doncram (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to WP:ANI - or even WP:AN3. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---End of copied text---

Some more intervention related to DYK nomination of this article may be warranted. Bedford has been asked to add material to the article and to identify any source, story, material that anyone else is preventing from being added, to tell some potential "other side" that he projects is needed. However, I do not expect that he will contribute seriously to the article, because he is opposed to its development and in particular to the JWSpencer's nomination of the new article for DYK listing. The I expect in Bedford's mind, he wishes to "win" by causing delay; he has shown great stubbornness on other matters at DYK where he is himself quite a DYK medal-collector.

Another complication is potential COI that Bedford has with this topic. He has not answered a direct question of whether he is himself a Freemason, or to describe what is his association with Freemansons. I asked that on the DYK Template Talk page for the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article (it shows under Expiring Noms, July 12, in this now current version of the Template Talk DYK page. Bedford is associated, at least, in that he is interested enough in Freemasonry to have written an article on a Freemason memorial at Gettysburg, and self-nominated it for DYK in the July 17 section of the current DYK Template Talk. Further, in that DYK he has nominated a picture of himself posing with the memorial as illustration, which he would like to see displayed on the Mainpage of wikipedia. This seems perhaps associated with his extreme reaction to dismiss the DYK nomination for the West Virginia article, to disqualify it by stripping the WV article down to one sentence (too short for DYK), and to oppose it by coming up with new critical tags.

Although Truthanado indicated agreement with Bedford that there were neutrality issues in an edit comment, Truthanado's subsequent edits indicated to address neutrality have essentially rearranged material in the article, without finding as slanted any source or any particular information that would have needed to be removed. Other comment in the Talk page of the article has not found there to be a problem. So I ask for more speedy review of this article, and to demand that Bedford add material for balance to the article immediately and/or remove his DYK nomination opposition. doncram (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ultimately a content dispute that should be settled through dispute resolution. It doesn't require administrative action. --Farix (Talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not abn admin, but I'll take a look at it, as it's in my topic area. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 blocked

Resolved

 – User unblocked; blocking admin already party to arbitration case. Move along, nothing to see here. HiDrNick! 14:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) has blocked Dragon695 (talk · contribs) without sufficient cause as far as I can see. I have commented on the user talk and waited a little for FM to comment. Time to get some uninvolved opinions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A block 48 hours after the fact when Dragon695 acknowledged and removed his own personal attack 9 minutes after making it is wholly inappropriate. Blocking someone for opposing you in an arbitration and calling for you to be desysopped is a flagrant abuse of power. --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two above editors that this block appears to be retaliatory, and political. It would have been far better to ask User:FT2, for example, to review the situation and decide what to do. I am going to unblock because there is no satisfactory basis stated for the block, and there are now three administrators who think it was unwise. Even if there is some hidden, non-transparent rationale for the block FeloniousMonk, as a named party in the case beneath the claimed incivility, is exactly the wrong administrator to take this action. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2? After his one-man RFAR of members of the group that Dragon695 has been harassing? Why am I not surprised you'd suggest him; he's about as uninvolved as you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Immediately unblock - FM is clearly involved. This is enough for him to desysopped without his history. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely a bad block. FM was not an uninvolved administrator. Kelly ^hi! 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Entirely endorse the unblocking. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock with a quickness. Somebody broke the rule. HiDrNick! 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked Dragon695.Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Only now saw this, I support the unblock, FM was involved. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • All in all, this was an incredibly stupid move by FM. When your use of the tools is being heavily scrutinised, you need to follow the rulebook to the letter. This may be the straw to break the camel's back and lead to a desysopping. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I doubt it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)Since there's already an ongoing arbitration case (granted, it's moving at a glacial pace), I think the most productive course would be to simply add this to the evidence section there, and archive this thread - unless someone thinks that FM may wish to offer some kind of valid defense of his actions here. But honestly I can't think of what that defense might be. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never been involved in any way with Dragon695. I was asked to look at a number of his comments, and in so doing I found him to indeed be incivil and harassing. Chronically. I find it telling that most of those above, Kelly, B, Jehochman, Sceptre, accusing me being 'involved' with Dragon695 are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. In fact, with one exception, those above opposing this are all his friends from there. Interesting. Care to explain how you're uninvolved enought to pass judgement on a block of your friend? I'd rather truly neutral admins review Dragon695's behavior, rathter than all his pals. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Asked by who? I believe Kelly and Jehochman do not post on Wikipedia Review. I may be wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They are all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, by involved I meant this. You should have recused from blocking anyone who has endorsed the notion of de-sysopping you through an RfAr. It can't help looking to some like you're getting back at Dragon, even if that's not what you had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never saw his comment at the RFAR. Furthermore, there's no policy requiring adims to recuse themselves against everyone who has a personal gripe. In fact, there's a long convention at Wikipedia of just the opposite. Otherwise it's simply too easy for chronic troublemakers to game the system by going out and calling for every admin they're concerned about to step down. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still appreciate knowing who asked you to look into his behaviour. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was User:Jim62sch, based on this. Kelly ^hi! 14:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather rich for you, FM, to speak about groups of friends sticking together. No way should you have blocked Dragon695. Block your friends, unblock your enemies? Sure. Unblock your friends, block your enemies? No way... ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Excuse me, I have never posted at WikipediaReview, so put away your tar and feathers. I have no involvement with Dragon695 whatsoever. Your response is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This "for me or against me" approach is the antithisis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. FeloniousMonk, now would be an excellent time for you to do the honorable thing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I said "are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. You have been supportive of this group of editors seen here in opposition to me in the past. Do I need to provide diffs. You're hardly uninvolved. In fact, you're far more involved with Dragnon695 than I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

all nicely lined up for me — FM, maybe, just maybe, it's you and not everybody else. user:Everyme 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Echo Jehochman: You really need to stop equating WR posters to absolute evil. It's a massive assumption of bad faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I for one am not involved in WR in any way whatsoever, nor a "pal" of Dragon, and I fully agree that the block is horribly inappropriate, and most obviously so. Accusing people who —on a reasonably solid basis— call into question the neutrality of your judgement instead of simply apologising for this wildly inappropriate action means that enough is finally enough. Please take this episode as proof that you are unfit to wield the tools, and show some decency by asking for them to be removed yourself. user:Everyme 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec*lots) A group of friends? I have like 15 posts ever to Wikipedia Review. In any event, if I had made a block or an unblock, you might have an argument. But I didn't. You did. You abused your admin privileges by blocking someone who is calling for your desysopping in this arbcom case. Trying to make this a referendum on Wikipedia Review is nothing but a distraction. The fact is, your use of the admin tools has been nothing but abusive. I have laid this out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk. If you think this is all about WR, that's a you problem, not a me problem. --B (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been a supporter of Dragon695, of course you'd say something like that. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. I don't support or oppose him. He agrees with the obvious conclusion that you should be desysopped, so I agree with him there. He believes that SlimVirgin should be desysopped, which I disagree with and have said repeatedly on the case that I disagree with, so I disagree with him there. I don't support or oppose him and am frankly indifferent to him, beyond the mutual respect that I have for any Wikipedian in good standing who edits in good faith. --B (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblocking. I do not post at Wikipedia Review and I have not previously been involved with FeloniousMonk or Dragon695 as far as I know. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on evidence posted here and on the talk page of Dragon, I endorse the unblocking. Rudget (logs) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I went to get some water from the well, but it tastes funny... Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, this block was very wrong on all kinds of grounds. You were wrong to make it. You do not then get away with that by attacking all those who criticise you. This behaviour is right out of order. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never posted at WR (I refuse to give them my e-mail address), I am not involved in the overarching dispute between FM and Dragon695 (and their supporters and detractors), and I still endorse the unblock. Chronic incivility does not result in a ex post facto block, two days after the supposed trigger. Initiate a Request for Comment/User if necessary, but don't drop the banhammer on someone with whom one is in dispute. Based on FM's knowledge of Dragon695's activities on WR, I think it is safe to say that he recognized a dispute. Horologium (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this (like pretty much everything else these days) is being portrayed as yet another battle in the Great War Between Good and Evil, I'd like to chime in and say the block was quite inappropriate, and should be registered as exhibit "A" on the evidence arbcom page. The WR reference is especially ironic given that in the same thread, SV imported a WR allegation and used it against Alison and Lar, something which is supposed to be a serious "no-no" even when the allegations turn out to be true. I'm registering my opinion here as someone who's never interacted with any of these editors, nor ever posted on Wikipedia Review, so there can be no charges of group behavior on my part. ATren (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM should have reported this to the case clerks rather than blocking someone he's involved with vis a vis the arb case. I'm glad to see the community quickly remedied this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree that reporting this to the case clerks is the way to go, but the record of ArbCom support for case clerk actions in this case is... well... is there a word that means "worse than abysmal"? Maybe just report it to an uninvolved admin, in future. We don't want to run out of clerks before this case closes. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia Review sucks on a whole, doesn't mean all of the users there suck. The trolls from WR however, aren't appreciated. Beam 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who would that be? Third time you've been asked that. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing FM as being involved. Can someone explain to me how he was involved? Right now I'm not seeing it(I might be missing something here). While we're at it, can someone explain how Dragon695 has not been uncivil? The following recent difs for example [49] [50] and [51] are highly uncivil blockworthy comments. Telling people to go crying back to another user's talk page is unacceptable regardless of the editors involved. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not FM was involved doesn't matter on the ANI front. The point to make here is that the block was lousy and this has been resolved. Move all questions of "involvement" to the arbcom page. Wizardman 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please archive this before it turns into another BADSITES flamefest. No further admin action is required; further opinions should go to the Arbitration case. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reminder: I'm unarchiving this for now, but remember that we're discussing the block/unblock, involvement, and the diffs presented. I better not see any mudslinging going on or else I'm re-archiving this, as that accomplishes nothing. Wizardman 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is reopened I'll just quote from the relevant difs explicitly: From 4 days ago "Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next" [52]. Less than 5 hours ago refers to other editors as "riff-raff". Dragon695 has a history of serious incivility and has been recently uncivil. Whether or not FM is the person who should do it, this Dragon should be blocked. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Comments like that demand an instant block. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys just posted the same diff twice. The same one that was posted above as a result of the original block. Not sure what that's trying to prove. The other two I'm still looking at the context for. Wizardman 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe there is far more to this situation than meets the eye, particularly with the one-sided description of certain parties above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Same diff twice? I don't see that. In any case, this too is problematic. Even though it was redacted, the post still presents a problem. I'm pretty sure I can find more example with relative ease, but I'd prefer to not need to do so. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to filll) Maybe, maybe not. I haven't really kept myself up to date with the arbitration case and the involvement of the two editors, granted, we know the sides of both parties at this point. This dispute has gotten to the point where you could name an editor who hasn't commented yet and I could probably nail what the opinion of said editor will be. However, I wonder what role the blocking policy itself plays in this. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, yet blocking for this kinda stuff seems to be argued as both punitive and preventative due to it being more long-term. This is where it gets a little confusing, I think. Wizardman 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 has been warned by myself just 2 days ago about a personal attack (he then withdrew it), and a couple of times by FT2 about civility, however, I don't think a block is warranted, even by an outsider, for what's cited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brief description with core problem

For those of us who are actually uninvolved, would someone be willing to write out a quick, close-to-neutral explanation of what led up to Dragon's block? Without too much commentary, if possible, so that we can decide for ourselves if it was justified or not? That would be very helpful. Also, my understanding of the meta-situation is that:

1. Dragon and FM have not been involved with one another in any meaningful way.
2. Many of the people who were alleged to post on WR do not actually post there.

Thanks, Antelan 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't have anything to do with this! That site holds way too much sway in some people's mind. I agree, I'd like a rundown of the block without the drama. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see the current dispute (trying to be as neutral as possible, I hope I succeed): FelonoiusMonk blocked Dragon695 for (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Chronic incivility). The block was later overturned by apparent consensus, though this is being disputed (both the consensus and block). The diffs provided are supported by one side as block-worthy, which opposed by the other as the block being punitive. The attacks themselves are in dispute, one side saying they're obviously a problem, the other saying one was removed by Dragon, the others either borderline or not a big issue. Then, after all that, there's the question of how involved FM has been with Dragon, and this is also where WR comes into play (though even this is in question). One side says FM and Dragon have no connection, other than maybe the arbcom case, though that's iffy. The other side says FM's very involved not just because of the arbcom case, but because of WR criticism by FM and Dragon being a member, as well as them being on different sides of this case. The level of WR being a factor varies among people from not one at all to quite a bit. This is how I see it. Wizardman 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, an explanation of the events proceeding it? ...oops. Well, the above's a description of after the block then, I guess. I need to pay more attention. Wizardman 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good description though. If I hadn't already known all that, I would now. ;) Beam 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was still a helpful catch-me-up. Thanks! Antelan 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Intriguing that this block is contested as stale. At 16:18, 18 July 2008, Dragon695 describes other editors as "an embaressing bunch of fanatics", then quickly "refactors" that part of his comment.[53] When the "vitriol" still in the history is pointed out Dragon695's response is "Shoo! Complaining about something that I refactored a moment later is silly",[54] but just under an hour later Dragon695 describes the other editors as "riff-raff" and says "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control."[55], just 26 minutes before being blocked. The diffs have been posted as I understand it, and the abuse was certainly current, or are editors arguing that such personal attacks are acceptable? . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that this kind of repeated behavior is acceptable, and even should be encouraged I find somewhat incredible, given our current climate of sensitivity to personal attacks and incivility. I thought we were being more strict and less lenient about violations of WP:CIVIL? What have I missed? Are these examples for my list of strange inconsistent CIVIL standards? Sure seems like it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly who was Dragon695 attacking with those comments? I thought there was no ID cabal, despite the fact that certain unnamed editors always show up in disputes, wherever they may occur, that involve certain other unnamed editors. Kelly ^hi! 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, are you suggesting that the acceptability of personal attacks depends on who's being attacked? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that. Kelly ^hi! 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean then? Hmmm...interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I should say, my only worry was that FM had made the block. He's since said he was unaware of Dragon's statement in his RfAr, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something I don't understand. At 12:45 UTC (I think that's right), FeloniousMonk gave a formal warning to Dragon695 as a result of the comment on Ed Poor's talk page.[56] This is fine in and of itself. However, three minutes later, he was blocked by FM,[57] and was notified 11 minutes after the original warning.[58] Dragon695 made no edits during that three/eleven minute timespan, so if FM said, and I quote, "One more like this and I will take action to ensure that it stops.", then why was he blocked before "one more like this" ever occurred? That's my question now. Wizardman 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's already been explained. FM issued a warning, continued to look at Dragon's behaviour and then blocked him: at least that's what I get out of what FM has stated. Not sure how there could be any confusion, other than a confusion caused by looking at the wrong part of the issue or by dissmissing some information or by not looking at the big picture. Not sure which, if any, of these scenarios are accurate, but I can see no other explanation for any confusion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AH, okay, I get it now. I felt that the "one more time" implied that in the future he would block Dragon, rather than a couple minutes later. If it's true that the block came after a look through the contribs, then that makes the block at least somewhat punitive, and as a result iffy. Wizardman 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and you are able to tell just like that, what is punitive and what is preventative? Pray tell, how do you do this? Is there some magical formula you could enlighten us with? Perhaps you could write an essay on this explaining the fine points and details with maybe some evidence and quantitative analysis to back up your assertions, which might appear gratuitous to some otherwise.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695's statement

I was angry at what I consider to be a massive campaign against Ed Poor's RFA. I rarely, if ever, agree with Ed on anything, but I felt the opposes were over the top. My comment about riff-raff is not uncivil. Riff-raff is a child's word, if I wanted to be insulting or uncivil I would have used much harsher words than that, I assure you. Further, I felt that many of the attacks on Ed by the opposition were far worse than my own, even the before-refactored comment. I was responding to my belief that Ed Poor needs should be permitted to bring his dissent to the Intelligent Design and Global Warming articles, despite the fact I totally disagree with his viewpoint. Keeping controversial articles from becoming walled gardens of woo is a goal that Wikipedia should seek to achieve. We cannot allow even the most righteous people to WP:OWN whole swaths of subject matter. Not to be pointed, but some in the greater scientific community were patently wrong on eugenics, the popular bastardization of Darwin's natural selection, at the turn of the 20th century. I've been reading an excellent book, War Against the Weak by Edwin Black, which catalogs just how it was that a group of determined American and British scientists popularized this hideous science and even directly inspired the tactics of Hitler. It is a chilling account of what happens when determined scientists insist that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint that matters and how uncritical groupthink led to horrendous travesties being perpetrated against our poor and sick at that time. My point is that groupthink is bad. Refusing to debate opposing views is bad. Ed brings the necessary questioning which ultimately results in better articles because lazy and poorly sourced material is kept out, while some space is given for the opposing viewpoint. I feel that my fellow colleagues treatment of Ed, based mostly on his behavior on another project - which by the way is admittedly slanted (the "conserv" in CP should have been the hint) - was awful. My comments were not directed at anyone in particular and were only meant as an attempt to console Ed on his good faith attempt to serve the community again. Please do not wheel war over this block. I will just go do some move to commons until it is resolved satisfactorily. Cheers! --Dragon695 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

. Calling other editors "riff-raff" is unacceptable. This entire conversation also has the off-the-wall doublething that the same editors are saying that this is part of the evil ID-cabal while at the same time arguing that Dragon's comments weren't directed at any editors in particular. Those are mutually contradictory claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ here. Riff-raff is a term we should eschew, and Dragon695 knows better. I've counseled Dragon695 about being the better man in his dealings before (for many of the folk he runs up against, it's not too hard to do, really). He should have known better. But the block still stinketh, it was by a highly involved editor with little warning, against a contributor with no prior record of blocks. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, Dragon695 is still autoblocked, could someone find and fix it? Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I just tried but it looks like the autoblock has now been lifted - Alison ^❤ 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... saying that "those above opposing this are all his friends from there" [59] and they're "all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia" [60], and the whole bunch is a "group of editors seen here in opposition to me" [61] is fair comment, but calling out a different group of editors with "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control." [62] is blockable incivility? Seems to be a double standard. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

None of that is good either and I'd strongly prefer FM didn't do that. But none of his comments have been as bad as Dragon's. Calling people "riff-raff" isn't ok and the fact that Dragon isn't even willing to acknowledge that that isn't ok should be disturbing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, had I the time and patience to point out the flaws in your statement I would, but as I have neither, I won't. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is statement is riddled with inaccuracies and is uniquely uncompelling. So the suggestion that all those who did not vote to support Ed Poor are all supposed to be part of some deep dark conspiracy? Do you have any proof of that? At what point did the "oppose" votes from those in this purported cabal appear on the Ed Poor RfA page? Seems to me his RfA was doomed no matter what. But it is a convenient excuse to use. As for the rest of it, if the word "silly" is deemed a blockable offense, or the phrase "amazingly wrong" is deemed to be a blockable offense, or the word "nonsense" is uncivil, etc, but "riff-raff" and other commentary by this editor is perfectly acceptable, I believe we are facing a lovely double standard here. Most interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems to set new standards of what's to be accepted as "civility". Will try to keep in mind the useful phrase, and as an aside "scientists" were by no means the only ones promoting eugenics in the early 20th century, a movement which had much more to do with earlier ideas of heredity and Mendelian ideas of genetics than with natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, Dave. I suppose that this and a few other recent incident show that we're pretty much free to say what we want, and that an ad hom is every bit as apropriate as an ad rem. Cool.

And yes, social darwinism and uegenics plucked at whatever straws they could find to support the hatred and stupidity inherent in each. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess my thanks were premature. Please, for the sake of us all, do not debate relationships between fascism and Darwinism on the admin noticeboard. Take your content disputes to the appropriate dispute resolution forum, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At risk of reigniting old feuds, is anyone surprised at FM's defenders all showing up at once, and who they are? I kinda feel like saying Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here.... SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All showing up at once? Surely you don't mean to suggest anyone would organize some sort of joint defense to combat harassment by the "WR trolls" in some off-wiki venue. Who could fathom such a thing? <grin> :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with having this page watch-listed? That is how I found out about it. Also I have JoshuaZ's talk page watch-listed. Please point me to the place in policy where this is explicitly forbidden.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no-- you're quite correct-- there's no need to break out the secret lists to explain people showing up at ANI. Hence the double-grin. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with having pages watchlisted.. the average observer might look at it and wonder how come a certain group of editors have a habit of always showing up at the same time, like a pack of lions trying to bring down a wildebeest, however.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, we all agree that it's completely astonishly coincidental when the members and/or supporters of Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design just happen to show up at a dispute involving one of their fellow travelers - wherever that dispute may be. RfA, RfAR, IfD, user talk pages - it doesn't matter. Apparently those folks are telepathic, there simply can't be any coordination happening. Kelly ^hi! 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. It isn't any more astonishing that a lot of editors with one opinion show up than that a lot of editors with another opinion show up. A lot of the people here for example could be easily described as people who mysteriously show up whenever FM is involved. It doesn't require cabals or such, just keeping track of what edits other people you know are making or what is going on on their talk pages. Instead of paranoia and mudslinging we need to focus on the issue at hand, whether Dragon's comments violated WP:CIVIL. There's also an amazing piece of doublethink going on here in that people are claiming that Dragon's comments weren't really directed at any editors at the same time they make accusations that the editors it was directed at form a some sort of evil cabal. I mean really. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is telepathy an example of Darwinism or Creationism? Minkythecat (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shush! Telepathy is a gift from the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked that this discussion was burbling along for quite some time and then all of a sudden when a large faction of the ID cabal concerned editors all turns up at the same time, nefarious forces start nattering negatively about non coincidental behaviour. Please, people, assume good faith here. It's strictly coincidence that Filll, Dave souza, Jim62sch, all turned up when they did. Why on earth would anyone assume there was any off wiki collusion? That is so patently unfair. Now, round up the usual suspects, I've some gambling winnings to collect. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Or see my comment above. One could just as well claim that the editors including you Lar who normally oppose FM are just happening to show up. Frankly, it looks just as likely to me that the people in favor of the block are coordinating off-wiki as it looks like the people against the block are. Indeed, this topic has already been mentioned in multiple threads on WR. So again, instead of the paranoia and the mudslinging let's please focus on the topic at hand. Ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, a certain segment of the population is, for a fact, known to have been doing stealth-canvassing and coordination in the past. It's not paranoia once you have the proof. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL confusion or just plain trolling? Can you guess the puppeteer?

A new account, Jerusalem53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just surfaced and has been adding the full text of the GFDL license to article pages. There's also been other vandalism.

This is clearly a sockpuppet of someone who's been around here before. My question here is: who? Does this meet a familiar pattern? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PS On the the very slim chance this is not a reappearing long-term troll, I've given a last warning, not a block.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. If people would more consistently notify when they revert vandalism, might have been caught sooner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked this account after another incident.

I'm still curious about the pattern if anyone recognizes it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Right decision. It's a vandalism-only account. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that it's a sock of someone. I've not found any familiar pattern. I think we should close this case. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter if its a sock? Are we going to super-block it if it is? Its a vandalism-only account people, report to AIV, block, move on. Mr.Z-man 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Super-block"? No. Just curious, that's all. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential problem user?

Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk · contribs)

Despite the fact that Milhouse will never be a meme, this user's contribs concern me. Forced meme and anti-Scientology are two major red flags. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when was being associated with Anonymous not tolerated on Wikipedia?--Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhouse will never be a meme, is a meme. Sorry. Beam 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nur110

{{resolved|... - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}

User:Nur110 is a likely sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3, who has engaged in:

• Creating attack pages[63]
• Talk page vandalism [64]

This pattern fits that of a particulary bellicose and belligerent sock User:Thamarih. That editor blanked the warnings in June. See the older version for the whole story. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

• That is not an attack page.
• That is not talk page vandalism.

It looks like a malformed Sockpuppetry report. I've fixed it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unresolved this, per concerns of the complainant. I'll just say that if you are not engaging in sockpuppetry, then you've got nothing to be concerned about. SSP reports are somewhat common. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed User:Nur110 is a sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3.

WP:ATP says that "A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. As the subject of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MARussellPESE, I'm asking that it be deleted. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander of me on the talk page of hAl

User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his talk page. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he remove the slander and he has not. He replied to the request. User hAl regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that hAl be warned about replacing the slander. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User hAl regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive tag spamming

User, openly affiliating himself with extremist skinhead organization National Rebirth of Poland [65], keeps indiscriminately inserting multiple tags into article about this and related organizations with incivil edit summaries [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Some background [71], [72]. The user was warned and blocked for behaviour like this before [73][74].M0RD00R (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users involved in the conflict support disruptive POV pushing, just from a different angle, and don't shy from revert warring. If they war over an article, protecting it may be the best option.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So far it is not one POV vs other, but rather Reliable sources vs No RS, if you're finding some sources POV I'll gladly look into your argument on relevant talk pages. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Erich Honecker

Resolved

Can somebody have a look at this article please. It seems to have been vandalised by altering a template, but I can't figure out how. Some users claimed that it had been fixed, but I am still seeing it with a purged cache and even in a completely different browser. If it is still there the vandalism is very obvious. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went to the edit page and clicked save and now it seems to be fixed (even in the other browser). Even though my save is not recorded in the history (because I didn't change anything) it seems to have done something I don't understand (I guess it refreshed the server cache). Cheers TigerShark (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made a null edit which should have the same effect on the page itself as a purge. This vandal has been active with more than 10 IP's and accounts so it's conceivable that some pages have been vandalized, fixed, and then vandalized again via another template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Joseph McCarthy?

Resolved

Something strange is happening at Joseph_McCarthy. There is a large black banner at the top of the page that does not seem to be related to anything in the page source. Can someone else check it out? ATren (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did the same as above, and it seems to be OK now. Seems a template/category was vandalised and the server cache of the pages with the template/cat need refreshing. TigerShark (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be fixed. Marking as resolved. Thanks. ATren (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:T-rex trolling AfD

T-rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Once again, User:T-rex is trolling AfD discussions. After being particularly disruptive here, he has taken to trolling this current one. I think it is obvious from his talk page that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not trolling. In the first AfD you linked to my comment was "Keep - appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise." in the second AfD you liked my comment was "Keep". how either of those are out of place at an afd is beyond me. However if it really bothers you that much, I won't comment on a single afd for the next five days --T-rex 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency here are all the afd's i have commented on within the past two days. [75] [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116]. If you see a pattern of trolling there feel free to let me know... --T-rex 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglect to mention the rest of the exchange in the first AfD, which not only adds nothing to the debate, but clearly shows intent to disrupt. The message to your talk page after your reasonless "keep" in the second, combined with your reply also shows intent to disrupt and not meaningfully contribute. DarkAudit (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people asked questions, so I answered them. They may not have liked my responces, but thats not my fault. An exchange is not a bad thing, but for what AfD is designed for, it is supposed to be a discussion. If there is any trolling here it is you bringing this to ANI just because you disagreed with me on the deletion of some article. I am done discussing this. --T-rex 16:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. First, Dark Audit, don't start a post with "once again" without a link to the "once", it's rather accusatory, presumptious, and bad faith. When was T-rex previously "trolling"? (to use your words) (its a rhetorical question). Second, T-rex, stop replying to everything at AfD. Yes, its a discussion, so if you "just have to", do it nicer, your opinion might actually carry some weight. The Steve Terada posts of yours were a titch aggravating, but not completely unreasonable, and I daresay, they were not "trolling" (that's a word thrown around way too much.). This is a editorial dispute, I have no idea what you would like administrative assistance with DarkAudit. It's a big wiki, those two afds are rather lame/tame/mild compared to some of the other more ridiculous ones. Don't you think that if any editor says "It's notable, I checked, and no I'm not going to link my evidence here, go get it yourself" is going to have their "opinion" weighted accordingly by the closing admin? This does not need to be on AN/I. Keeper ǀ 76 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to second the thoughts on "trolling": it's one-word assumption of bad faith, the use of which would only be (rather weakly) justified by (a high standard of) proof that the primary intent of the alleged offender really was to aggravate and provoke. Alai (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I read the links provided by the accuser (not the TL;DR diffs from t-rex). It looks like T-rex needed to be upgraded about his behavior in the first afd, which he was. the second link was just absurd. Nothing in that link showed trex being provocative or uncivil. He made a comment at afd, the comment was disputed. the exchange that followed was terse and sarcastic but nothing like trolling. The fact that this went to AN/I seems a bit much. It shows a failure to assume good faith and a failure to solve things at the lowest level possible. I'm not endorsing trex's comments here, just chiming in with some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Absurd to not giving in to his expected response? I'm sorry if I didn't play along long enough. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, absurd that that exchange in particular led to the AN/I. I expected an exchange like that to be linked by T-Rex as evidence of his ability to comment in an AfD without trolling, not linked as an accusation of his incivility. You don't need to play along with him. If he irks you then just ignore him. If you try to ignore him and he seeks you out (either on your talk page or elsewhere), then you should bring it to AN/I. Otherwise you should try to solve this at the lowest level possible. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree some of his comments are less than helpful, given the other AFDs he listed, I fail to see how one can come to the conclusion "that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive." I think a reminder that the burden of evidence falls on those wishing to keep the article is sufficient. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion nominations by single-purpose accounts

This seems clearly actionable to me, but I invite comment lest I give the appearance of being unduly "involved" in an earlier iteration of this matter. We have a deletion nomination of new prog by the confusingly-named and self-confessed single-purpose account DeletionAccount. Any reason not to speedily close and block, respectively? (This is partly a matter for inappropriate user name, partly of deletion process, and assorted other stuff besides, so I'm splitting the difference and bringing it here.) Alai (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username, anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The user had agreed to a user page note clarifying they aren't an admin. I don't see the name as inherently blockworthy. The contribs seem acceptable - one AFD nomination already closed as delete and another seemingly reasonable AFD nomination. I don't see any intent of abuse here, and so I don't see any reason for admin action. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The name is inherently misleading - "deletion account" incorrectly suggests it is a human or bot agent within Wikipedia with an official charter to delete things. Since the problem is intrinsic to the name, the disclaimer doesn't cure it. Even with the disclaimer it suggests that it's okay for an account to exist on Wikipedia with no purpose other than deleting articles, and I'm not so sure about that. Is it okay per WP:SOCK to set up a named account as an alternate identity for the [[ sole purpose of making non-snowball deletion nominations? Seems disruptive and a likely good hand/bad problem. Wikidemo (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As the editor usually uses an IP username (not logged in), they can't create AFD noms under their usual account. I agree the name isn't optimal, which I why I worked out the disclaimer with the editor earlier. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps they should not be starting AfDs. Are IP accounts allowed to create socks in order to participate in controversial meta discussions in which only registered users are allowed? It seems to me there's an active discussion issue and an Arbcom ruling discouraging use of socks on meta pages. Or turning this around, is a controversial editor allowed to use an IP sock for their uncontroversial edits? At a minimum they ought to disclose their IP account, in which case there's no point using an IP. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The moment of cogdis that I experienced on receiving the message suggests to me that it's misleading in exactly the way Wikidemo suggests. Since the editor in question was far from helpful in resolving that aspect, I support Gwen Gale's action on those grounds, at the very least. If people wish to let the AFD run its course on merit, that's fine by me, so as an 'incident', this is essentially resolved. On the wider issue of SPA accounts for deletion, I've left a comment at WT:AFD. Alai (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From the folks that brought you "Keith Steve Howard"...

• "Yu-Gi-Oh! - The Abridged Series" (a popular fandub of the aforementioned anime) has said in its latest episode "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged; according to Wikipedia, we don't exist". Now there seems to be a lot of efforts to get an article created under a variety of titles. I recall marking two different titles for speedy deletion in the past two days. We should probably be on the lookout... in America. ._. JuJube (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that quite a few versions of the title are already salted. (in America) shoy (reactions) 18:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Could another admin who has a few hours available take a look at Singapore Airlines? This article is too high profile to have as many edit disputes as we are seeing again. Since I occasionally edit the article I'm not the best person to protect the article. I did it once in the past and announced that here so that anyone could override that action if I acted in bad faith. No one did, but aeverak editors were not happy. However this resulted in a stable article for a while, even after protection was lifted. This article and a few related ones suffer from WP:OWN in my opinion. Discussion on the Mediation Cabal seems to produce a resolution that lasts for a while and when someone tries to act on the consensus and we get edit wars and probably WP:CIVIL violations all over the place. This has also been discussed on talk pages and in the WP:AIRLINES project. In my opinion, and I feel in the the opinion of others, there is consensus. However some editors continue to believe that consensus does not apply to several articles including this one. A few diffs will not help, just look at the edit history and some of the other discussions and you should be able to stop the problem.

I think it is time to protect this article again to stop the constant reverts. As I said above this article has too high of a profile for it to be receiving this kind of treatment. To any admin who decides to follow up, I'd request that you try to look through the various previous discussions and then protect the article in a state that reflects the consensus achieved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Tasc0

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to propose a community ban of Tasc0 (talk · contribs). He repeatedly makes flagrant personal attacks. He was indefinitely blocked in February for this horrific threat. Fred Bauder, after talking with him, was willing to give him a second chance. Anetode (talk · contribs) blocked him for incivility on June 10, but after Tasc0 promised to stop making derogatory comments, Anetode unblocked him. Following this edit summary, Anetode reinstated the block and Tasc0 replied with yet another personal attack. His threat to Ronnotel is about the most horrific I had ever seen on Wikipedia and he probably should have been banned indefinitely after that. I think he has sufficiently demonstrated no willingness to change and it is now time to reinstate the indefinite block and consider him to be community banned. --B (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - It was very generous of Anetode to allow this person a second chance after the horrific derogatory marks he made initially, and it appears he has not learned. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why was this person ever, ever unblocked after that first comment? Wow. Endorse ban Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I would like to know what he said to Fred Bauder. And what he has said to get himself unblocked other times. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's my recollection of events. Initially, Ronnotel had protected Tasc0's talk page. I unprotected it to facilitate communication. At the time, I knew Tasc0 to be a good faith user and thought (although I now believe I was in error) that this comment was way out of character for him. I encouraged him to apologize for his threat and said that if he would do so, it would open the door to reconsidering the indefinite block at some point in the very distant future (something well over a month). Tasc0 was only interested in lawyering over the block (saying that Ronnotel shouldn't have blocked him) and not at all interested in apologizing. He demonstrated to me no recognition that he alone was responsible for his conduct and the consequences. You can see his talk page at that point in time here. I had decided that there wasn't anything to pursue since he was more interested in going after Ronnotel than he was in apologizing. Where I left it off was informing him that he obviously wasn't getting it - neither I nor anyone else was interested in arguing over who should block him. He made a horrible threat and that was the only issue. I left off by informing him of his avenue for appeal to the arbitration committee. A few days later, Fred Bauder reduced the block to a month, so I assume he contacted the arbs directly. --B (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. I see he's now blocked for 3 months -- that should be extended to indefinite. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wikipedia does not need users with that bad of an attitude. —Travis^talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite ban. Looking at his talk page history and block log, he's been given too many chances to improve his behavior, none of which he's taken us up on. His conduct before, during, and after each block is atrocious, and whatever he said to get his indefinite block reduced, I highly doubt it's going to work again. We don't need editors who can't work with others politely. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that there are other ways we can deal with these kinds of personal attacks. Instead of banning, you first give a warning and then when the personal attacks continue you simply tag the user page and the talk page of the user with a text that says that this user cannot control himself and may engage in personal attacks and give the links to all the personal attacks. The user page must then be protected, of course.

What matters is that editors on wikipedia know what to expect. Just like in real life, a child needs to learn that not all creatures are the same: people are different from dogs and cats and they in turn are different from lions, crockodiles and snakes. That doesn't mean that we cannot engage with these animals or that we have to kill them all. It just means that you need to be prepared.

For the tagged users, it means that they will have to live with the nameing and shaming. The only way for them to get rehabilitated is by showing that they can abstain from personal attacks for a long period. Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Ronnotel (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Months is more than enough for saying "stalking ass." Yes that analrape retarded kids bit was very incivil and jerkish, but if he wasn't indef banned for that, you can't go back and punish him for it now. 3 months is ok, 6 months is good, any more than that is punitive imho. Beam 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a ban for saying "stalking ass". It's a ban for the cumulative conduct of this user. Think about Marcus Vick. Prior to his dismissal from Tech, he stomped on the leg of an opposing player. The school had decided to suspend him for two games and Frank Beamer was on his way to deliver that message. Then, it came out, because some people on a UVA message board with nothing better to do were searching police reports, that he had gotten a speeding ticket while driving with a license that had been suspended on a technicality. The school decided instead to simply dismiss him from the football team. So was Marcus Vick dismissed from Virginia Tech for a speeding ticket? No. He was dismissed for the his cumulative conduct over his time there - the speeding ticket was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Similarly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. We have given this user repeated "second chances" and with this comment, he continues to demonstrate a lack of awareness that the consequences of his actions are HIS OWN FAULT, not the fault of the admin that blocks him. There just isn't much to work with here. --B (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

Unresolved

Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. FCYTravis (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. FCYTravis (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. FCYTravis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. FCYTravis (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, WP:DRV is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called Bernard Montgomery a pederast, for God's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Wikipedia policies. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---> adding {{fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. Banjeboi 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is not reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the article's talk page about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at DRV if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to WP:BLP and WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat-type at DTV transition

Some person from multiple IPs in the 76.192.0.0/10 range has been inserting "Big Brother"-type ranting into DTV transition: [117] [118] [119]. I'd rather it not be handled with semi-protection; we've had decent contributions to the article from other IPs.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will a couple of weeks semiprotection help? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  user specifically requests the page not to be semi-protected given the good natured edits by other IPs. The only thing that can be done is WP:RBI, or a range block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block[120] for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[121] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[122][123][124][125][126] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)