Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.174.46.42 (talk) at 16:52, 11 November 2008 (→Continued problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Disruptive school project?

    Articles in need of review after editing (in either 2007 or 2008) by students of Dr Graham Meikle at the Department of Media at Macquarie University

    I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

    If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

    I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Wikipedia:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Wikipedia as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerenetalk 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up. The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Identification

    The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

    Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.

    It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Wikipedia. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerenetalk 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Wikipedia account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerenetalk 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch T 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerenetalk 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch T 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch T 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerenetalk 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch T 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable. I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerenetalk 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe they'd better slow down the emphasis on being "innovative" and start teaching some of their students to write coherently. I cleaned up two of the articles so far, and the writing style was positively ghastly. Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm engaged in an interesting e-mail conversation with Dr. Meikle, but I have not yet heard back from the current course instructor. Perhaps we have an Australian editor who can call? Avruch T 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am John Scannell, and I am the convenor of the subject (MAS229) that has made life difficult for some of you. First of all, I do apologise for the inconvenience, and yes, if you have to correspond about this "incident" - then don't direct your correspondence to Graham Meikle, but to me. I am now the convenor of the course, and quite frankly had no idea that this project would be considered so disruptive. As someone who values Wikipedia, I did not realise that the actions of the students would have created such a controversy. Yes, I did take part in the project again this year, and yes, I was aware of the problems of last year. At the beginning of the semester, I proposed that we should create our own Wiki, so as not to raise the ire of Wikipedia again in 2008. However, after consultation with peers and open source advocates, I thought that what we were doing was entirely within the spirit of open collaboration? My predecessor, Dr. Meikle, and myself both did our best to advise the students to treat their editing with appropriate care and concision as to make valuable contributions to a valuable resource. With the problems of last year in mind, I told them to act responsibly, and to put "quality" over "quantity", don't go in and "slash and burn", make the most appopriate edits etc...I can assure you that, as best I could, I tried to steer them in the right way. Of course, given the fact that I have 100 odd students, its hard for me to do anything else but hope they act on my advice. That said, as someone who has a very strong interest in valourising the contributions to open source culture, via Linux, via Wikipedia et al, I am somewhat shocked that contributions made in good faith would attract such derision. Yes, I can understand that many students, will only contribute to Wikipedia for this subject and may never contribute again. One hopes, that some will have enjoyed this exercise to the extent that they might be valued contributors in the future. The success of the project is based on collaboration, no? Am I being too naive here? I know that doesn't mean that its a free for all...and if the students haven't acted appropriately, I will sort them out, personally. However, I think you know, as well as I, that open source can also have its element of "exclusivity", and that newcomers need to pay their dues etc, before getting their hands dirty...which is understandable in some respects, but on the other side of the coin, only a very small number of these students had ever contemplated contributing to an open source project and this project is undertaken with the hope that some of them will value the experience enough to contribute in the future... If some of the writing is "positively ghastly", then it is constructive peer review that can assist them in becoming better writers. I mean, come on, there is poor writing all over Wikipedia. Again, I'm not happy about this...but none of them were acting unethically, none of them were trying to do anything other than contribute to the project AS BEST THEY CAN. So basically, what do you want to do here, keep it egalitarian, or not? Chances are, that after two years of problems surrounding this assignment, that I, personally, WON'T attempt it again. So there you go, that's 100 potential contributors (even if only a small percentage will contribute again) that you've lost. The point is, that every potential contributor has to start somewhere. You did, right? --Scannell229 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also add that I am so very grateful to those who DO expend so much time and effort in contributing to Wikipedia. Your comments, for better or worse, are actually very instructive indeed, and I will be making use of them when MAS229 reconvenes in the next couple of days. FYI, The students won't be making any further entries. The assignment is now over. --Scannell229 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One small comment: If you're going to conduct such a large scale "experiment" or "project" on Wikipedia, you should notify people on Wikipedia, if only out of common courtesy. Enigma message 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to phrase this a bit more diplomatically, but frankly I don't believe there's a diplomatic way to make this point: It's not the job of the Wikipedia community to teach college students how to write. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, there certainly is "bad writing all over Wikipedia"--and we generally deal with that when we find it--but those bad writers are here under their own steam; they weren't told by an authority figure that they HAD to edit Wikipedia. Since you are the one who told them to do that, it's incumbent upon you to make sure their writing quality is up to snuff. If, when I was a teacher, I had created an assignment like this, I would have copied the relevant articles into an offline space, had the students make their initial edits, and vetted those edits, both for prose style and for adherence to WP policy, BEFORE allowing them to add their desired content to live article-space. Yes, that would have been a lot of work to do with a group of 100 students; however, that work has now been handed over, in the form of cleanup on dozens of articles, to the larger community of Wikipedia editors. In theory, the task you assigned your students is laudable; however, I feel that neither the potential pitfalls, nor the means of avoiding them, were thought through completely. Your assignment considered the aims of your course and of the students taking it; however, it doesn't quite seem that anyone considered whether those aims meshed with the more-general aims of Wikipedia. Since the assignment is now over, the issues raised here are now moot, but please consider them while developing similar tasks in the future. Thank you. GJC You were saying? 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that puts it very well. As a community we are pretty obliging, and if we're forewarned about this sort of thing we're only too happy to help out. We've had some incredibly successful academic projects, (see WP:MMM, WP:NRG and WP:WAPB; latter two still ongoing) but they've only worked so well because they were designed to integrate with Wikipedia's editing and article policies, and the teachers and lecturers concerned ensured both they and their students were operating together with the Wikipedia community. Our purpose here, as GJC has said, is to build an encyclopedia; advocating an open-source philosophy is almost an incidental by-product. Wikipedia can be successfully used as a educational tool (as shown by the projects I've mentioned above) but only in very specific ways, and only as long as an improvement in article content - in line with Wikipedia policies - is the result. We have no wish to deter you from contributing in the future, but please consider following the advice on User:Jbmurray/Advice and some of the other links hereabouts, and giving us some warning next time ;) EyeSerenetalk 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consider me admonished. This was the first time that I took over this course project, so there are things that I would absolutely do differently if I had a chance to do it again. At least I now know who to liase with! Again, I apologise for any disruption to your work.--Scannell229 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that while zealous moderation has its advantages, in this case it's perhaps a little too zealous. I've no doubt that the majority of the information added by MAS229 students was largely unnecessary - one of the problems with assigning students a compulsory editing task on a small range of subjects - but there may have been, in the spirit of Wikipedia, valuable additions made to subjects. While it's unfortunate the task of clean-up falls to Wikipedia's editors, is this not just a drop in the proverbial ocean of edits made per day? I don't know why this rated several pages of discussion - apart from the fact that all students had names ending in 214 or 229, there would be no way of knowing whether this was a class project or a series of independent edits. This doesn't sit particularly well with the collaborative, open-source nature of Wikipedia in my opinion.--CsimpsonMAS229 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This isn't really zealous moderation. Some volunteers (That's all we are here) notices a trend in article editing and connected the dots. We normally welcome school projects but since the people editing in them are not able to learn how wikipedia works at their own pace we hope to catch large groups before they start down a particular path. The points made above about students being compelled to write something versus volunteers adding a note here and there is instrumental. I am not constrained by a course assignment in my editing. Consequently, I am not compelled to edit History of the Australian Army, a subject of which I know little, and add possibly unhelpful changes. Also, since there is only one of me, the volume of changes I can make is small. For a class of a dozen or more students, the volume of changes they may make is large. And since it the changes they make are in good faith, we can't just (and editors would never be expected to) revert the changes on sight. Each one has to be looked at and determine if it can be modified to improve the article. Again, these are volunteers doing this with limited time and varied interest. When faced with a project like this one, it can be hard to deal with the changes made without coming to a noticeboard like this one. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal?

    I realise that a formal proposal should go elsewhere but it might be opportune to float it briefly here first:

    Perhaps the Create account page could have one more field as follows:

    Is this account being created as part of an organised study or training activity: Yes/No.

    If No then there is no difference form now.

    If Yes then a form is presented asking for such things as Name/identifier of course, organising institution, course supervisor's wiki account. A user page for the new account is template preloaded with the above wiki linked details, with a reading list of instructions, guidelines and essays on wikipedia as the subject of a course.

    While this might not eliminate all such problems, it might stop the vast majority of them.

    Peet Ern (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiptoety's block of user:Boodlesthecat

    Tiptoety blocked Boodles for two weeks, claiming that he violated his self-imposed 1RR restriction. The "violation" at hand was the reinsertion of info removed by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) over an hour after removing an in-line tag placed by Piotrus (talk · contribs).

    Assuming there was 1RR violation, the two week block is extreme. A tag removal followed an hour later by a reinsertion of content is not in the spirit of edit warring.

    But more importantly, there was no 1RR violation. Some Background: There is this huge arbitration case going on in which a major part of the issues there are the alleged tag-teaming of Polish nationals who are trying to whitewash alleged Polish anti-semitism. This is not the place to rehash these issues. But what's important about this arbitration is that in the original self-imposed 1RR agreed to by Boodles - which is the basis for this block - the restrictions were limited to reverts of neutral editors. This is the relevant discussion at ANI:

    But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ironically enough, it was Tiptoey that agreed to the "neutral editor" condition. The block of Boodles is based on the assumption that the second revert was a revert of a "neutral editor". However, this is clearly not the case. The condition was established for this very situation, a situation in which one of the alleged tag-teamers reverts to version that is in agreeance with the other tag-teamer. Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) which were the two editors that were reverted by Boodles are accused of tag-teaming. Thus, per the above discussion, they were explicitly excluded from the 1RR restrictions imposed unto Boodles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Yes, there is a huge arbcom, but concerned mostly with other things. Boodlesthecat has edit warred and clearly broken (R1: [1] [2]; R2: [3] [4]) the 1RR restriction (which is why his unblock request has been declined three times today - and since when we allow a user to ask for an unblock three times within three hours anyway? what is it, unblock roulette? - and this is why Tip, who has designed the 1RR in the first place, enforced in the way he did), nobody else has done anything wrong (I have not reverted there, and Poeticbent is not close to 3RR and not under any restriction, and his involvement there, - as the creator of the article - is quite understandable, no conspiracy theories needed to explain it). Not surprisingly, the ArbCom member Kirill has proposed the following findings: Boodlesthecat banned as well as There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any of the off-wiki editing coordination that occurred in this case. I certainly resent the accusations of tag teaming / meatpuppetry; they are unprovable slander in any case, and not something I'd expect from another admin (some may want to brush up on AGF and similar policies, and concentrate on dealing with disruptive users, not defending them - and for who is a disruptive user here, just look at Boodlesthecat's block log). If Brewcrewer wants to look into some serious issues, why not check this BLP report, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus might also want to note that ArbCom member Kirill has also proposed that Piotrus shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice, and particularly in avoiding further involvement in edit-warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I hoped would not happen here - a rehashing of the arbitration case. The only issue here is whether Boodles violated the 1RR restrictions. He did not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1RR restriction aside, there was clearly edit warring going on beyond or right at the limit of normal policy. The edit warring was not sterile - there was talk page discussion - but none of the parties did the right thing and used self-restraint on the article while discussing to consensus on talk.
    Piotr and Poeticbent deserve slaps on the wrist and the usual "Please stop that and don't do it again". Boodles, with significant history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, could legitimately be blocked for it, though I would personally have treated all three equally in the name of fairness.
    I see no reason to overturn the block. A 1 RR restriction with some exceptions is not a license to edit-war the exceptions. It's a notification that someone has been edit warring more than usual and is discouraged from doing it much more if at all. Asking to overturn this on the technicality is missing the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A technicality is the only basis for this block. If you look closely at the edit history of the article you will see that most of Boodles edits were accepted. The edit warring, although not acceptable, fell far short of the 3RR standard. The only way to get a block in was though the 1RR technicality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He added a controversial para, removed a tag I added to it, and then restored the para after Poeticbent removed it. This is no technicality - this is pure edit warring to one's version, and his edits are far from "accepted" (nobody has reverted to his version).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He made plenty of other edits besides for the reinsertion of a paragraph (that was removed sans discussion). In any case, at most, he's only halfway toward a 3rr. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is disputing his minor edits, and he is on 1RR restriction, so being halfway towards a 3RR... QED, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! The 1RR restriction is inapplicable here because none of the editors involved were "neutral" as defined in the 1RR agreement. The only legit way to block him is through 3RR, which he does not meet in this case. It is most blatantly wrong to establish specific rules for people and then just block them anyway despite their abidance with the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under a misconception - 3RR is not an entitlement that one may revert three times before there's a problem. 3RR is a bright line in the sand that you shall not go past this limit, and behavior short of 3RR may well constitute edit warring, which is the practice that we actually block for. People who edit war over and over again may be blocked for edit warring before they reach 3 reverts. Anyone who's been put under a 1RR restriction should know better and just avoid doing it.
    We gave the guy very strict and very specific rules regarding reverts. He abides by those very strict rules, and then we block him anyway. That is wrong under any moral standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating myself, but... Edit warring is prohibited and 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times. See Wikipedia:3RR#Not an entitlement which specifically states:
    The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.
    The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
    Please don't reply in all-bold. It is condescending and thus uncivil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only part that's bold is the quote from policy, and only to distinguish it from my comment. This is used elsewhere. I had to include more of the policy as a quote, as essentially all of that policy section was directly relevant... The size of the bold block is therefore perhaps unfortunately unusually large. But I didn't use bold emphasis other than for typographical reasons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People who have previously been blocked for edit warring or 3RR violations, especially those under special restrictions such as a 1RR restriction, must not push the limit by edit warring. The behavior is not OK. Whether they specifically violate their additional restrictions or not, the behavior is prohibited. People should not do it on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note: Piotr complained on my talk page that I incorrectly characterized his edits in my first comment above. On review, he's correct, he didn't participate in edit warring on the article. He only made one edit after the point that the edit warring began, and that was a harmless wikilink not involved in the back and forth others were doing. My apologies for the mischaracterization... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is on 1RR, he can be blocked for it, otherwise we wouldn't bother issuing it in the first place. 1RR are simple creatures: if you revert more than once, you break them. Boody is not to revert on articles I edit more than 1RR (and vice versa), not counting tiny stylistical/MOS changes and other AGF exceptions - of which removing a tag and restoring a controversial para are not. It doesn't matter whom he reverts, or what (per WP:3RR. Revert is a revert - again, those are pretty simple creatures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He never reverted you more then once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? He reverted somebody else, 1+1=2. Perhaps you are laboring under a miscomprehension: Boodlesthecat 1RR restriction is not limited to reverting me, I am the one who triggers it: as long as we are editing the same article, we are not to revert anybody more than once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "anybody" must be a neutral editor. I am sorry if I was no being clear enough, but the "neutral" aspect is the whole point. The "neutral" condition was established because of the concern (I have no opinion about its legitimacy) that since Polish editors are tag-teaming, a 1RR scheme would result in an unfair disadvantage to Boodles. The "neutral" condition was specificaly created for a situation like this - you add, Boodles reverts, an alleged tag-teamer adds, Boodles revets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid you are mistaken (and consider for a moment that Tip who created this restriction reviewed this case and carried it out). The restriction was created to stop Boodlesthecat from edit warring (see his block record). The word neutral was used without much thought and not defined, and was clarifed below - in the fragment you cite - by Tip himnself as random, which fits the situation better (because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder). If admins involved in 1RR had to review and argue who is neutral and who is not, this would be unenforceable (hence it is never an issue on ANI/3RR). The 1RR restriction had and has nothing to do with any tag team accusations. ArbCom, although not done, indicates (via the proposed finding I cited above) that arbitrators have not found any evidence form Polish editors tag teaming, and I would ask you not to repeat such slanderous, bad faithed accusations. If you have proof that Poeticbent and I are part of a tag team, please present your evidence in the arbcom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically stated earlier that I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations. But whether they are true or not, they were the basis of the "neutral editor condition" in the 1RR agreement - the basis for this block - so we have no choice but to deal with it. Please see the part of the previous ANI discussion that I copy and pasted above. From the discussion and subsequent agreement is it clear that the editors that are part of the tag-team accusations are not considered random and neutral for 1RR purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is putting an argument on its head. Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic: 1) 1RR is designed to prevent edit warring 2) 1RR if applied globally to all reverts by a user prone to edit warring prevents edit warring 3) 1RR if applied to only reverts of one specific user is unlikely to prevent edit warring between the user prone to edit warring and other users. Again: the restriction means we are not supposed to revert anybody on affected articles more than once per day, there is no discussion of "but I thought he was tag teaming with him", which could excuse ALL reverts and make the 1RR restrictions completely pointless. Oh, and don't forget that for your argument to be valid you have to prove I was tag teaming with Poeticbent - and since you said yourself "I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations", what's the point of this discussion? Excuse me, but I am not a fan of wikilawyering over a tiny technicality, when the big picture is obvious (1RR was designed to stop an estabilished edit warrior and was implemented when 1RR was broken, case closed).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only those that are part of the tag-team accusations, which if I'm not mistaken is around 5 editors and includes Poeticbent , are considered non-neutral for purposes of the 1RR rule. But in response to your general point, I understand that, rules aside, there should never be a spirit of edit-warring. However, in this situation, where we are dealing with an editor who is under an extreme and strict 1RR standard, it is immoral and wrong to use the very strict rule which he agreed to abide by as the basis for his block when he never broke the rule. I am turning in for the night so I won't see any replies. Good night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How come, with all these unsubstantiated ArbCom accusations repeated against me by Brewcrewer in defence of Boodlesthecat above, nobody but Piotrus cared to let me know about this discussion at its final stage. I wrote the article which took days of painstaking effort. Immediately, I was faced with a barrage of attacks that went on for days. Boodlesthecat tried to destroy my 32 KB creation in a maddening spree that began with a request for speedy deletion and claims of copyvio based on a meagre few words from the source. And now, you say I was tag-teaming? Based on what proof? His empty claims? Boodlesthecat has been slandering people for months. And, speaking of 1RR, who is that mysterious neutral editor in this instance, a Martian from planet Mars? How would you feel, if your fresh new article was being defaced with a bunch of loaded messages based in ethno-specific spin? 1RR, 2RR or 3RR, I don't care about Boodlesthecat's agreement reached with Piotrus, or its technicalities. What I care about is a nightmare he's put me through already. --Poeticbent talk 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear by now that

    1. Boodlesthecat did not technically violate his 1RR restriction.
    2. If he was blocked simply for edit-warring, then so to should his opponents have been blocked for edit-warring.
    3. A two week block is, in any event, an extraordinarily long block.

    Can someone please present a rationale why his block should not be lifted at this point? He has already served 30 hours of a technically invalid block. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But he did violate it. He made 2 rather clear reverts of the same content within a ~2 hour period. If you are thinking that he did not violate it because the other party who reverted was not "neutral" enough is not really applicable here. Where is there actual evidence to support the claims that these two users are tag teaming? And whether it was a user who supported Piotru's view or not, it does not make it alright for Boodles to simply revert it. Just because Poeticbent makes a edit/revert does not mean it is a open door for Boodles to revert that edit. Tiptoety talk 05:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to see what Jayjg's response is to this - merely saying it is technically invalid doesn't make it invalid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying it was technically invalid means that one should give Boodlesthecat more leeway, as he no doubt reverted Poeticbent under the quite accurate view that he was in no way a "neutral third party". I've clarified further on Tiptoety's talk page. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The original conditions that you and Boodles agree upon were based on the accused tag-teamers, not proven tag-teamers. When you made the agreement a month ago there was no proof that they were tag teamers, yet you agreed that alleged non-neutral tag-teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Now you want proof that they are tag teamers?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no that was not my intention. I never specified "accused tag teamers" I just said "neutral third party", so that is clearly open to interpretation. Either way, I have offered to allow a uninvolved admin unblock if they see fit on my talk page, I would appreciate if someone less involved would mind reviewing this. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have not been your intention, but what you said was in direct response to Malik Shabazz's concern what he explicitly called "tag team"'s. A most reasonable understanding of the colloquy and its subsequent 1RR agreement is that the accused tag teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Anyway, kudos to you for offering another admin to review this block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And so three admins have reviewed the block after three requests of unblock by Boodlesthecat on his talk, and they upheld it. Further, there is certainly no consensus or even slight majority for unblock here. And given his history of blocks, longer and longer blocks are fully justifiable - particularly as he is not showing any remorse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, I wonder if your continued defense of Boodlesthecat is because you think he did nothing wrong - or because you support his content POV? After all, you have often reverted to his version and supported him on talk. At the very least, forgive me for not treating your input here as completly neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If your question is "Do you share Boodlesthecat's concerns that a number of members of the Portal:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia notice board, supported by User:Piotrus, are busy inserting into a series of articles the victim blaming POV that Polish antisemitism was caused by the Jews themselves, using dubious, revisionist, extremist, and in some cases out-right antisemitic sources, and tag-teaming anyone who attempts to bring the articles into line with policy?", then I would have to answer "Yes, like a number of editors, I am concerned about this." Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed this entire issue here and on Tiptoety's talk page. On the one hand Boodlesthecat was edit warring. On the other hand, so were his opponents, and it is not completely clear whether he broke his 1RR restriction or not. As the blocking admin has said he would not object if an uninvolved admin unblocked, and as Boodlesthecat has already been blocked for 3 days, and indicated he will be more careful in his editing, I am unblocking. I recommend that both sides in this be very careful about edit warring here. Khoikhoi 02:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good. Thanks Khoikhoi, I just hope we are not right back here in a few weeks (though I do not have high hopes) :-/ Tiptoety talk 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review this case

    I don't know what to do. There is a single-purpose account user who is active solely on cold fusion named User:Pcarbonn. We know that he is a partner in a company that is trying to sell thin-film technology to cold fusion researchers and is hoping to promote cold fusion here on Wikipedia. How do I know this? Well, for one, he says as much on his user page and here off-wiki. I've filed conflict-of-interest reports, but the board seems to think that we should refer it to administrator review. So I ask someone to review this case. Should User:Pcarbonn be as active as he is in trying to advance cold fusion here on Wikipedia? What should we do about it?

    ScienceApologist (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is he doing some advertising, astroturfing or such? If not, COI in mind, experts are welcome to contribute on subjects of their interest (and expertise). If an expert contributes to a subject he is an expert on, it's not a problem as long as he adheres to NPOV, V and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is definitely POV-pushing a pro-cold fusion viewpoint which, of course, is in his own best interest considering that his company would benefit if people began to take this idea seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the evidence that Pcarbonn stands to benefit or not from the content of the Cold fusion article? I would also like to know what ScienceApologist means by his recent strong words toward the most recent content mediator of the article. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the history of cold fusion is extremely contentious. Most of the people who are not cold fusion advocates editing that page thinks he is problematic and should be removed. An example would be this comment by User:Kirk shanahan (someone whom Pcarbonn derides personally -- and falsely, I might add -- on his user page), an expert in cold fusion, who writes the following: [5]. I should note that Shanahan has expressed that he has felt almost hounded off Wikipedia due to Pcarbonn's tendentious and disruptive gaming of Wikipedia conventions. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that User:Kirk shanahan (contribs) continues to contribute to Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion on a regular basis. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think blocking is a bit premature. There is some history that might stand to be reviewed first, I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage people to please review the history. I have a very hard time getting anyone willing to do this. Lar, do you want to review it for us? I'm not a big fan of people asking for a "review" and then not being willing to do it themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. WP:AE is the appropriate place to go. The way you get an administrator to review the history is if you post a list of policies violated with a few sample diffs. Jehochman Talk 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Goddamn it, why can't we review it here? If I file a Pseudoscience claim, I am going to have to argue for proper jurisdiction over there since cold fusion is probably pathological science and not pseudoscience. I'm tired of being subjected to the bureaucratic runaround. I've been complaining about this for a long time and I just want someone to look over it carefully. There seem to be some outsiders here who are willing to do this. I've provided diffs here. Isn't that enough? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You already filed a report at WP:COIN. Could you link to that please. There are administrators who patrol that board. In what way is this not forum shopping? If you need more admins, post a request asking for help. Don't start a new discussion. Jehochman Talk 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the link. I was under the impression that the COIN result that YOU yourself wrote was that it wasn't a COI issue. I interpret that to mean that it should be brought up somewhere else. So if I'm forum shopping, it's because I'm following your instructions. (And now you're telling me to go to yet ANOTHER forum.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn is certainly relevant. And the time-line on his userpage would seem to provide his version of the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That timeline in his userpage is interesting. I found this line September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. to be particularly so. Somehow Pcarbonn feels it's acceptable for someone who's financially invested in a particular POV for an article, or an "expert" to edit it - but not this guy? After reviewing quite a few of Pcarbonn's contributions, he's clearly an SPA and one with a substantial conflict in editing as there is the possibility of real personal gain by inserting his POV in the article. Looking at the substance of the material he's added to the article, he does appear to strongly push a particular viewpoint and solely insert content favorable to that view. I'm pretty confused by the previous COI threads where editors said "well, as long as he plays by the rules" - since when is long term POV pushing directly related to one's own interests "playing by the rules"? I see no reason that Pcarbonn should be editing any article related to cold fusion. Shell babelfish 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, to expand, the "financial investment" is something which troubles me greatly but for some reason didn't fly on COI. I don't know why. I had another cold fusion advocate angrily retort that my evidence that he had a financial stake in cold fusion was basically made out of whole-cloth (User talk:ScienceApologist#COI evidence) and then decided to request that I stop editing cold fusion altogether (User talk:ScienceApologist#Request for a voluntary topic ban) since he didn't like the fact that I pointed out that the company in which Pcarbonn is involved makes products used in various cold fusion advocates' claims. Just another day in the life.... ScienceApologist (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    [outdent]So topic ban him. ~ L'Aquatique! [talk/stats] 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The accusations of SA are baseless. I don't have any share in MEMS Instruments. MEMS Instruments has no interest in cold fusion, and SA has not provided any evidence to the contrary. In any case, SA has not demonstrated any wrong behavior of my part. I have always provided reliable sources in support of my edits, and I have written for the enemy. This is a content dispute, and several other editors have the same opinion as mine. Content dispute are not resolved by ejecting users, but by abiding to WP policies and mediation. These policies have worked in the past, and I have always respected them. I'm ready to go to mediation again if needed to resolve this content dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the accusation of Single purpose account, Sa must have not looked. I invented the To-do list mechanism, and I have written 2 user scripts recently [6][7]. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Shanahan, I objected about him writing 4 paragraphs about his own papers on cold fusion. I did not object to his contributing to other parts of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Clear COI, POV editing, and an uncivil attitude. It'll also show whether he's an SPA or not. Verbal chat 10:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy and in any case doesn't indicate that SPA's aren't allowed. Pcarbonn does not edit tendentiously, but rather seeks consensus on the talk page and cites reliable sources. That SA happens to disagree with Pcarbonn's POV is not sufficient to disqualify him from editing the page. Ronnotel (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose - I disapprove of ScienceApologist's use of Wikipedia's procedural tactics to impose his point of view and censor others', because he has also tried to use them on me. I strongly support his efforts, for example, on homeopathy, but in the case of cold fusion the peer-reviewed scientific literature is clear: There is still a controversy and it is entirely premature to scrub the article (and its introduction) of subject matter which varies from ScienceApologist's absolutist tendencies. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not votes for banning. Please stop. WP:AE is that way. As I said above, you have a perfectly good arbitration case that can be used to topic ban somebody who causes disruption. Starting a lengthy thread here just to get lots of attention is not being fair to the user at all. Even if they ultimately need to be banned, we should still treat them fairly. Whipping up a frenzy on ANI is not the way to do this. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, can you explain what difference it makes whether this shows up on AE or here? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AE is the place to get arbitration decisions enforced. What you are doing here is creating a big fuss for no reason. You're duplicating a discussion that was already held at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor where you were warned about the risks of speculating on the real world identity and activities of other editors. If there is actual disruption, please go to WP:AE with diffs in hand and make your request. That board is watched by administrators with the most experience in these matters. You'll get the most accurate result there with the least fuss. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jehochman. I encourage everybody to have a hard look at the harrassment behavior of SA towards me. How come that he is the only one to come after me ? I have been judged, and cleared, about possible COI. There is a principle in law that someone not be judged several times for the same issue. It should apply on WP too. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to take this opportunity to officially "speculate" that when User:Pcarbonn writes Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle he is not lying about his identity. So... do I get blocked for outing an individual now? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pcarbonn is an aggressive PoV pushing editor who acts uncivilly. In a recent post PCarbonn mentions that some of his edits had been made because of a 'need' to harass SA. Wikipedia does not need editors who feel the need to harass those who disagree with them. --Noren (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is requested here? If you want a block for harassment, post diffs. If you want a topic ban, your best bet is to use the arbitration case. I don't see a community topic ban materializing. Sleuthing and making remarks about editors' real world activities are discouraged. Normally a COI case happens when an editor writes about themselves or their company. Writing in a biased way about a subject, such as cold fusion, can be dealt with as a violation of NPOV. It is not COI. Therefore, talk about identity is not helpful. In the present case, I have not seen a sufficient weight of diffs to support a block or ban. They might exist, but those advocating for sanctions need to dig them up. Don't come here with conclusory assertions, please. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to have a reasonable community ban discussion on-going here. Since a recent rfc just said that Cold Fusion does not equal Pseudoscience, I think it would be a slap in the face to tell the community it was wrong and decide to set sanctions under that case anyways. If you don't want to participate in this discussion or look through the contribs yourself, that's up to you, but please stop trying to derail the discussion or move it elsewhere. Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear, I would strongly support a topic ban and suggest starting it at 6 months - this gives him time to show he's not here only for that purpose and to better learn how NPOV works. Shell babelfish 19:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be a far more reasonable and balanced discussion if we were also considering whether ScienceApologist's use of forum shopping in raising the same issue here after it had been resolved elsewhere is also grounds for a topic ban. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if SA had brought up an NPOV or SPA issue on a COI noticeboard (alphabet soup!) he probably would have rightly been told that wasn't the correct venue. Shell babelfish 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is essentially what happened. Shell, can you link to the RFC that said Cold Fusion is not Pseudoscience. If SA had come here and disclosed the COIN thread we already had, and pointed out the RFC that says this topic isn't under pseudoscience, I would not have objected. It also would have been good form to post diffs of the poor conduct at the outset. Perhaps we should close this thread and start over with all the relevant facts at WP:AN. If you read the header, you will see that is the recommended place for ban discussions. Stuff on ANI tends to get quickly archived. AN is slower moving, better for that sort of discussion. Jehochman Talk 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link to the RfC on CF as pseudoscience. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, the relevant link is Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. The matter has already been to mediation, the COIN thread closed weeks ago, and it only takes a scroll down Pcarbonn's main user page to find an articulate argument against AE. Rather than drag out this long thread even further with more quibbles over venue and disclosure, suggest either refocusing attention to the main issues at hand or yielding the discussion to those who do. DurovaCharge! 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that mediation resulted in Cold Fusion being presented as a valid scientific controversy (see here. My edits are perfectly in line with the results of the mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support a block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA and Verbal.--OMCV (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Executive summary

    A request was made to look into the situation of a particular user, User:Pcarbonn who has been active on cold fusion for some time in strident advocacy of the subject as a legitimate scientific enterprise, somewhat in contradiction to the mainstream consensus on the matter as illustrated by most summaries of the subject in reliable sources. The user, it was pointed out, has a company which may directly benefit from cold fusion promotion and the user has written works outside of Wikipedia calling attention to his ability to get cold fusion portrayed in a positive light on Wikipedia, in seeming defiance of WP:NPOV. Conflicts between this user and those wanting to present the mainstream, majority opinion of the scientific community that cold fusion is essentially bunk have been unrelenting, and attempts at dispute resolution often were fabulously unsuccessful. Since his involvement with the article, the quality of the article has steadily decreased from its former FA status. It will be delisted from GA any day now. He is not without his supporters (namely User:Ronnotel and User:IwRnHaA) who are both fellow cold fusion promoters that actively work to POV-push pro-cold fusion perspectives both on and off Wikipedia. He has worked to marginalize and push off people who disagree with his position in defiance of WP:OWN. He does not do any work on Wikipedia outside of cold fusion.

    Some questioned whether this was the right venue to discuss sanctions on this particular editor. Consensus seems to be that this is as appropriate a venue as any.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you, or somebody else, please post a concise list of diffs showing what you are asserting? Jehochman Talk 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, the most significant diff is that between Wikipedia and Britannica on the topic of Cold Fusion. If that doesn't concern admins here, I'm not sure what will ... Vesal (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not interested in losing my sysop access for blocking or banning somebody on a whim. We need evidence to show that a sanction is needed. Take a look at User talk:Water Ionizer Research as an example of how to present evidence. Jehochman Talk 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jehochman. Indeed, Wikipedia is not an ochlocracy. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, unlike Pcarbonn here, I don't have a vested interest in this topic to spend hours assembling evidence. I wonder what drives ScienceApologist to even bother trying to make Wikipedia more in line with reputable reference works; but I admire his efforts. Vesal (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    diffs just from November

    I could provide more, but I'm not made of time. Notice too, that there is a lot of evidence in my opening statement. Note that these all add up to considerable evidence that POV-pushing and soapboxing is going on at cold fusion by Pcarbonn.

    Misusing talk pages by pontificating
    1. [8] (Note that this diff also includes comments to the effect that Google Scholar should not be used to judge the prominence of a cold fusion promoter since he wrote a book that received a favorable review from the fringe Journal of Scientific Exploration. Yikes!)
    2. [9]
    Sourcing to NewEnergyTimes (where he was published congratulating himself on getting Wikipedia to promote cold fusion) after consensus was it is not reliable
    1. [10]
    Falsely characterizing sources
    1. As government reports: [11]
    2. as supporting the existence of a "scientific controversy" [12]
    3. claiming references say scientists don't reject cold fusion when references in the article clearly say that: [13]
    4. claiming a differing level of acceptance than what is verified: [14]
    Misusing WP:WEASEL by means of Wikilawyering
    insisting 2/3 isn't really a "majority".
    1. [15]
    Violation of WP:UNDUE
    1. [16]

    ScienceApologist (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the above evidence. I get it, but I am not sure how many observers here will agree. Shall we temporarily ban Pcarbonn from editing Cold fusion?
    Also, is there an old version of this article which is much better quality than the current version? Is there any chance of conducting a content requests for comment and reverting back to a superior version? Jehochman Talk 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I'd prefer an indefinite ban of Pcarbonn from all articles related to cold fusion and keep that indefinitely. As to the other issue the article was at one point at FA. We could revert back to that version. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems logical, though we can't resolve that sort of content issue here. It would need to be discussed at the article talk page. I recommend a good discussion with a documented consensus. That way you greatly reduce the chance of edit warring. Perhaps Pcarbonn could be banned from cold fusion indefinitely. The editing does seem tendentious and frequently prone to violating neutral point of view. Jehochman Talk 04:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've done the reverting back to the FA version multiple times. The problem is that the FA version is, at this point, out-of-date (though not to the extent that many of the cold fusion promoters think it is). I think we should let the editors who are at the article see what they can do with what's currently there. I have some ideas and I know other editors there do as well. The FA version is a good jumping off point, but it's not well-referenced and there are some additional events that we should be discussing. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want to organize a FA drive, and then we'll see which accounts, if any, try to stonewall or violate content policies. I and others here can help resolve those sorts of problems. As for Pcarbonn, I hope some other administrator will make a decision. My hands are full at the moment. Jehochman Talk 06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's do that. I think a good way to start is by archiving all the current talk pages because they are full of circular argumentation and a lot of off-topic speculation. I've been unable to focus on much past the lead of the article for the last two months. I have to say that the lead is just about as good as it needs to be at this point. Two new popular-level books on the subject have just been published. One is skeptical and one is by a New Scientist tabloid writer. I think there may be an opportunity here to reposition the article as a fair description of the general ideas and principles and avoid the pedantic listing of cold fusion groups and back-and-forth regarding their calorimetry experiments. We need to regain control of the content from a reader's perspective instead of the current confrontational perspective. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to reply to SA's criticism:
    • Misusing talk pages by pontificating. That hardly justifies a topic ban.
    • Sourcing to New Energy Times: the URL was given for the convenience of readers. The article I reference actually comes from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, Surface Coating & Technologies.
    • characterizing a paper as a government report. The diff does not support that.
    • characterizing a source as supporting the existence of a controversy. SA has been constantly in denial of the well documented fact that the DOE 2004 panel concluded: "The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field"
    • "claiming references say scientists don't reject cold fusion when references in the article clearly say that". The reference say that scientists are skeptical, not that they reject the claim. Skepticism is a valid scientific attitude, rejection can only be done when something is falsified. Unlike polywater, This has not been the case with cold fusion. Again, the source do not say it has been rejected.
    • "claiming a differing level of acceptance than what is verified:" The level of acceptance can be determined by looking at the most reliable sources. I have provided plenty. SA has not provided any sources with the same parity of reliability. Half the DOE panel was somewhat convinced by the evidence of excess heat, and 1/3 by the evidence of nuclear reactions. SA has regularly denied this basic fact, claiming that it is POV-pushing.
    • "insisting 2/3 is not a majority". I did not say that. I said that the 1/3 deserved a place in the lead.
    Violation of WP:Undue. Again, the majority view was already presented in the lead ("In 2004, the US DOE organized another review panel which[...]found that the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions had not been demonstrated."). The 1/3 significant minority deserved a place too.
    Please don't be swayed by SA's aggressive, but unjustified, stance. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest we close this thread. It has grown quite long, which will discourage uninvolved editors from participating. SheffieldSteel has said they will review matters and consider starting a ban discussion at WP:AN, hopefully by presenting a concise summary of the facts and circumstances. SA, while your ideas for improving the article and editing environment are welcomed, a ban discussion started by a less involved party, such as SheffieldSteel, will probably be more likely to achieve a consensus. Pcarbonn, I recommend you look at your own editing with a critical eye and see if there is more you can do to comply with content policies and guidelines. To the extent you can identify any past mistakes and suggest ways to improve in the future, that may reduce the need for a ban. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Wilkes Booth and User:Arcayne

    A section near the end of the article on John Wilkes Booth has stirred some controversy. See Talk:John Wilkes Booth. In the spirit of cooperation, all involved have discussed possible compromises to problems with undue weight, Wp:Fringe, and WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. In an attempt to increase awareness of the discussion, I placed an appropriate tag here [[17]], in the section called Booth Escape Theories. The tag was removed by User:Arcayne on at least four occasions [[18]][[19]][[20]][[21]]. The last deletion include the deletion of other information as well. This user has a problem with the tag because, as he puts it, I am the only one who wants the tag. This is not true, since User:Unschool has agreed with the inclusion of the tag. Each deletion includes an edit summery that is not true. User:JGHowes displayed displeasure with the tag, since not all of the references in the section have a verifiability problem. I then placed an appropriate [unreliable source?] tag on only the citations in question. I did so here,[[22]]. That too was reverted here [[23]], and continuing to claim that I am the only one who wants this although the talk page says differant. My intention was to make other users aware that a discussion is ongoing, but it seems that one user does not want that to happen. On the talk page I have been accused of being, and I quote Fucking arrogant and rude[[24]] for placing the tag on the section. Even if I am wrong about the information, We should at least be able to place a tag on a section so that others will be aware of a discussion. Can anyone help?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, Jojhutton actually seeks to remove the entire section that discusses the (well-cited) conspiracy theories that Booth somehow escaped justice.
    Joj first tried to have any mention of the conspiracy theory purged from the Lead (edit-warring in that effort for almost a week). When that failed to find consensus, (s)he then turned to trying to have the section itself removed - ie., no section, no need for the Lead to mention it.
    Jojhutton has repeatedly tagged the section noting (in edit summary) that a "verifiability check" is ongoing - a quick check of the user's history indicate no such check existing. When asked to provide a link to this "check"; (s)he finally posted to the RS Noticeboard days later, There, his arguments claiming lack of verifiability have been dismissed by two different editors (neither of them myself). It should be pointed out that the verifiability tag was placed in a section containing verifiabl citations, and lots of them.
    Jojhutton's excessive tagging of the section indicate a singular purpose to have the section removed. He misinterprets Wikipedia verifiability policy, despite numerous attempts by myself and others to help him/her get up to speed.
    He has no consensus for the removal of the section, and the tagging is an attempt to end-run that consensus. He is not - as he has claimed here and elsewhere - 'notifying folk of ongoing discussion'; a simple 'dispute' section tag would address that. That suggestion, as well as that of seeking out sources that explicitly address and contrast the escape theories were repeatedly ignored.
    As to the 'fucking arrogant and rude' comment, I should point out that it came from my sheer frustration at having the user ignore good advice from many other editors and continuing to tag the section in an effort to remove the section. Even the kindest of the editors in the article discussion call his attempts to remove the section a "gambit". I found it to be pointy and disruptive, and was not at all gentle in my disapproval of the user attempting to end-run consensus, ergo the comment. Sure, I should have avoided calling a spade a spade. I did in fact apologize for the outburst, but not for the transparent nature of the tagging. The user has less than 2k edits, and likely not yet truly aware that (s)he is not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Jojhutton may very well have thought that gaming the system was an appropriate tactic (which makes me sincerely doubt the "newness" of this user).
    Lastly, the only person who feels there is a "controversy" with the Booth Escaped section is in fact this user, and this user alone. There is no consensus for either the section's removal or tagging. Maybe this noticeboard can do what the article discussion and the RS noticeboard have clearly been unable to accomplish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcayne is again misrepresenting the facts. I said the information is being checked for verfiability here [[25]], and I placed the notice here [[26]]. Less than 24 hours later, hardly days later as Arcayne claims. Sorry, but editing wikipedia is not my full time job, so I waited until I had ample time to make a report. As to the two editors who have dismissed my opinion, One is User:JGHowes, who is one of the involved editors, the other added this comment [[27]]. Not exactly the been dismissed that Arcayne made mention of. Arcayne seems to only be able to tell half truths, I have never seen it mentioned that Arcayne had ever suggested a differant tag. If I am wrong, then please provide a link to that suggestion. Arcayne thinks he has consensus, but User:unschool has disagreed with Arcayne as well. It is true, that I think the section should be deleted. It has no place on wikipedia. I was willing to find compromise, but it was met with disdain. Originally the debate was with WP:Undue weight. Arcayne and JGHowes responded to that request by actually making the section longer. That is when I began to scrutinize the sources. My argument is that anything can be sourced, but those sources must meet the criteria for inclusion. Sources based on unreliable facts by biased authors have no place on wikipedia. Arcayne argues that as long as it is sourced, it doesn't matter who says it or why. I tend to take a more realistic view of source material and look at who is making the accuations, especially when it comes to Fringe theories.. My full argument can be found on the talk page, as I do not wish to keep repeating myself.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but most of your post is incorrect, Jojhutton. To begin with, you said in your edit summary for the linked edit: "the sources have been nominated for a verifiability check". Yet, no such thing was done. Or at least, not for at least two days. If you meant you were searching on your own, then you should have left the material be and come back when you actually had info. We aren't here to wait on your schedule. Wikipedia moves with a pace independent from your own.
    As well, thanks for admitting that you wanted to purge the section, and were using tags towards that end. We here call that "gaming the system."
    Secondly, I and others suggested different tags, though, as noted before, none would have been best - you are equating the verifiability of the material provided in the cited material with our verifiability policy. They are two different things, as was pointed out t you at least four different times. You aren't a suitable evaluative source to contradict the info presented in a notable, verifiable source.
    Thirdly, when it comes to sourced, notable material, it doesn't matter who or why they said/wrote what they did. That they did is the notable event. You need to arrive - and quickly - at the realization and understanding that evaluating why someone makes a citable statement is original research. Your evaluation - as the sole voice of opposition to the current consensus - isn't usable. I understand that hurts your pride, but you need to suck it up. Ask some questions when you are getting reverted, instead of thinking we are all morons who don't appreciate your touted insight into Booth. You may have been here as another user before, but it doesn't appear that you have learned how to actually work with folk. Precisely what compromise had you suggested?
    As has been said before, your energies are better directed at adding material that presents a more balanced section (and thereby a better article). Filing an ANI to complain about your incorrect tags getting reverted is hardly an effort in that direction, now is it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did he survive, he went on to work for Alexander Graham Bell, helping to develop the Telephone Booth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That store merged with one of Ice-T's companies, and is now known as "T-Booth". -t BMW c- 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear there's a small company about to release a gadget called the iBooth, which plays back Shakespeare plays done up like they were on the US east coast during the 1860s. I think stateside and European teens will canny flock to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) And then it was bought out by the Toothy Inc. dentistry corporation, which changed the name to Toothy Boothy: Assassinations, good acting and dandy root canal all in one visit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Root canals are so cool, but my heart goes aflitter at the (wistful) thought of being able to hear John Booth do Romeo Montague. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that both jojhutton and Arcayne continue to edit war over this. As I am an involved editor in this instance, it is requested that another admin intervene.  JGHowes  talk
    Actually, i'd chosen to disengage from Joj some hours ago, as the tenor of his edit summaries has grown a bit too aggressive and attacky. Until the lad/lass calms down, things would only get worse by interacting with him/her. And I would cetainly not define keeping the article from becoming a battleground to be 'edit-warring'. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All sources must meet the RS standard. If not, then the source is not suitable and can not be used. If content can not be supported by a RS it should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what I have been trying to say, but somehow Arcayne thinks that I am too new to add a tag. He is only upset, because I don't see things his way. I am the only one actually using wikipedia policy to make a point. Arcayne just wants the section to stay the way it is, and I don't know why.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you are wrong. Yet again. Maybe if you actually read the reasons why you have been incorrect, it might dawn upon you that some of us are (or in my case, were) trying to help you along. You want the section removed, and - for the reasons stated above and elsewhere - think that your personal opinion of the authors cited counts as a "verifiability check". It does not. You are not a part of the verifiability equation that Wikipedia uses. I wish you would learn this, because if you are unable to, you are going to butt heads with a great many other editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of argument, I am not, by myself, able to determine whether or not the sources are verifiable. That is why I continued to place a tag on the section, so that the citations can be looked at by other editors. Without the tag, readers will just think that the sources meet the condition for verifiability. At least with the tag, other editors will have a chance to voice their opinions, but I guess we will never know now, since it has been reverted several times. I even asked the editor who doesn't want the tag, what his impression of the sources are. I am still waiting for a response.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: you placed the incorrect tag on the article section, not seeking to draw folk to the discussion, but instead to water down the section by calling the cited info "unverified".
    As for my response in that page, I (and others) answered your inquiry at least twice. That you didn't like the answer cannot be blamed upon us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidently, are you really sure that stalking my edits (1) is the best way to make your point? You never posted to Fitna (film) before today. Hmmm. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was not the unverified tag, but the unreliable tag.[[28]]. Is Arcayne really the best judge of my intentions, since he has misquoted me several times as it is?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image Upload Problems

    I tried to upload a radio station logo and keep getting "internal errors" that would say something like "Could not rename file "/tmp/phpUk1svS" to "public/1/1a/WHRV-FM_2008.gif"." and even the image database wasn't writeable. I asked on IRC, but they were having a conversation on drugs (no...really), so I bring it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 04:19

    Next time, slap them until they give you the techies' IRC chan (irc:wikimedia-tech, If I remember correctly). -- lucasbfr talk 16:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bedford's actions on Rush Limbaugh

    User:Bedford has reverted a sourced statement three times simply because he does not like it on Rush Limbaugh. The first time he didn't even give an explanation.[29]. The second time he didn't dispute the information, he simply stated he didn't like the person making it.[30] The third time he once again did revert claiming the L.A. Times does not fact check.[31] Limbaugh has claimed Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, yet there is absolutely no evidence of that. In their print edition, A Section, the L.A. Times examined that statement by Limbaugh, saying there was absolutely no basis for his making such a statement. I put this under the appropriate section, with the source to the L.A. Times article, with a rationale, and Bedford has revert three times, edit warring with no valid reason based in any policy or guideline, and with no discussion - despite my bring it up with him on his talk page. I ask for a short block of Bedford for edit-warring since he is a former admin who should know better than to edit-war to remove sourced content. --David Shankbone 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David, you are the one showing ILIKEIT. I haven't broken #RR yet, and don't intend to. I read the article earlier this morning, so I knew all about it. It's an opinion piece, that the writer hoped people would take as fact, which you did. Now that I didn't back down on you,. you try to intimidate me. You didn't even try going to the talk page.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reworded the ill-formatted section heading for neutrality. the skomorokh 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute, doesn't belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a content dispute, it's edit-warring, which is an admin issue. The L.A. Times fact checks opinion pieces. Regardless, you aren't disputing that there is no factual basis for Limbaugh to claim Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, you are simply stating that a respected writer reporting that Limbaugh has no basis to make a claim doesn't like Rush Limbaugh. I broached you on your Talk page, and you didn't bother to go to ANY talk page. One does not have to revert 4 times to run afoul of 3RR; regardless, you are edit-warring to keep out factual information - that neither Obama nor ANYONE in his campaign has ever mentioned taking over 401Ks, and Limbaugh claiming that they will - that you simply do not like. You can't provide any sources to back yourself up, so you simply dispute the source, which whether you like it or not, is a reliable source. --David Shankbone 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, they're talking about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gwen; this is a content dispute because users are edit-warring over whether a particular piece of content ought to be included. Both Bedford and David Shankbone have been edit-warring, and there has been no talkpage discussion. I'm posting this to WP:BLPN. The article may need protecting and warned editors may need to be blocked - in future, but for now no admin involvement is needed. the skomorokh 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree completely. As a former admin, User:Bedford should not just be reverting without explanation to remove content that is factual and sourced. That he reverted three times, despite my approaching him on his Talk page, makes him the edit warrior. This is not how issues are meant to be handled. In the end, Limbaugh is claiming Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, and there is absolutely no basis for that assertion. I put this under this "accuracy" section on his article. Bedford is edit-warring to keep it out. That's an admin issue, especially since he is an experienced user who should know better. --David Shankbone 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion now at Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Obama_and_401Ks. Close and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we could give both editors a 1 days rest so that they could read the news, find current updates on the topic, re-think the statement about the LA Times and its op-ed pieces, and come back tomorrow as awesome, team-building editors :-) -t BMW c- 20:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an abusive way to use blocks, pure and simple. Especially when there is no source to say Democrats/Obama will take away 401(k)s except for conservative commentators. But threatening blocks because there is a dispute is not only poor form, it's dangerous for the viability of the site. --David Shankbone 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring isn't allowed. Y'all are going back and forth a bit too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The emotion is deafening, I've yet to see NPoV wording from either "side." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never suggest a block due to a "dispute". To suggest that I am leans horribly towards WP:AGF in its own right. Interestingly enough, most of the same letters appear in the word "disruption", something that is happening to Wikipedia due to edit-warring and other actions,and that I highly recommend blocks for. -t BMW c- 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've bookmarked your diffs for when you run for admin. I find your loose advocacy of blocks to be problematic, and not what most editors want in an admin. Have a nice day. --David Shankbone 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds markedly like a threat to me; that is, publicly noting the intention of keeping a record of contentious comments/actions for future use, with an intent to chill the perceptions of the other party. Don't we, uh, issue warnings and blocks for the likes of that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to this curious guideline/policy? Specifically, the part that says we block people for stating that when we disagree with how they propose blocks to be use, we say we will not support them for admin? Please...it would make fascinating reading. --David Shankbone 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do you believe Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats to be curious? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do you think I feel injured by Bwilkins? That's a pretty broad reading of Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats - are you sure you're an admin? I often feel harassed by you, and many people know it, so do you think you should be blocked? What about when you called me a "fairly wretched individual"? Does that deserve a block under WP:NPA? What about your constant involvement in almost any thread I am a party to? Does that fall WP:HARASS? --David Shankbone 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain. While I will endeavour to keep my language neutral in future, I should advise you that I do not care for your eagerness to play victim when it suits you and yet resort to threatening language in other interactions. You may not care to have me point it out, so perhaps it would be best if you didn't indulge in such actions and then I would not feel the need to comment. And who are these "many people"? Lastly (from me in this matter, anyway) is that I often comment at discussions at the admin noticeboards; there is nothing special in me saying stuff here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm letting you know now that you were part of an e-mail discussion between myself, Jimmy Wales and several arbitrators where you pursuit of me and your harassment of me were discussed. Your personal attacks. Your constant refrain of "block him! block him!" and your trolling my talk page. Back off LessHeard, or this is going to end up before ArbCom and I'm a hair away from bringing it there. There's thousands of admins, and you have demonstrated extraordinary personal animus and pursuit of me, and it will be addressed if you don't quit. That's not a threat, it's a promise. Your harassment needs to end now. --David Shankbone 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As ever, I invite review of my actions and contributions - and I will edit how and where I feel my abilities are of benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I have not (certainly not recently, and rarely if ever in the past) edited your talkpage and I do not have it watchlisted; I am sanguine regarding your claims of harassment and would be prepared to discuss my very limited interactions with any third party who felt it necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been edit warring and are at the edge of 3rr at Rush Limbaugh. Bwilkins warned you about that and now I'm warning you too. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your second warning noted, Gwen. You're welcome to warn a third time even though nothing has changed since your first. --David Shankbone 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Limbaugh lies all the time. What's special about this particular lie? P.S. I would put Limbaugh's page on my watch list except my computer might get infected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Must confess; this made me laugh out loud: http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/11/09/strange-logic-on-wikipedia--rush-limbaugh-barack-obama-and-the-democrats-taking-your-401k.aspx?ref=rss --Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really want to fuel the fire? -- lucasbfr talk 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Shankbone, first - kudos for looking up my user page and seeing the "administrator someday" userbox. Always good to know that people feel the need investigate me (means I'm doing something right). Thanks also for trying to use it against me. My original comment, although unfortunately misunderstood by you (even we journalists can occasionally be unclear), can be paraphrased as "perhaps both editors need a very short block due to the edit warring and ensuing disruption". I'm not sure how you could have ever read that as me recommending a block because of a dispute - if you looked more closely at my userpage, you would have clearly seen that I spend a lot of time in WP:WQA, and my process of dispute resolution in that forum is clearly spelled out on my user page - I spend a lot of time resolving disputes without blocking. So, let's not go selecting the information we like from sources, okay? Personally, I don't give 2 oz of fecal matter about the topic - I'm pretty sure the world (or at least anyone who matters) knows that 401k's would never be casually taken by the US government. I'm personally surprised that Limmy didn't bring this precious nugget up during the campaign in order to put fear in the voters. The issue is, and always has been, edit-warring and disruption - not content (as you so clearly admitted early on). So, let's cut the invectives, re-think your threats against a co-editor, and as I said in my first post on this topic "come back...as awesome, team-building editors." -t BMW c- 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firefly322 again

    Resolved
     – Final warning to be issued, indef block immmediately if AGF/NPA issues recur. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firefly322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Serious lack of good faith, borderline personal attack on this admin here right after release of 2 recent back-to-back blocks for personal attacks/agf. Could use additional, uninvolved admin help on this. It's a long edit, but saying I advocate punitive blocks is what I'm referring to. Toddst1 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not the longest edit I've seen [32] but close enough (about 2/3). — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are educational, and this editor doesn't seem to have learnt WP norms yet. Verbal chat 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see longwinded wikilawyering whilst blocked, which I take as a strong hint there will be more worrisome edits when the block is up in a day. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could anyone explain the oblique reference to WP:TROUT being somehow equivalent to WP:TROLL? I am confused (perhaps too easily?) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is, he's trying to say calling someone a troll with a cite to the soft-linked Meta essay WP:TROLL is not a personal attack, since trouting someone isn't a personal attack. At first he thought WP:TROLL was policy and likened it to other policy links but when told otherwise, he came up with the non-policy link WP:TROUT (which, by the bye, is clearly marked with a humour tag). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gwen's assessment of wikilawyering. How to handle? Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Either lengthen the block for lack of acknowledgement and ongoing wikilawyering about it or let the block lift and see what happens. I find myself leaning slightly more towards letting the block end, keeping a keen watch and if any more PAs stir up, blocking indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, so long as it is a "last chance". Perhaps forcing user adoption might be an option to help them? Verbal chat 16:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be that, I think. As for adoption/mentoring, though it's almost always brought up in a helpful way, like Verbal has done, I've seldom seen it have much sway on outcomes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the last chance / final warning. I will annotate the user's talk page to reflect this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brandon Rochelle

    Resolved
     – Wiki brah sock blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been watching an obviously-experienced new account engage in borderline trolling at the Village Pump.

    Does anyone happen to know who Brandon Rochelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of, and should he be blocked? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess is Jvolkblum, look at his sock categories and you'll see why. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure on that one - the edits have been scattered in various places, though rarely beneficial from what I've seen. The name does bring to mind Jvolkblum, but the edits don't. And the user's userpage says they're 11 years old. It does smell funny, all told, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting (trolling) at VPP, RefDesk/Misc and various user talk pages? My money is on this fellow. CIreland (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Password learned, abuse to articles

    Someone learned my password from knowledge, and has so far edited 2 Wikipedia articles. I've already gotten 2 messages. One for vandalism and another for unconstructiveness. These two articles were Comcast and Chris Pirillo. I do not know if the person is going to continue to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osxdude (talk • contribs) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Change your password NOW! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that, of course, but he may have his cookies on. -- Osxdude (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Log out and back in. Logging out anywhere should log you out everywhere. (That's how it works for me, anyway.) -- Vary Talk 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) (Who almost didn't remember to log back in after testing this.)[reply]
    Also remember that you are generally held responsible for anything done on your account; that's why it's important to create secure passwords. -- Vary Talk 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also change your email address, just in case he may have access to your email too, he might be able to use the forgot password link. Also check your computer for keyloggers. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to do an emergency checkuser to the affected account to see what IPs are using it and block the IP that has snagged the password? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 03:26

    I don't think the checkuser policy permits that. Compromised accounts are usually blocked until it is confirmed that the rightful owner has control over it. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't sure that could be done, but I thought I would throw that out there. Hopefully OSXDude has control of it by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 03:39
    Um, I don't see why we couldn't use checkuser that way. What part of the checkuser policy would it violate? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it's both a valid and a sensible use of Checkuser. I'm not so much concerned about blocking the underlying IP (though that may be a good idea) as finding out if the user has compromised other accounts or is employing other socks. From Wikipedia:CheckUser:
    CheckUser is a tool allowed to be used...for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential disruption and abuse.
    The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project.
    It looks to me like this case fits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromised accounts that have been used to vandalise or whatever have been checkusered in the past. There's at least a couple of cases I can think of where the accounts were compromised by other editors and we only caught the guilty party by checkuser. And of course it also helps alleviate any suspicion about the account owner. Sarah 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then would you mind doing a checkuser on Osxdude's account, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:15
    I'm just an ordinary admin and don't have checkuser rights. Rlevse or one of the other checkusers might comment in this section again, otherwise we'll have to ask them to consider running a check. Sarah 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry about that. I will, after dinner here, list Osxdude's account for a checkuser. If someone doesn't beat me to it :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:38
    • I posted the Request for Checkuser on RCU just a couple minutes ago. Link: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Osxdude - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:55
      • Results of Checkuser: "Unfortunately Osxdude has almost no recent edits. I can confirm that the 4 edits around 02:00 on 10 Nov were made from a different location than the most recent edits at 03:11 and 03:19, but I have no way to know which (if either) is the correct account owner. Thatcher 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 01:17

    Obama talk page is a bloody mess

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    If an admin gets a second, there's some messy stuff over at the Talk:Barack Obama page. Landon1980 (talk · contribs) brought up an old issue [33] which was answered and then closed. He has reopened it multiple times [34] [35] [36] [37] against the wishes of numerous other editors, who have also referred to him in some negative terms, which didn't help the situation.

    Landon1980 refuses to discuss matters on his talk page [38] [39], and is edit warring to reopen the original discussion, and to also make his own comments. I'm not taking a side here, but everything that's going on is very disruptive on a pretty big talk page. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the trolling technique called the "endless loop": Harping on the same thing over and over, after it's been answered, and driving everyone to distraction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I archived the discussion. J.delanoygabsadds 03:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a troll who is infuriated about being called a troll also tends to be distracting. I'm looking into it, but looks like it would take more time than I can spare at moment.--Tznkai (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And THAT'S the problem, and the reason I brought it here. It's a mess. Thanks to J.delanoy for handling it. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note the user's belligerence when someone tries to talk to him on his talk page. (Already mentioned by Dayewalker, but this chain of hostile edit summaries is interesting): [40] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I was too subtle: don't call him a troll, don't nag him about it. Leave him alone Leave him alone, continuing to attempt to talk to him at this point is only going to disrupt things further.--Tznkai (talk)
    Oh, and I make no comment as to the merits or lacktheroef of Landon1980. Putting out the current fire, dealing with the rest later.--Tznkai (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I ask is for the matter to be thoroughly looked into before any actions are taken. I do not feel I was trolling, yes I mad esome comments that I shouldn't have. I was/am a little worked up over the issue and a little upset that my legitimate, good faith concerns about that neutrality of the article are erased. I apologize for any bad behavior on my part. I'm not here to cause problems. I'm going to stay away from the issue for now. However, just because it is in the FAQ's it should not mean editors cannot discuss it. I merely asked for neutral ground. Again I apologize for my comments. I tried my best to stick to the content and not the contributor and everything was in good faith. I feel the issue keeps being raised because a section on it isn't allowed on the talk page. How could a new consensus ever emerge if the editor is reverted immediately and marked up as "past discussion" There were ongoing comments from a few editors in the thread that was closed prematurely. Landon1980 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I havn't looked into the details, but what I gather is this: it was discussed before and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it going anywhere, and it still doesn't look like it. While I believe that closing things just because they've been discussed before is ludicrous, so is repeatedly bringing up the subject again. I think the best solution right now is for everyone to walk away and come back after a night or two of good sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly don't think my edits were rollback worthy, that edit was most certainly not vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's 350K+ of discussion content in just over 100 discussion threads that survived the bot's 5-day bot cutoff, of which 22, more or less, are complaints about calling Obama "African American" and/or proposing to call him "biracial" in light of his mixed black/white ancestry. This is a classic perennial proposal - nearly always made in good faith with some solid reasoning and good arguments behind it, but ultimately one that has not and will not gain consensus. I won't explain here because that's a content question, but it does reflect the newly invigorated dialog in America about race. Most of the editors quickly realize the article will not change, but occasionally we get someone who for whatever reason thinks this is a huge travesty and will not let it go. Landon1980 is the latest such editor, and he has slung around accusations of racism, re-opened closed discussions, made personal attacks on editors, etc., out of a conviction that calling Obama "African American" is racist. In addition we have redundant perennial proposals having to do with Obama's name (middle name "Hussein", suffix "II"), religion, place of birth, accuracy of "President Elect" designation, calling him by the "Junior" senator title, and a few other things that escape me. Plus non-perennial but nevertheless redundant discussions on things like which picture to use. After trying quite a few other things, I've found that the best thing to do is to simply combine all the discussions about the exact same thing into a single topic heading, close the ones that go stale or are resolved, and let the others continue for as long as people want to keep talking - but close when discussions having no chance of resulting in a change to the article grow uncivil or disruptive. I think 2-4 non-admins tending to the talk page in this way can keep things in order. We don't have a big crisis on our hands, just a need for people to pitch in. Occasionally we will have a flare-up where administrative action may be necessary. Landon1980 looks like a borderline case - he/she may grow frustrated and go away without help. But if the disruption continues a block / topic ban is in order. You can't come to an article probation page and repeatedly call all the editors there racist after multiple warnings to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, if this comment isn't a better case for WP:AGF what is?[41] We are dealing with race, one of the most contentious, important issues in the United States. It's totally understandable that we have differences and strong passions. Patience, and trying to understand a sincere editor's objections, will get us very far. We should try to keep the article itself stable so that the off-wiki world doesn't see a strobe-light of revert edits. But we can all take a deep breath and accept some necessary unease and anxiety in our internal discussion on how to approach these big issues. Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 10

    November 2008 (UTC)

    Yet calling me troll, idiotic, boy, prick, stupid, etc., is ok? Does the fact that 22 different discussions were raised not say something for the neutrality of the article? Most of the previous discussions were suggesting "first African American" be replaced with "first bi-racial" and my proposal was different. Myself and dozens of other editors have raised that same concern. On a daily basis someone asks why the lead cannot be more neutral. Yes, I was a bit uncivil, but no one can deny I was not provoked and teased, and that others were not being uncivil as well. I opened a new thread I remained extremely civil and laid out my proposal and why I thought it was necessary and it was closed. When I try and discuss the issue my edits are reverted with the summary "rv troll." If I can't discuss it on the talk page then where? Not just me, dozens of users are reverted by the same small group of editors. Is my proppsal, or a discussion on the talk page regarding the issue somehow harmful to the project? An admin has told me I cannot discuss the issue on the talk page, so where am I to discuss it? I have a feeling that if you combined all the previous threads and large number of editors involved consensus may be different. I simply don't get why neutrality does not apply to the article. I am very offeneded by being repeatedly called a troll and my edits even being rolled back as such. Hundreds of sources say Obama is bi-racial. My concerns of the lead sentence needing to be neutral do not constitute trolling. Look at the thread J Delanoy closed and tell me how it was some how harmful. Other involved editors were not even given time to comment. How could consensus ever change if the matter is a prohibited topic of discussion. This article draws a lot of attention and new editors are reverted immediately and sent to the FAQ's by the exact same group of editors. Landon1980 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Landon. If they are going to close and consolidate the same topics, point people up (with a link to the right thread since the thread names are a mess too) and archive as soon as possible, to keep the page under control. Keep multiple versions with little to no response all the time make it impossible for anyone to follow. However, the repeated "we are not discussing that" and comments like "It also saves them from looking like an idiot. But too late for that." are also not appropriate. I imagine this may be one of the main article that gets new users wandering in and it looks extremely clickish. I'm going to archive some clearly closed sections to try to get the page under control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Landon's behavior was truly disruptive. That something is a perennial proposal does not make it any more valid, or the discussion any more worth having. Landon1980 accused other editors of racism, among other things, for sticking to the sources and self-identification to describe Obama as African American despite his white ancestry. Maybe he/she is right. We are in a racist society in a racist world. I completely sympathize with the underlying point. I am angry too at times, and the reaction against Landon1980 was mean. But we do have to keep the peace and edit an encyclopedia - leveling broadside attacks against the project and its editors is not going to work. The best way to deal with this might be an WP:RFC, which I am pretty sure would yield the same result, that for now, given the terminology and sentiments of our times, that Obama's ethnicity is described as African-American. But at least we could have one, conclusive discussion on the subject. As I pointed out there are 20+ active threads on the talk page about the very same thing. Raising it 20 times in 4 days is not the way to resolve the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something as sensitive as race should be dealt with in a neutral fashion. Hundreds of sources either say he is bi-racial or that his mother was white and father was black. Dozens of without a doubt reliable sources say he is bi-racial. According to WP:ASF and WP:NPOV the fair thing to do would be find common ground such as "Obama is of a bi-racial background and is largely considered the first African American president" or maybe remove the largely considered part because the majority of sources do call him African American. Landon1980 (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Landon1980, I closed the thread due to the lack of good faith on both sides. Its difficult, but its best to reread comments in a manner that supposes reasoned thought even if flawed. In any case, the thread had become laden with bad faith accusations, so warranted closing, cause really, editors should not have to wade though muck to get to the issues. Unfortunately, after the closure, you then posted this comment, which I had to remove twice. Modocc (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet it's inappropriate to close the thread when you appeared to be on the other side of the dispute. And there were several valid reasonings in that section, brought up by several people. I can say with confidence, that nobody bothered to even respond to my own arguments. Seeing that section quick-archived is disheartening. Must I start an RfC on that talk, of all? Everyme 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment that you unfortunately had to remove was about the article and the talk page. There were no personal attacks in that comment, I was addressing being attacked personally. You even go as far as call me racist on the noticeboard? It is not acceptable to take it upon yourself to close an ongoing discussion that many editors are involved in, especially when you are one of those editors. Landon1980 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't call you anything and you know it. Thank you for confirming that you do not even believe your own rhetoric. There was no racist incivility and there was nothing to get upset about. As for closing a major disruption, that is not my duty, but I stand by it. --Modocc (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, not your duty. You were an involved party that so happened to disagree with the opposing side. If on the noticeboard "racist incivility" was not intended for my comments than who were you referring to? Landon1980 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your repeated accusations that comments on the thread were racist. Whether or not that was true is pretty much beside the point, since your accusations were disruptive. --Modocc (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What about the section that only contained my proposal? Everyone that kept closing the discussion was involved in it. The talk page is being haldled very poorly and something must be done. In the last month roughly 100-150 people have expressed concerns about the lead sentence and it's neutrality. One by one these people are told consensus is different and to see the FAQ's. Where are the 200 people that oppose this? Consensus is obviously so overwhelming that I'm not even allowed to discuss the issue so where are these editors? I wonder if consensus has been properly gained. The same editors that oppose the lead being neutral remove all the discussions and make it impossible to see what consensus is. Take the last 4 or 5 days for example. Over 20 different threads have been started, so there you have at least 20 different editors. What I want to know is where the 40-50+ people are that oppose the lead being more neutral is. From what I've seen the threads are closed so quickly and everyhthing is such a mess that no one could possibly no what consensus is. The same 4-5 editors compare themselves to the opposing side a few at a time and call it consensus. My proposal was removed after it was not even an hour old by an admin and I was told I was not welcome to discuss it. Yesterday alone as many people agreed with me than opposed, yet the section was closed before other involved parties could even comment. How was my proposal harmful? All uncivil remarks had ceased. A couple straw men have been built above. I called no one racist for calling him African American. I said the statements "one drop cancels out white" " he is half black therefore he is black not white end of story" and other similar were racist. I feel that the admin acted very hastily without even looking into the situation before closing my thread. Landon1980 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "How was my proposal harmful? All uncivil remarks had ceased." That is absolutely not true. I had to refactor your last thread after Bugs had posted a response to it. As for racism accusations on the thread I closed, I'll provide diffs if need be later today, but I just woke up and need to start my day. A good one I hope. Modocc (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind, go ahead and add diffs to mr racist comments. The last thread that was closed contained nothing but my proposal. The comment you removed and labeled personal attacks were most certainly not personal attacks and contained info about the neutrality of the article. When you add the diffs of racism be sure and be fair, add personal attacks from both sides and the other remarks I said were racist. Landon1980 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the rationale for my removal was given with my first attempt at removing the obvious disruption. After it was put back, I described it here as a personal attack tirade which was in reference to your lengthy one-sided complaint against personal attacks. I thought that what I meant would be clear, and I had already had given my reason; not that it mattered that much, but I could have just repeated myself I suppose cause my position had not changed. To be clear, threads are removed or closed when they are inappropriate, such as with soapboxing. Modocc (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took the admin's advice and had a night's sleep. Reading the above additions in defiance of that good advice, to me it still looks like trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, that is quite enough out of all of you (kudos to Bugs for going to bed though). Trouts all around for personal attacks and incivility, and anyone interested in settling the content dispute should do something productive over here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad hand account?

    Resolved
     – All socks identified and blocked

    IwRnHaA (talk · contribs) appears to me to be a bad hand account of another user on Wikipedia who is not identified. His contributions are solely at cold fusion and they are made to advance an agenda of portraying cold fusion research in an unduly positive light. The stated purpose of this user's "alternate" account is to be "a separate account for a controversial topic so that I remain unsullied by potential wikidrama." I believe this violates our alternate account policies. I started a sockpuppetry case to this effect Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IwRnHaA. I am appealing the decision to close this sockpuppetry case and want an uninvolved administrator to consider the question of whether we can have bad hand accounts such as this. In particular, I'll note that one of people in the discussion who quixotically did not believe there was anything wrong with this account usage wrote: "Agreed. To 'remain unsullied by potential wikidrama' is not a good reason, but to 'remain unsullied by potential real-world drama' is a good reason." I concur. Since the user is not indicating that it is real-world drama they are trying to avoid, I believe that this particular user should either identify their other Wikipedia account or go back to using just it. Another user put it well: "I think this account should be deleted but no actions taken against IwRnHaA core account since he appears to be very honest." Such a solution would be very agreeable to me as well.

    I'll note that I was admonished, in particular, not to engage in this type of activity by arbcom who stated, in part, "Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade... user accountability... is strictly forbidden." I believe that this is exactly what this account is for, and I find it extremely unfair that this justification was taken to be legitimate.

    Additional problems, as I see it:

    1. There is no guarantee that this person is not contributing to cold fusion under another account since we do not know what the identity of the other account is.
    2. There is a concerted effort on the part of various cold fusion advocates to protect this activity as legitimate (in particular User:Pcarbonn and User:Ronnotel). I believe that this has swayed the appearance of consensus on that page which brought the sockpuppetry case to a premature end.

    Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On the one hand, diffs would be useful if there's a concern that this account is violating policy. On the other, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the use of alternate accounts in an active and contentious dispute. The idea that using an alternate account in such circumstances reduces wikidrama is ridiculous; it creates wikidrama. A desire to keep one's main account "unsullied by wikidrama" sounds semantically equivalent to "avoiding scrutiny". I recognize that this is a largely unsettled gray area of policy, but in the case of active disputes I feel strongly that people should be using their main accounts if they wish to participate. This is a can of worms we should not allow to open. MastCell Talk 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak to the exact content issues, but just based on sockpuppetry policy, I'm not seeing anything of concern here. What IwRnHaA (talk · contribs) is doing appears to be in accordance with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. As long as there are no reasonable concerns of block evasion, or using multiple accounts on the same article, it's fine. Just don't cross the streams. --Elonka 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, however, in direct contradiction to the arbcom-outlined principle I quoted above. To be sure, I used precisely the same defense you are outlining here and the arbcom decided that it was better to have consolidated accounts to avoid any hint of impropriety. I can see their point. If we allow segregation of accounts in this fashion it will be very hard to prove when sockpuppetry has gone "crossed streams". ScienceApologist (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I agree with MastCell that "avoiding scrutiny" seems to be a valid concern. Using a sock in a contentious area during a dispute also seems problematic, as does this user being involved in protecting some users and in disagreements with SA - which dos suggest block evasion. IMO main accounts should be used for contributing, and alternate accounts for admin/bot like services which are clearly labelled as such. I also find SAs argument immediately above compelling. Verbal chat 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is under specific ArbCom restrictions to only use a single account, via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist limited to one account. However, that is an unusual situation, because of other history from that one user. As long as there is no history of disruption from IwRnHaA (talk · contribs), alternate accounts are still an option. It also is in accordance with policy at Wikipedia:CheckUser, which states that CheckUser is not to be used for "fishing", unless there is actual disruption. So in the meantime, we assume good faith, which means we take IwRnHaA's word that the account is being used exactly as stated, as an alternate account just for use on this one article.[42][43] Which is in accordance with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. --Elonka 07:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to me in the third-person, misrepresenting an arbcom decision with respect to me ("However, that is an unusual situation, because of other history from that one user." references claims that are nowhere to be found in the arbcom decision or deliberations), and bringing up checkuser seems to me to indicate that either Elonka is way out of her league in dealing with this matter or is simply nursing her ever-evolving vendetta against me. I really wish she wouldn't inject herself into discussions where I'm involved. If you check her contributions, you'll see that she seems to be preferentially active in discussions that involve me. I would appreciate it if she butt out. Should I ask for an injunction? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also take the view that using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny of a main account is not acceptable in controversial areas that are subject to arbcom restrictions. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive and I'd say we do now have a pretty clear view that using a sock to avoid controversy attaching to your main account is not acceptable if you are engaging in editing in a controversial arena. What, for example, if the sockmaster were standing for Arbcom or adminship and wanted to hide their activity in a controversial area? That would be completely unacceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with comments here saying that using a sock account for editing contentious topics is inappropriate. IIRC, the exemption that allows multiple accounts was placed there partly to allow for people to edit "embarrassing topics" like List of sex positions without it reflecting on their main account or their real names. The ArbCom has endorsed the proposition that socks should not be used for editing policy pages or proposals for policy changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting discussion. I'll just point out that there are topics that are "embarrassing" and contentious at the same time. A few LGBT-related articles have resulted in topic bans for certain editors. VG ☎ 09:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems a pretty clear consensus that this account is not being used in an appropriate way and that practise (if nor written policy) no longer supports the use of alternative accounts in controversial areas just to keep the contribution of the main account uncontroversial. As such I have blocked this account but took care to disable the autoblock. Open to discussion as always. If the owner of the blocked account wishes to contribute I'd appreciate their owning up to the edits. Spartaz Humbug! 10:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with this block. I have to disagree with Elonka - whilst the account may well be being used per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, she can not be sure of that because we don't know the main account - is the sock backing up the main account in editing, supporting it on talk pages, or vice versa? The only way that it would be OK is if the main account was not participating on cold fusion related articles, which, again, we don't know. Yes, we should default to WP:AGF, but on such contentious articles (and with contentious views), we have to be far more careful. Black Kite 10:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we need to make sure that WP:SOCK represents practice and community opinion, which in this case needs clarification. (I support this block, btw). Verbal chat 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user is requesting unblock. I would decline it, but feel it is best not to having commented above. A thought - whoever deals with the unblock could ask this account to email them from their main account, and then check that the main account is not being used to edit cold fusion topics. If this is the case, they could be unblocked. Black Kite 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really, really don't know about this block. I looked over the user's contribution history a little, and most of the edits seem reasonable to me. We do not block people for having alternate accounts, we block them for using them inappropriately. No evidence has been posted that suggests this is going on, other than the user's up-front admission that they have another account. If this user is POV pushing then maybe a block is in order. But I see no specific evidence about that being presented by anyone here. It seems to me that if we could not have blocked this user if they hadn't been up-front about this being an alternate account, then we should not penalize them for being honest. And I certainly do not approve of the idea that we should start blocking accounts just for being opinionated WP:SPAs in contentious areas. As much as they're a pain, this is supposed to be an open project. Mangojuicetalk 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question is what constitutes "inappropriate" use of an alternate account; I recognize this is a gray area. Using an alternate account to edit "controversial", probationed topics without attaching any controversy to one's main account seems improper, to me. This is the definition of avoiding scrutiny. If the edits are completely in line with Wikipedia policy, then why the problem with using one's main account? This smacks of trying to keep the main account's rep squeaky-clean, perhaps in the interest of seeking office, while also asserting one's viewpoint on a controversial topic under ArbCom probation. You can't have your cake and eat it too; that to me is the essence of WP:SOCK. MastCell Talk 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As grey areas go, this one is pretty dark. Maintaining a separate account is generally pretty questionable to me, and I believe that the areas laid out as legitimate need to be very, very narrowly interpreted, and the interpretation of the descriptions of unacceptable uses need to be correspondingly broad. This one is an effort not to taint a main account with the efforts put forth on battleground topics. That certainly comes under the umbrella of avoiding scrutiny in my mind.
    I would suggest making all of the nationalist and pseudoscience articles explicit sock-free zones. Choose a date for implementation, and from that date forward, only one account per person can edit anywhere in the zone, and using multiple accounts to edit would resulting in blocking of all.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The description at WP:SOCK under "Avoiding scrutiny" is quite clear to me: "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Is someone alleging that this user has a history of POV pushing on other accounts? If so, show me a history of POV pushing on this one -- some real diffs, please. If someone is alleging that this user is using multiple accounts on overlapping articles to create a false impression of popularity of an opinion, then Thatcher's comment rules that out, but again, if someone could be specific about any evidence I would be much happier. Is this account involved in any kind of disruption? If so, please show the evidence. I categorically reject the idea that merely editing controversial subjects is so suspicious that any use of alternate accounts is automatically inappropriate. Users ought to be allowed to have openly declared alternative accounts for controversial areas, so long as they do not use those accounts to disrupt Wikipedia, or to do what would be prohibited for one account to do. POV pushing is a kind of disruption, so I feel we don't need to cut this particular account a lot of slack. But it bothers me a lot that no evidence has been presented about POV pushing. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user seems to have at least two other accounts, and they have edited overlapping articles and talk pages, although IwRnHaA does not overlap the other two. He also has IP edits to a topic frequented by a banned user, which I hesitate to disclose at this point without more information on the banned user's old IPs, which I do not have but may be able to obtain. This should probably be listed at WP:RFCU for follow-up. Thatcher 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thatcher's comment makes the block more reasonable on its face, but I think the "Wikilawyering is not helpful" comment in the unblock wasn't quite on. What was he/she supposed to argue in an unblock request? An assertion that his use of the account was within policy, and a request to see the ArbCom case noted, isn't really wikilawyering as I usually think of it - and is really the only unblock avenue to take other than repudiation of past conduct. Avruch T 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As SA feels the need to name me personally as an "advocate" for cold fusion, I'd like to respond by pointing that I've made a grand total of seven edits in the past *year* to the article page, and not that many more to the talk page. My interest in this page has less to do with cold fusion as a science (or psuedoscience, as the case may be) than in opposing SA's despicable behavior (for which he was blocked on one occasion, and oversighted in another). Apparently no brush is too broad that he won't try to use it, including the use of smear by innuendo for any who dares to insist that he adheres the same policies that everyone else does. Has he no sense of decency? Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uneasy about this block. When blocking users we need to be rigorous (yes, even bureaucratic) because we must protect users against unfair blocks. What should happen here:

    1. Evidence is assembled at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU, including diffs.
    2. A checkuser request can be run, if there is sufficient cause.
    3. Once all the related accounts are identified, appropriate blocks can be placed.

    There is no rush to block a user right away. It is more important to be correct, and do a thorough job. I suggest following up with steps 2 and 3. This thread should be closed. Follow up can happen at WP:RFCU, per Thatcher. Jehochman Talk 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone add a link to the RFCU/SSP discussion, for completeness, if one has started or when it starts, per Jehochman and Thatcher. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to SSP in SA's opening statement.
    (ec)I'm curious why you find this block problematic? Its quite clear that policy as written no-longer reflects what we do but since written policy often lags behind the practical application there is no problem with that. There has been no damage to the main account's reputation as I took care to ensure they wouldn't get caught in an autoblock and we still don't know who it is. All that has happened is that a fairly wide consensus of experienced and trusted users has emerged from discussion of the situation and said, actually we don't want you to use the account in that way and taken action to enforce that. The action seems to have wide support and wasn't imposed in a reckless or arbitrary way. Frankly this is no different to blocking a malfunctioning bot. I'd appreciate clarification of where the problem with the block is. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience with these things is that the community has one standard, and ArbCom has another. I was involved in an arbitration case where somebody was forced to resign her adminship for making a sock puppetry block that turned out to be wrong. As a result, I have become more careful that most admins. It is my personal policy not to block anybody for sock puppetry until after a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report is filed. Better safe than sorry. Here's the RFCU report Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/IwRnHaA. Another benefit of this approach is that we nail all the socks, not just the most obvious one. I am not saying you did anything wrong; I am saying that you took more risk than I'd be willing to take. Also, WP:SOCK should be updated if the community feels that blocks in these situations are appropriate. Editors should be able to read the policy and get an accurate idea of the standards to which they will be held. Blocking is a serious action that should not take users by surprise. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. I understand now. I read your comments the other way. I remember the case you are referring to but in this case this was an acknowledged alternate account so blocking it really seemed to me to be no more troubling then blocking a bot. I did realise that there could be trouble if we ended up outing the main account by accidently autoblocking it but Thather's comments certainly suggest that there may be more to this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if there is more to this, I will be very glad that SA decided to file an appeal instead of dropping the matter. Jehochman Talk 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking forward to the results of the CheckUser. However, to be clear, I am opposed to the indef block of IwRnHaA (talk · contribs). There was no history of disruption from this account. Instead, s/he was upfront that it was an alternate account.[44] If IwRnHaA had lied and said he wasn't an alternate account, would we have blocked at this point? I do not think so, as there is no indication here of any policy violations whatsoever. It appears that we indef blocked someone for being honest.  :/ --Elonka 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL. Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Based on Thatcher's comment above, it appears we have blocked someone who was being dishonest (multiple accounts, including overlapping edits to articles and talk pages on other accounts), but not necessarily with this particular account. From what I understand, this account may actually be the 'good hand' rather than the 'bad hand', but in any case the editor appears to be editing abusively.
    Elonka, I'm concerned that perhaps your past history with ScienceApologist might be colouring your approach here. It may be wise for you not to dive into situations concerning SA unless the matter directly involves you and/or administrative actions you've taken with respect to SA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I see that most of the overlaps are at Lithium-sulphur_battery, which has zero posts on the talk page, so it seems uncontroversial. Is this a crank article?. Sorry, I'm not familiar with that area. There are some more overlaps at Plug-in hybrid, but that's a FA it's hard for me figure out what's going on. Did he abused the voting process? On the other hand, one of the accounts did edit sexuality related articles, which is exactly the kind of isolation that Will_Beback mentioned. I can easily point you to an AfD-only account I've seen, which votes keep all the time, but (s)he's not doing any real disruption. Is this behavior off-limits now? Can I ask for a RCFU for that AfD-only account just to tie it to the main account(s)? VG ☎ 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See [45], [46], and [47]. This guy's about as banned as it gets. Skinwalker (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He, he, this guy needs to get a (real) life. Anyway, I left a note about Lithium-sulphur_battery at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry; the article may need a closer look. VG ☎ 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ten socks have now been blocked. This user was in fact being deceptive. I hope everyone now understands the value of getting a Checkuser before blocking to reduce the risk of false positives and to avoid playing whack-a-mole with the sock master. It is far better to go slow, get the Checkuser and then nail all the accounts at once. Jehochman Talk 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Assemblies of Yahweh

    Resolved
     – IP blocked. TN‑X-Man 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears someone has taken issue with edits Jayjg has made to this article. This IP address has cross-posted in several areas a lengthy complaint about bias in the article, etc. Can someone take a look, as this may be a sock of ModObjective? Thanks in advance! TN‑X-Man 14:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I guess I shouldn't say sock. It is possibly ModObjective editing anonymously. TN‑X-Man 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked... I remember reading this rant somewhere. -- lucasbfr talk 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am following up with FT2 (he acted on it). -- lucasbfr talk 15:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As do I, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Anyways, thanks for the response. TN‑X-Man 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed for censor

    NOT RESOLVED - SEE CONTINUATION OF PROBLEM BELOW (SUB SECTION)

    Resolved
     – block not needed Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidemon should be blocked because I put a reasonable discussion in talk:Barack Obama and it was removed. I made it more polite sounding and asked people not to remove it. Wikidemon removed it.

    Removal of discussion from article talk pages is not permitted. There is a danger when it's done with Obama that censorship may be an issue. If you disagree with the discussion of changing the article, just say so, don't remove it. Removal is disruptive because it blocks discussion.

    Disruption is blockable. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your contributions are telling. Please don't think that starting a section called "presidential lies?" at the Talk:Barack Obama morass is going to be remotely helpful. If you're interested in actually discussing something, go prepared with reliable sources that actually back up any assertion and don't be deliberately provocative. — Scientizzle 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Talk:Barack Obama page is for discussion of the article, not for attacks on Barack Obama. Wikidemon was right to remove it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I was not notified of this discussion) I deleted it because it was primarily an attack on other editors, and it was impossible to separate that from any nugget of a proposal for the article. In doing so I advised the IP that they were welcome to make any constructive suggestion for improving the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the IP editor started a new thread that also begins with a personal attack, this time on me,[48] which I've had to refactor twice now to stick to the proposal. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong to remove these personal attacks and I'll stop, but on the Obama talk page one has to be fairly firm lest it turn into a free-for-all (see above discussion, for example). Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an attack. He's saying that his comments were removed, and giving the names of the users which did it. I'm not going to revert your reversion of my reversion of your refactoring, since I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't agree with your actions. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a very high threshold for editing other people's contributions on talk pages, and this doesn't even come close to crossing the threshold. looie496 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. here is a case in point from an article on my watch list. Complaints about other editors have no place on article talk pages, particularly not Barack Obama, which is on article probation. Singling specific editors out like that is a personal attack, and deleting the attack is not editing a talk page comment - it does not change the substance of the proposal one bit. The other option is to delete or close the thread entirely, which would only incite the editor further.Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you are also making a personal attack, since you're singling out a specific editor. I think you need to recognize the distinction between "attack" and "criticism". We get to criticize; we have to criticize. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Wikidemon, but you're being oversensitive. This is not a personal attack and does not justify removal or refactoring as done here. The comment about you was undeniably true, non-offensive, and relevant. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sensitive, firm. I'm not exactly shedding tears over the computer from the insult. The IP editor had made three increasingly disruptive attempts in a row to start the same discussion,[49][50][51] harangued one of the regular editors,[52] and started the lame complaint above before finally saying it in a way that was almost acceptable.[53] That's pretty close to wearing out the welcome. What I deleted was editor-on-editor sniping, phrased as a process request to not delete the discussion. The request got honored - the discussion is ongoing right now. There is absolutely no reason to also preserve a moot, inapt complaint about other editors on the talk page. Spend some time patrolling the Obama article and you'll see why we need to keep the discussion on track and not use the talk page to cry censorship.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What insult? Yes, you are right in objecting (and even removing) to the anon's edits; but doing them under the rubric of "personal attacks" is not helpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken as a string of successive edits, the anon in short order accused people of editing in bad faith, censorship, being POV pushers, vandalism, and sanitizing the Obama article all because they objected to his pointing out Obama's "lies." You may be right on a technicality that the specific edit was intrinsically some other form of incivility rather than a personal attack - but it's all about the same. Editors who start off so tendentiously on that article usually cause a flame out. Telling them early, firmly, that it is okay to make good faith proposals but not to do battle with other editors, can do some good.Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a horrible suspicion that come inauguration day we're going to see a whole host of "nigga stole my country" style crap, combining the worst excesses of wingnut drivel and redneck bigotry. Maybe this will be the article that pushes us over into the German flagged revisions system. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the IP editor. I have become more and more polite. However, Wikidemon's actions should not be supported. Just because someone has friends on wikipedia or is an administrator, doesn't give them the right to delete reasonable comments that they don't like. Only comments like "obama is a muslim" can be deleted. All other suggestions for article improvment must stay.

    The article is frankly terrible. There is missing important information, some removed by editors who live there and some fluff. We need to look at other encyclopedias and TV documentaries to see what they have. They have some information which is a little negative but negative information is not permitted here. It is quickly deleted. That's bad. I'm not out to smear Obama, in fact I voted for him, but we must neutrally report him, not be his public relations firm.

    Wikidemon must be blocked for about 12 hours or a day. Otherwise, I will interpret it as permission to delete one or two talk page comments which I oppose. At the least, a warning should be placed by an administrator on Wikidemon's page. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your ultimatum is unwelcome, and will be roundly ignored. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Exactly, Jpg. IP, please don't make threats to disrupt to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikidemon's deleted other talk page comments, like the one by Neurolenis. This is disruptive. I am giving up because people are not fair. At the very least, an administrator should politely warn Wikidemon not to delete talk page comments. I will say no more about this but appeal to people's fairness to act nicely and don't play favorites. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting comments is one thing, but I would like to request that other people's talk page comments never be revised except to fix formatting problems or add signatures. When I read a talk page comment, I want to be confident that I'm reading what the author wrote, not somebody else's idea of what they should have written. looie496 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Robot programs filling in missing signatures is an accepted practice. Re-aligning indentions is considered OK as long as it does not deceive. But altering the content is strictly verboten. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone has done that. Discussions have been closed, archived and deleted, headings retitled, redundant material consolidated or deleted, and less often, offensive comments (blatant incivilities, accusations, racist rants, etc.) have been stricken or redacted). Many non-admin editors and some admins do that, many times per day, on the Obama talk page by way of keeping order. There are few close cases. It's mostly blatant stuff. Usually the offending editor goes away or calms down. Occasionally they start edit warring or upping the stakes, and usually get blocked quickly. Every once in a while one of the disruptive editors finds a meta-page like this one and files a complaint. Standard article patrol stuff. Wikidemon (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that personal attacks or BLP violations are also subject to removal or censoring, though not manipulation that alters the content meaningfully. More generally, anything that does not further improvement of the article is a candidate for removal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New problem, same article talk page

    I don't know what Wikidemon did but a similar thing happened to me.

    I made comments about improving the article. It was completely neutral. It asked whether we should keep the political positions section static or adjust it for inevitable changes in positions (all presidents change some positions).

    This is clearly not anti-Obama. Yet is was removed. An IP removed it.

    Obama is clearly controversial but article talk pages shouldn't be removed especially mine which asks simply policy questions on how to deal with the article.

    I make a motion that the talk page of the article be placed under special probation of blocking any editor that removes article talk page comments. The only exception would be clear and unmistakable vandalism. If it is not clear vandalism, then the deleted must be blocked. ImNotObama (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your time would be better served providing links to the accusations you're making. If I recall, you three times started a section titled "Presidential lies". Grsz11 →Review! 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, not that one, but still. Grsz11 →Review! 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ImNotObama is a brand new account that, as its first edit tested the terms of article probation (by haranguing editors as a group and accusing them of ulterior/POV motives) in favor of Godwin's Law[54] and has twice started a pointless vote. Conducting the vote on article length and on "eliminat[ing] all crap"[55] is the account's sole activity here so far. The first time it was summarily deleted, apparently by an IP account. The second one is active now but will probably be closed. Also, the attempt to tag this thread "unresolved" seems disruptive - I would remove it but inasmuch as it's a complaint against me (however bogus) I'll refrain. Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued problem

    One big problem is Wikidemon's attitude and refusal to admit that he is the problem. When that other Obama editor complained, Wikidemon simply attacks him by saying he's a new editor and uses Godwin's Law.

    That other user seems to be talking about article length. This is a valid topic of discussion.

    Wikidemon is not assuming good faith and attacking users. What's of more concern is that valid discussion on Obama's talk page is being removed. This is disruptive.

    Administrators should decide the following:

    If you don't like the discussion, you may remove it.

    1. Oppose74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't like the discussion, you should either ignore it or express your opinion in a calm manner and not remove comments.

    1. Support74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am attacked further, this just shows that there is something fishy going on with Obama. If people act calmly and rationally, then this shows that Wikipedia is good in this kind of matter. Are there any reasonable administrators around or has Wikipedia degenerated? 74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot one:
    Editors that continually refuse to accept that consensus is not going their way should be given a final warning and then blocked for disruption.
    1. --barneca (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also forgotten by some: Threats are against the spirit of Wikipedia. The discussion and vote above should receive the complete support of all administrators. If it doesn't, we really have a problem because it shows that deletion of valid discussion is ok, as long as you are an administrator.

    The sane way to resolve this would be for an administrator to simply say "Deletion of comments in the article talk page should normally not be done. Please try to work with each other". Instead, many are attacking me. This doesn't make Wikipedia look good. With this comment, I will no longer participate in this discussion because it is clear to me that some administrators do not participate in good customer service or practice a friendly manner. That's too bad for Wikipedia and for themselves, but that's life. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moulton is back, need CU?

    Resolved
     – IP socks confirmed and blocked. MastCell Talk 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user (alternately banned by both Jimbo and Cary Bass) is back again. He's tagged my page with nonsense,[56], has posted on Jimbo's several times,[57] and appears to be on that IP for some time now. Might ferret out more of him from that IP, if he has other accounts. He also tagged me on meta (where he is also blocked), as he appears irked that I've blocked him from communicating with me via Wikipedia Review and for calling him out on his general B.S. and faux martyrdom there. rootology (C)(T) 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now now, assume good faith; someone else could have a fixation on "pre-Hammurabic tribal cultures"... --NE2, WR lurker 21:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! --David Shankbone 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we all have that fixation? -t BMW c- 11:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed that this is Moulton (how could it not be?!). No socks apparent. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Images on Wikimedia Commons

    There is a serious backlog in Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. You may want to clear some of that. -- Cat chi? 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:AndrewWeaver and his orchestra

    Odd case here. Not only do we have this account, but five more numbered "AndrewWeaver1" through "AndrewWeaver5." That sort of multiple account creation tends to set off alarm bells in my head. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While strange, not against policy that I know of so far. For convenience:
    Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be a really good idea to keeep an eye on that. That just screams 'sock farm'. HalfShadow 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless they're just 'red' herrings, to distract you from his real socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or someone having a bit of fun with the account creation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or someone who knows they're going to be editing on multiple accounts (public terminals, semi-automated work you don't want clogging your history etc) but wants to ensure they're easily identified as being from the same editor… Iridescent 2 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting you do anything; we should just keep an eye on them, that's all. As the saying goes: 'It isn't paranoia if you're right.' And I'd rather be wrong and be sure I was wrong. I mean certainly we should assume good faith, but on the other hand...HalfShadow 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Educate the intolerant

    After seeing this anti-Islam comment in my watchlist today, I did a little poking around and

    found some strongly hateful anti-gay comments coming from User:Lestrade at Talk:Raymond Burr and Talk:Emily Dickinson and Talk:Mario and the Magician and Talk:Christopher Lee and Talk:G. H. Hardy. (There are possibly many more, I only spent 10 minutes searching after seeing the first one: enough to establish that it was a pattern that I could bring here.)

    I don't know what process to submit this kind of behavior to, and I don't really want to think about it right now. Hopefully someone here can deal with the whatever lasting impact he might have made. Ugh. I need a shower. (Please just move the thread if I've posted in the wrong place. I can follow pagehistory trails. Thanks.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ick. Block. Forever. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ick yes, but those comments are (save the first) all months old. If this user is an active current problem, please provide some newer diffs. I agree that an admin with some time should warn them, but not clear if they're a serious active ongoing problem or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also seen this guy around on occasion, but I don't think a block is warranted - after all, many of the comments did point to actual article problems, such as poorly-sourced or speculative information, and he hasn't been editing article content to reflect his views. The fact that he ascribes this to a "gay conspiracy" is divisive and could create conflict; he should be warned to avoid this in the future, but his actual effect on article content will hopefully be positive. Dcoetzee 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it was a while since he made the comments. I know he's not overtly or consistently disruptive. I know most of his contributions thus far have been constructive. I know blocks should be prophylactic not punitive. Nevertheless such edits predict his inevitable banning. Mark my words. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    just my two cets, what bit of advice that iw ouwld offer you is that its usually better to block someone when they becomine a distruption rather than before they do. the natur eof wikipedia means that most damage is temporary and eaisly reversible by either regular users or oversight by people wiht special adminsitrative privileges. its better to forgive adiviseive conment made several months ago rather than trying to start a new dispute now. tahats my advice though, so dont take it as policy by any means. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone notified him of this thread? Maybe he's reformed. It seems like the best thing to do would be to talk with him about it, let him know that that behavior is inappropriate, thank him for stopping, etc. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ja. Todd-someone-or-other has clued him in. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    He should not be banned. His anti-gay comments are so ridiculous that it is actually a good thing tolerate this. It helps to discredit the ideas he is arguing in favor for. If you systematically ban such people then they claim to be victims of "censorship by liberal websites". You get a situation where reliable information is seen to be unreliable by these people, simply because it is on such a website. This effect already exists, but you make it much worse if anti-gay activists can point to censorship. California Proposition 8 (2008) was passed because people still buy anti-gay arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well let's not over-egg the pudding here, Count. Truth be told I'm not overcome with a "Ach! Ban teh Bigot!!" sentiment here. His silly views, in and of themselves don't really faze me. I'm thinking about the inevitable disruption he's gonna cause. It's for that reason I say shit-can him now, because it seems the most efficient course of action. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of his comments are helpful. Others such as this one are just soapboxing. If it becomes too disruptive we can block but I don't see a good reason to do so at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quiddity, I'm assuming you meant "strongly hateful" in the PC sense. This guy's actually (thus far) quite mild as anti-gay soapboxer kooks go. He's mostly just ignorantly soapboxing; he hasn't threatened or specifically attacked anyone, he isn't spamming talk pages or POV pushing in articlespace...easier just to ignore him, really. If he becomes a more serious nuisance someone will probably indef him. I'm sure he'll be unlikely to be missed. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 03:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I say leave him until he digs a hole for himself; having an opinion you don't like isn't a blockable offense. Having an opinion you don't like and stating that opinion in a offensive or disruptive manner, though... HalfShadow 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone here arguing for a speedy block need to keep their own intolerance in check and review the block policies. While he should tone down his rhetoric, he is right about poorly sourced and weasel-tinged speculation. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen him around on talk pages and a lot of the time it seems he's trying to get a rise out of other users. Any comments and opinion-mongering not related to improving the article should simply be removed per WP:TALK ("Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal"). --Folantin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, Lestrade is one of our finest contributors in the much-neglected realm of philosophy articles, and I agree with HalfShadows comments above - expressing an opinion is not a blockable offence, and unless the user is being incivil or personally attacking others (for which I have seen scant evidence), punitive measures would only be a transparent imposition of mainstream values. I really wonder who the intolerant ones are here. the skomorokh 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Teletubbielala

    I hope I'm just overreacting, but since I prefer to err on the side of caution, this particular naming convention kind of looks like a User:Bambifan101 sock. No edits yet, but forewarned is forearmed. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another just popped up: User:Tinky Winky1220. Bambifan digs on the Teletubbies, so anything like this I happen to stumble on will be reported here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is him this either means that our rangeblocks on his ISP were not large enough (and they are big already) to stop him or he's just making an account at the library and logging in at home. Either way, we are more reliant on bellsouth actually having a working abuse report line. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At least both accounts as of this moment are inactive. May just have been a false alarm on my part. And brother, do I ever agree on that last comment! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads-up! If they do prove to be Bambifan101 socks, perhaps we should consider an {{anonblock}} for his local library next ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Move Problem

    Earlier this morning JPG-GR moved radio station WPGC (AM) to it's correct call sign WHFS. Only problem is there was a massive history on the old WHFS page for that call sign. Is there anyway of getting that information back to mesh it into the new page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 06:56

    It looks like the history of WHFS was moved to WJZ-FM. Is this correct? --Carnildo (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is and that was my mistake. I didn't see that until it was pointed out to me. I don't have WJZ-FM on my watchlist. I do now :S You can mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 07:47
    Can we please assume I have a small clue of what I'm doing with page moves next time? JPG-GR (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please IP 71.36.41.93

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for 31 hours dougweller (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see here, I gave this anonymous editor his/her last warning. See my usertalk for where he/she has crossed the line and deserves to be blocked. --DerRichter (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably you should file a report with WP:AIV when someone vandalises after a final warning. I've reported the IP. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading DYK

    The DYK about Obama

    ... that U.S. president-elect Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech (pictured) from behind 2 inches (51 mm) of bulletproof glass?

    is very misleading and should be amended or taken down ASAP. I've improved accuracy to verifiable fact in this edit. Moreover, the hook is a barely concealed copyvio of the Daily Mail source. Says there: "[...] Barack Obama's victory speech was delivered from behind two-inch thick bullet proof glass." Please act quickly. Everyme 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, WP:ERRORS is the place to raise issues with main page showcased content. Can an admin respond please? the skomorokh 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not on the main page any longer, but it's noteworthy that the user who was credited with the DYK reverted to an inaccurate version. Apparently, he didn't study the cited sources too closely. Also, I'd like to know who passed that DYK. Everyme 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Politizer (talk · contribs) modified and approved the hook in this edit. the skomorokh 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lotsa articles, lotsa problems

    Lacking a Wikipedia:Notability noticeboard, I come here with this issue:

    User:Johnfos/pages.

    I'm very happy this person is adding so much content to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a lot of the biographies, organizations, and especially books this guy is adding to Wikipedia are not passing the notability game. I have nominated a slew of them for deletion, but I think a more systematic approach might be better. Some of the books he has written articles about ARE notable. I am of the opinion that most of them aren't. However, I've only gotten through half the list and would appreciate it if an administrator with deletion capabilities would go through and see if any of them should be speedied.

    I'm sorry if this is the wrong place. I'm really not sure what to do with all this. We don't want to scare off contributors, but we don't want to turn Wikipedia into something it's not supposed to be.

    Help.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably each article you've listed for consideration at AfD will be dealt with on it's merits. Over there. At AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neomewga

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

    I honestly don't know what to think here.. well, that would be a lie. As far as I can tell, this user appears to think that WP is like myspace, despite the many times I have warned him using TW that such a thing is against policy.

    As far as I can tell, to this day, this user has not made one useful contribution. As far as I can tell, about 95% of his contributions have been to his own userspace. The other contributions could hardly be labeled as such. His contributions aren't too large, and it hardly takes up the space of a page(from viewing at 500 edits a time). Opinions on this matter? This user is obviously not here to help the project. He seems to be treating WP like a blog.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 12:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him a final warning. This has been going on for awhile now. If he doesn't do a 180 pronto, I'd suggest giving him a lengthy timeout.--Crossmr (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review please

    I recently issued the tenth block against Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for incivility after following a trail of edits from this AIV report. The editor appears to be skilled at making accusations of impropriety at those that disagree with him or her. I'd like some additional eyes to review the block and its length. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    some further info Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer closed Oct 21, 2007 with a 12 month restriction, expired 20 October 2008 about 20 days ago there were a number of blocks during the period and 2 of the entries in the block log were to enable the user to participate in discussion including the abrcom case. Gnangarra 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the arbitration also mentioned incivility as an issue. Since Bharatveer`s pervious block was also for 96 hours due to civility issues, I wonder if this block should be longer. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as this is the first block post-restrictions, I'm willing to accept it was a momentary lapse on his part and that a 96 hour block will serve as a firm deterrent to remind him that the civility and persona attacks policies continue to apply, even without an arbcom restriction to that effect. MBisanz talk 14:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at his talk pagehistory there appears to be a number of level 4 warning issued by ip address on the 9, 10, and 11. These warnings dont look justified, Bharatveer reverted once on the 10th, and once on the 11th though twice on the 9th to the article Binayak Sen and with each he also tried to engage in discussion on the talk page about the issues. IMHO I'm not sure the block is warranted even though Bharatveer has already acknowledge and accepted[58] it. Gnangarra 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    French-speaking admin needed

    Resolved
     – resolé mes amingoloids, le silliness est deleted

    --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review Jason the French and other edits by its creator. I strongly suspect vandalism, but my French is simply nowhere near good enough to be sure. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's high-school (or middle school) level "stream of thought" creative writing in awful French. I've deleted the article and left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=251128540"